[akhare]

I have only been through the introduction and a couple of chapters and almost feel compelled to stand up and shout "bravo!!!".

Eloquent, humourous, precise, insightful and eminently readable -- when was the last time you could say that about a bridge systems book?

[Impact]

I have only delved into various chapters and scanned the remainder generally:-

1. It is well- written (unusual in this day and age - all the more so from a "system book") and actually readable as opposed to my own system notes which are designed for minimal reproduction and maximum information;

2. Although I disagree with many portions of the underlying principles as being optimal or even close thereto, the case is well-argued;

3. Unlike many such system books which are mere egofests, this acknowledges the work of others, and at least essays alternative bases;

4. There is an internal cohesion and cogence to many portions which is sensible;

5. On individual themes John has adopted Majors first as an on-going theme (cf Moscito, Symmetric, Mafia, Blue etc) and I agree with the policy - albeit not the detail, and prefer relay aligned with transfers and fit style, together with more puppets and substitute bids;

6. As opposed to readability for absorption and/or learning the system I think a chart of the base responses to the opening bid at the beginning of each relevant section would aid someone seeking to understand how the system is put together/learn it by perceiving the overview of style from the responses.

anyway - FWIW - congratulations

[gwnn]

This is a wow book... Very nice ideas... The ideas are very well stated and defended.. The more unorthodox a treatment is, the more explanation it gets and the more logical and obvious they seem after reading about it

Congratulations!

[jmc]

I have really enjoyed your book. It has helped me think a lot about the system I play and ways it could be improved. Thanks for all your hard work.

I was wondering how much you have played the system. It seems like making many game forcing responders bid 1D after opener's 1C goes against your general colors and shape first philosophy. My worry would be that weak hands get to describe their shape but stronger hands are vulnerable to preemption. In practice how has this worked out?

I really dislike the 16-18 range but would you be more apt to describe this as 15+-18-? Do you feel playing the range 15-17, 18-20, and 21 + would be a big minus? I think your idea of taking all but the biggest balanced hands out of the 1C is very interesting.

Thanks again,

jmc

[awm]

Congratulations! Nice to see a book with detailed continuations and explanation of the reasoning, even if I don't agree with some of the methods adopted.

One thing I've noticed (in my own messing around with methods) is that non-forcing bids which show "up to just short of GF values" don't seem to work very well. The reason is that the main advantage of non-forcing bids is that partner can pass! But with this type of bid the range of hands where partner can pass is extremely narrow. Partner needs to have dead minimum values (even a queen better and we could miss a game opposite a max NF response). Partner needs enough support that playing in the suit named will not be embarrassing, but not so much support that a fitting suit-contract game is likely. And even then, it's quite possible to be wrong since the NF bidder could have a bit of extra shape (even just one more card in the suit) which makes game suddenly feasible. In my experience non-forcing bids work a lot better if they deny values for game unless a good fit is present (or unless a wide-ranging opener is substantially stronger than the norm). One of the nice things about limited openings is that this is actually a pretty wide range of hands (say 0 to a bad 10 hcp)! Opposite a strong 1♣ opening the 0-5 range (where game is actually very unlikely) is sufficiently uncommon that I'd expect better results from either game forcing positives or responses that are a one-round force with something like "semi-positive or better" values.

In any case, difference of opinion on what methods are "best" are part of what makes bridge fun. I definitely endorse the idea of having comprehensive notes and agreements rather than stumbling in the dark with "standard" methods and no further discussion, and this book adds something to the field.

[Flame]

Thanks for version 2

[jwmonty]

jmc, on Feb 2 2007, 01:29 PM, said:

I have really enjoyed your book.  It has helped me think a lot about the system I play and ways it could be improved.  Thanks for all your hard work.

I was wondering how much you have played the system.  It seems like making many game forcing responders bid 1D after opener's 1C goes against your general colors and shape first philosophy.  My worry would be that weak hands get to describe their shape but stronger hands are vulnerable to preemption.  In practice how has this worked out?

I really dislike the 16-18 range but would you be more apt to describe this as 15+-18-?  Do you feel playing the range 15-17, 18-20, and 21 + would be a big minus?  I think your idea of taking all but the biggest balanced hands out of the 1C is very interesting.

Thanks again,

jmc

I have played the system some on OKB. In practice there were no obvious problems with the responding structure, although the sample size was pretty small (you can easily play for an hour, or two, or three, without any big club hands coming up for your side, or with those that do come up being uninteresting). There are two pairs I know of out there using Revision at least to the extent of adopting the responses to 1C, and both have reported that it works well as far as they can tell.

Assuming that 1C-1S is going to be natural, you can either play it the "normal" way, GF, or my way, weaker than that. (I suppose you could play it as 0 to infinity, but I haven't heard of anyone trying that, and I don't think it would be a great idea.) Either way, you only get to show one set of hands right away. The other type has to wait to bid its suit. My theory is that you are better off showing the weak hands right away, because those are the ones that may not get another chance. The opponents will have to bid pretty high to give you a problem when you have the strong hand. Example: 1C-(P), 1D-(2H), P-(P), 2S. You still get to show spades at a reasonable level with the GF hand. Sure, the opponents can bid higher than the two level, but how often does that happen? Both experience and research suggest to me that my way works at least as well as the positive responses of regular Precision.

I am aware that some people have a visceral negative reaction to the 16-18 range, because it sounds like old-fashioned Goren. My experience is that it works fine. But if you would really rather play 15-17, there is an attractive way to do it as long as you don't mind adopting a Midchart convention. Play 2H instead of 2D as the Precision three-suiter short in diamonds; this is an approved Midchart method with a published defense. Use 2D as Mexican/Italian, 18-19 balanced. (If there were enough interest, I might write an additional chapter for the book to include this alternative method.) 2NT opening is 20-21 or 20-22, and so on. This takes care of all the balanced hands; what you lose is a weak two in hearts, but I could live with that. If you couldn't, you could try 2D Multi showing a weak two in hearts or 19-20 balanced. I'm not sure that one is Midchart legal, although it would be easy enough to make it work. Another way to accomplish all this would be to drop the 2NT opening to 18-19, but I don't like that one a whole lot. It took me a while to get up the nerve to say that it was OK to open 2NT with 19; I probably only did it because Rodwell and Meckstroth do it that away, and I surmised it must be all right if they were willing to do it.

To go along with the reduction of 1NT to 15-17, you could then drop the lower limit for the 1C opening to 15. This allows limited opening bids of 10-14, or 11-14 if balanced. That would create a great deal of action since you would routinely be opening the bidding on ten counts with any shape. Of course you would have to raise the lower limits for positive bids by responder by a point to compensate.

John Montgomery

[jwmonty]

awm, on Feb 2 2007, 03:17 PM, said:

Congratulations! Nice to see a book with detailed continuations and explanation of the reasoning, even if I don't agree with some of the methods adopted.

One thing I've noticed (in my own messing around with methods) is that non-forcing bids which show "up to just short of GF values" don't seem to work very well. The reason is that the main advantage of non-forcing bids is that partner can pass! But with this type of bid the range of hands where partner can pass is extremely narrow. Partner needs to have dead minimum values (even a queen better and we could miss a game opposite a max NF response). Partner needs enough support that playing in the suit named will not be embarrassing, but not so much support that a fitting suit-contract game is likely. And even then, it's quite possible to be wrong since the NF bidder could have a bit of extra shape (even just one more card in the suit) which makes game suddenly feasible. In my experience non-forcing bids work a lot better if they deny values for game unless a good fit is present (or unless a wide-ranging opener is substantially stronger than the norm). One of the nice things about limited openings is that this is actually a pretty wide range of hands (say 0 to a bad 10 hcp)! Opposite a strong 1♣ opening the 0-5 range (where game is actually very unlikely) is sufficiently uncommon that I'd expect better results from either game forcing positives or responses that are a one-round force with something like "semi-positive or better" values.

In any case, difference of opinion on what methods are "best" are part of what makes bridge fun. I definitely endorse the idea of having comprehensive notes and agreements rather than stumbling in the dark with "standard" methods and no further discussion, and this book adds something to the field.

I am aware of the problem you point out here concerning NF bids. This comes up both with the responses to 1C, and in NFB auctions after limited openings. If I had found a way to easily show all three possible ranges by responder (GF, game invitational, game unlikely), I would have used it. The problem, of course, is that when you are talking about low-level bids, there aren't enough cards in the deck, so to speak, to show all of them right away. Specifically when talking about 1C openers, one thing you can do is cheat a little bit as responder. Normally you adopt a GF auction with an eight count and a suit to bid. This can lead to 24 point games, but in modern bridge, the attitude seems to be "so what, that's what you are supposed to do." So if opener with 16-17 chooses to drop out at a low level, you rarely miss a decent game. Similarly, in potential NFB auctions, you tend to drive to game with a close hand so that there won't be so much pressure on opener when you do make an NFB.

One thing that has turned out to be true about the system is that in real life, opener rarely does pass the nonforcing responses. If he does, he is minimum with a doubleton; with anything else, he rebids, and responder will have a way to show the invitational hand with approximately 7 points at his next turn. The NF responses usually have the effect of slowing the auction down, not of stopping it completely. To my mind, if as responder to 1C you hold something like KQxxx/xx/Qxxx/xx, you are going to have a problem sooner or later. Whether you respond 1S (my way) or have an auction like 1C-1D, 2C-2S (regular Precision), there will always be a hand where you have maximum values and partner must choose whether or not to keep the auction alive just in case you have that hand. It is not a problem specific to Revision, it is a problem that exists universally. And while it might be possible to solve this *specific* problem by designing your system to address it, other problems will pop up somewhere else. If 1C-1S shows specifically 6-7, let's say, then when partner shows a minor suit after 1C-1D, you have to have a way to show both a hand weaker than that and a hand stronger than that, with spades. I don't see any obviously attractive way to do it. Maybe someone else can think of one.

Anyhow, I have never said that Revision is perfect or problem-free, only that it is pretty good, and that it was the best I could come up with. The maximum-negative problem doesn't seem to come up all that often in practice. If you will be willing to take my word for something, I will tell you that I didn't adopt upside-down responses to 1C without a great deal of thought. I reviewed a couple of thousand world championship deals to satisfy myself that it would actually work in practice and not just in my armchair. It looked as though it would, and the (limited thus far, to be sure) experience of me and others seems to confirm that it does. However, be assured that I don't mind having potential soft spots in the system pointed out to me. Maybe I can do something about them and maybe I can't, but I am always willing to take another look.

At this point, allow me to thank Adam and everyone else who has commented. I am very pleased that my work has received such favorable reviews, and many of them from people who have much greater credentials as players than I have. I was prepared to be told that I was some kind of a nut, but so far that hasn't happened. Now, all that is needed is someone who is willing to actually learn and play the system, all 350 pages of it. Wait a minute, maybe *that* person would have to be some kind of a nut . . .

John Montgomery

[jtfanclub]

OK, this seems strange to me, keeping in mind that I've only finished part 1.

1♥-1NT can be a 0 count, but you can also pass with a 6-9 count. So after 1♥-P-1NT-(anything), it's very difficult for opener to know whether to bid.

On the other hand, the 1♥-2♥ is a strong bid, a solid invitation. This is a hand that could safely bid at the three level, and yet tells everything at the two level. And this is notwithstanding the idea that Larry Cohen (the total tricks guy) says that when the opponents have a 1♥-2♥ bid with your kind of fitting response, you should never let them take it that cheaply. You have a fit, they have a fit, don't let them get it cheaply.

A lot of things in my Precision are different from yours, in part because we use the 2/1 NF. But it seems like one of the ideas I've been playing about with is similar to yours, but reverse.

1H-2H shows the trash hands that previously would have gone 1♥-1NT-2x-2♥, including hands with 0 points and 2 card support, and hands with 3 hearts but only 7 support points. Hands that have 10-12 support or HCP points, with or without a fit, bid 1NT followed by 2♥. The only thing you lose is the 'prayer' 1NT hands...hands that bid 1NT hoping to pass one 2m bid and bid 2♥ when they get the other minor.

The advantage? 1NT bid either shows a hand with both minors or 10 support points or 9 hcp, which makes it safe for opener to bid a minor at the 3 level with interference. 1♥-2♥ includes virtually every hand where game is unlikely but hearts is probably the right strain, which doesn't give the opponents enough information to do something useful (you could have 22 hcp between you but a 5-2 fit, or 16 hcp between you and a 5-4 fit). It also means you don't have to explain telepathy...why with one hand you passed 1♥ but with the identical hand in another set bid 1NT followed by 2♥. If it doesn't work, it's bad, and if it does work, you may get a bad reputation.

Finally, I'm curious how you explain the bid. 1♥-1NT is forcing, but can be a 0 count, but you can pass with a 9 count? How can you do full disclosure on a bid which, in a 350 page treatise, doesn't seem to be explained except by 'I felt like bidding 1NT'?

[DrTodd13]

Ok. I finally got around to doing a little practice bidding with this system and I don't think I like it. As if a nebulous ♦ was not bad enough as it is, rolling all balanced 12-15 counts in just makes it more nebulous. We bid 25 hands or so. There were a few preempts, one 1♣ opening, two 1N openings, a few 1♥ openings but the bulk of stuff was the nebulous ♦. If a mixture of bids is a good thing then I think this system is a bit lacking. Seldom did we quickly find a fit and stop at the 2level with a minority. Part of the rare 1♣ structure seems to cater to this but this does not seem like it should be a goal of 1♣ responses.

As a small nit, there was a hand that came up where I opened 1♦, pd bid 3♣ showing 6+♣ and 0-9 points and I had something like Ax xxx Axxx AKxx and wanted to ask pd about a ♥ stop. Alas, 3♦ was to play and 3 of a major with both mini-splinters in support of ♣ and 3N showed stops in both suits. This is another situation where these wide ranges are causing problems. I could wind up in 4♣ with 15 points or miss 3N if I'm pessimistic.

Personally, I'd rather have more definition in my system rather than less and I'd wouldn't put so much focus on the 1♣ sequences. Played something almost like matchpoint precision where 1♦ guaranteed a 4cM unbal. We had some nice inferences from this guarantee about inferred major and possessing shortness.

[jwmonty]

> 1♥-1NT can be a 0 count, but you can also pass with a 6-9 count. So after
> 1♥-P-1NT-(anything), it's very difficult for opener to know whether to bid.

Why? Opener is bidding again here on shape, not on extra high-card values (which cannot be more than 14-15). If you are 5-5 or 6-4 or short in their suit with shape suitable for a double, just make the bid you would make in regular Precision. Partner will either show up with three-card support for hearts, or some values. Either way, he should be able to find something intelligent to do.

> On the other hand, the 1♥-2♥ is a strong bid, a solid invitation. This is a hand that
> could safely bid at the three level . . .

No, it is not a hand that could safely bid at the three level. One of the worst auctions in most forcing notrump structures is 1M-1NT, 2m-3M, P. You end up hanging at the three level when the opponents didn't even bid anything to force you up there. This happens a lot in a Precision style, where opener often has 11-12. You are much better off giving yourself a chance to stop in two when opener rejects game.

> . . . Larry Cohen (the total tricks guy) says that when the opponents have a 1♥-2♥
> bid with your kind of fitting response, you should never let them take it that
> cheaply. You have a fit, they have a fit, don't let them get it cheaply.

Actually, I don't think Larry Cohen ever said anything about how to defend against a 2H raise that could be as much as a balanced 12 count with three-card support. They could be in trouble if they throw in a BIDS (Balancing In Direct Seat) overcall on garbage. And even if they aren't in trouble, so what? Your side can still push on to three if it wishes. I just don't see this auction as being a problem for our side. We have already found our fit and both our side's players know it. We should know what to do next.


> 1H-2H shows the trash hands that previously would have gone 1♥-1NT-2x-2♥,
> including hands with 0 points and 2 card support, and hands with 3 hearts but only
> 7 support points. Hands that have 10-12 support or HCP points, with or without a
> fit, bid 1NT followed by 2♥. The only thing you lose is the 'prayer' 1NT
> hands...hands that bid 1NT hoping to pass one 2m bid and bid 2♥ when they get
> the other minor.

This could work. You are losing a lot of definition with the direct raise, but the opponents will be in the dark also. The question will be whose side is caused more trouble, yours or theirs. This is the sort of idea that can't be adopted or dismissed based on armchair theorizing. Practical experience is the only guide. I don't intend to try it since it's not my style and I like what I already have, but be my guest. I'd like to hear how it works out, especially if you keep statistics.

> It also means you don't have to explain telepathy...why with one hand you passed
> 1♥ but with the identical hand in another set bid 1NT followed by 2♥. If it doesn't
> work, it's bad, and if it does work, you may get a bad reputation.

I don't get the identical hand in the identical situation often enough to have to worry about explaining anything. Hands, position, and vulnerability vary for me each time partner opens 1H or whatever. But the basic strategy is pretty simple. Any time you have a known eight-card fit, or a hand so weak that you think the opponents are likely to have a game, you respond (except vul versus not, you can pass with a very weak nonfitting hand). The idea is not original with me. Lots of Precision players have been doing this for a long time, because it works. I haven't heard that anyone else gets a "bad reputation" for doing it.

> Finally, I'm curious how you explain the bid. 1♥-1NT is forcing, but can be a 0
> count, but you can pass with a 9 count? How can you do full disclosure on a bid
> which, in a 350 page treatise, doesn't seem to be explained except by 'I felt like
> bidding 1NT'?

Jeez, RTFM already. When you respond and when you don't, and why, are all spelled out in the book. If you don't like my methods or don't agree with them, fair enough, but it is simply false to say that I don't explain my ideas to the reader. As for how you explain things to the opponents, I assume that anyone experienced enough to even consider playing Revision would know how to alert and explain, but here goes. When the auction goes 1H-1NT by us, you alert and if asked, explain that the bid does not necessarily show any high cards, and may be a hand that would raise to 2H in standard. If the opponents ask further specific questions, go ahead and answer them. You also alert 1H-P as possibly containing 6 to 9 HCP, but always with a doubleton heart if you have that many points. It is not hard to do.

[jwmonty]

> Ok. I finally got around to doing a little practice bidding with this system and I
> don't think I like it. As if a nebulous ♦ was not bad enough as it is, rolling all
> balanced 12-15 counts in just makes it more nebulous. We bid 25 hands or so.
> There were a few preempts, one 1♣ opening, two 1N openings, a few 1♥ openings
> but the bulk of stuff was the nebulous ♦. If a mixture of bids is a good thing then I
> think this system is a bit lacking.

Except for the difference in 1NT range, the opening bids are pretty much the same as in R-M Precision. If I am "lacking" then so are they.

> As a small nit, there was a hand that came up where I opened 1♦, pd bid 3♣
> showing 6+♣ and 0-9 points and I had something like Ax xxx Axxx AKxx and
> wanted to ask pd about a ♥ stop. Alas, 3♦ was to play and 3 of a major with both
> mini-splinters in support of ♣ and 3N showed stops in both suits. This is another
> situation where these wide ranges are causing problems. I could wind up in 4♣ with
> 15 points or miss 3N if I'm pessimistic.

If you are lucky enough to hold this hand when partner responds 3C, bid 3NT and be happy about it. You have eight tops and you are at least 50-50 to get a spade lead rather than a heart. You won't often go down more than one, and when you do go down, you will frequently find that the hand belonged to the opponents in a major, maybe for a game. And you will often steal a game your way. The hands you don't like when partner responds 3C are the ones where you are short in clubs, not the ones where you have a fit.

> Personally, I'd rather have more definition in my system rather than less and
> I'd wouldn't put so much focus on the 1♣ sequences.

Every serious pair I know of that plays a big club devotes a great deal of attention to the auctions resulting from it. I don't know why anyone would do otherwise.

> Played something almost like matchpoint precision where 1♦ guaranteed a 4cM
> unbal.

Really? What was your opening bid holding Axx/x/KQxxx/Kxxx?

[glen]

jwmonty, on Feb 9 2007, 09:36 PM, said:

Except for the difference in 1NT range, the opening bids are pretty much the same as in R-M Precision.  If I am "lacking" then so are they.

I would disagree with this, since the difference in NT ranges is key here, given R-M 1NT's is usually 14-16, compared to your 16-18. With an R-M 1♦ opening, the balanced hand type in 1♦, 11-13, sits near or at the bottom of playing value range for the opening - thus opener almost never has to express extras if holding a balanced hand. Compare this to when 1♦ can be 12-15 - now the top end of the balanced hand has extras for a minimum opening bid. Thus it is not surprising that a user would find your 1♦ "more nebulous", and I don't believe it is quite fair to bring R-M into it.

[jtfanclub]

Firstly, I want to apologize for my tone. I certianly did not mean to be rude, especially not when I enjoyed the read.

Quote

>(me) 1♥-1NT can be a 0 count, but you can also pass with a 6-9 count. So after  1♥-P-1NT-(anything), it's very difficult for opener to know whether to bid.

(you) Why?  Opener is bidding again here on shape, not on extra high-card values (which cannot be more than 14-15).  If you are 5-5 or 6-4 or short in their suit with shape suitable for a double, just make the bid you would make in regular Precision.  Partner will either show up with three-card support for hearts, or some values

One hand you describe responding 1NT to 1H with is xxx/xx/xxxx/xxxx. You also describe several hands with doubleton support and 6-9 hcp which bid 1NT. This would worry me, were I to play the system.

Quote

The idea is not original with me.  Lots of Precision players have been doing this for a long time, because it works.  I haven't heard that anyone else gets a "bad reputation" for doing it.

Quote

Jeez, RTFM already.  When you respond and when you don't, and why, are all spelled out in the book.  If you don't like my methods or don't agree with them, fair enough, but it is simply false to say that I don't explain my ideas to the reader.

It was phrases like:

"Our practice is to (usually) not pass the opening bid with a fit."
"...with a doubleon in the major, you are allowed to pass the opening bid with 6-9 high card points"
"he might respond 1NT over 1H to keep the opponents out of spades, or he might respond to 1S when holding 4 or 5 hearts"

that made me make the 'feel like it' comment. The paragraphs in the 1H-1NT section feel very different to me...most of your book is "I do this, but this other thing might work just as well", whereas there seems to be a lot of "you might do this" in this section. I am not sure if you mean "I have not decided which treatment is better" or "Sometimes I bid these hands one way, and sometimes I use a different one, depending upon my hand". Do give a specific example, does 1S-(P)-P nobody vulnerable deny 4-5 hearts?

Quote

When the auction goes 1H-1NT by us, you alert and if asked, explain that the bid does not necessarily show any high cards, and may be a hand that would raise to 2H in standard.

This seems like a very defined bid, while the explanation quoted above would fit literally any hand. I would think that an explanation such as

"Forcing for one round, does not necessarily show any high cards, but partner will usually have at least 3 card support or 6-11 hcp or both".

would be closer to Full Disclosure.

Anyhow, thanks for the book. I have enjoyed it, and passed it on.

[jwmonty]

Glen wrote:

> ". . . it is not surprising that a user would find your 1♦ "more nebulous", and I don't
> believe it is quite fair to bring R-M into it."

I suppose my 1D opening is indeed more "nebulous" if that means it contains more hand types (although if the alternative is assumed to be a 15-17 notrump, the additional hands are only the balanced 15 counts, so it is not very many more hands). However, as far as I can tell, few pairs who play modern Precision are at all bothered that they have to open 1D a lot, and on a wide variety of hands. The way to avoid that, if it needs to be avoided, is to play a quasi-Blue Team club as Hamman and Soloway do. You can open any four-card major, and you can open 1NT on a lot of hands with doubleton diamonds that would be opened 1D in a 5CM Precision style. You open 1D much less often, and show at least three diamonds when you do. Yet most people don't play the way Hamman does, even though his system is a very good one. It seems that R-M, and Berkowitz-Cohen, and Greco-Hampson, and Sontag-Weichsel all are happy enough to have a relatively "nebulous" diamond. So am I. Some modern Precisionists have even junked the requirement to have a doubleton diamond, and will open 1D with a singleton or void. I don't do that, but the people who do seem to do well enough with it.

If reducing "nebulousness" is to be a goal, the bid in any strong club system that truly causes a problem through lack of definition is the 1C opening. In Revision, the number of 1C openings you have to make is cut almost in half by getting the balanced hands with 16-20 HCP out of it. I'm happy to open 1D a little more often if in exchange I can open 1C a lot less, and with better definition when I do.

[glen]

I was saying that it was not surprising that a user would find the 1♦ "more "nebulous", and not that this was a bad thing in itself without considering context. So I felt that one could say in reply would be that including more balanced hands in 1♦ is not clearly a bad thing to do, and the 1♣ and 1NT openings can greatly benefit from it, as you say with:

jwmonty, on Feb 11 2007, 10:06 PM, said:

I'm happy to open 1D a little more often if in exchange I can open 1C a lot less, and with better definition when I do.

My comment you partly quoted above was in reference to saying that R-M was "pretty much the same", and that this was not the way, imo, to defend your system choices.

[jwmonty]

jtfanclub wrote:

> Firstly, I want to apologize for my tone. I certianly did not mean to be rude,
> especially not when I enjoyed the read.

You were not rude and no apology is necessary. We are all big boys and girls around here, and vigorous give and take is part of the fun.


> One hand you describe responding 1NT to 1H with is xxx/xx/xxxx/xxxx. You also
> describe several hands with doubleton support and 6-9 hcp which bid 1NT. This
> would worry me, were I to play the system. . . . The paragraphs in the 1H-1NT
> section feel very different to me...most of your book is "I do this, but this other
> thing might work just as well", whereas there seems to be a lot of "you might do
> this" in this section. I am not sure if you mean "I have not decided which treatment
> is better" or "Sometimes I bid these hands one way, and sometimes I use a
> different one, depending upon my hand". Do give a specific example, does
> 1S-(P)-P nobody vulnerable deny 4-5 hearts?

Your point here is more than fair. I did express some uncertainty about whether I (or, presumably, anyone else) would or should respond with certain hands. Here is my current view. If you hold xxxx/xxx/xx/xxxx and the auction goes 1H-(P) to you, I feel strongly that you had better bid something. Passing partner's opening is just letting the opponents have their way with you. You are much better off to respond (for me, the response is 1NT) and hope that the opponents won't get to game if they do come in. If you hold, say, xxxx/xx/xx/xxxxx, the question is much closer. Red against white, bidding anything could be a disaster. But it could also have the effect of jobbing the opponents out of a cold 3NT. Since I didn't (and still don't) know whether responding with that hand is a winning strategy, I avoided saying that it was. I will say that my sympathies lie with responding and trying to win the board. I think that's what I would do. But I wouldn't criticize a partner who passed, knowing that he was almost certainly duplicating the auction at the other table and therefore not putting us in a minus position. Sorry if that doesn't do a very good job of defining what the "system" bid is in certain situations, but I don't want to say that I know what is right when I don't. It's hard to speak as the voice of experience about relatively rare situations, especially when you are someone like me who doesn't play all that much. Even running simulations here wouldn't help too much, I don't think, since so much depends on how aggressive your opponents are about bidding games in balancing auctions. Anyone out there who has played a lot of Precision over the years is invited to jump in here and say what their experience has been with responding on worthless nonfitting hands; I'd like to hear it. I will stick with my expressed sentiment that when you have a known eight-card major fit, you should always respond. The fit gives you enough safety that I think you should bid, even at unfavorable.

As for your specific question, my style with Qx/Kxxx/Kxxx/xxx is to pass 1S. I used to worry about missing game in hearts with this hand, but review of world championship books and some simulations convinced me that missing game is not something you need to worry about. I just didn't see any deals where you lost anything. But I will add here, as I did in the book, that Rodwell and Meckstroth seem to have a policy of always responding with such hands, so a good possibility exists that I'm wrong. So far, I've done pretty well with the heavy pass, so I'm sticking with it until someone explains convincingly why it's wrong.

[jmc]

I think your idea of removing the lower ranged balanced hands from the 1C bid is very interesting. I can see how this might ease some problems that occur over the big club when the opponents have highly distributional hands. These auctions would become more comfortable and systems for dealing with interference over NT's are fairly good. Telling the nature of our hand (ie balanced) also makes the interference over the big balanced hands easier to handle than over a "normal" precision club.

I'll admit that the downside to this is that I would have to give up playing weak nt's and a preemptive opening 2NT showing the minors. I am not playing high level events and I find these are "fun" things to play. My experience is that weak nt's have helped us far more than they have hurt us.

You mentioned the "Mexican" 2D showing a balanced 18, 19 in an earlier post. Do you have a favorite set of responses?

jmc

[gwnn]

Opps' hands tend to be balanced if our hands are balanced. Moreover, everyone has two-suited methods over 1NT. Over 1♣ methods are usually so convoluted that not even they know what pd has (44? 54? what?)

[MickyB]

jwmonty, on Feb 12 2007, 03:06 AM, said:

Glen wrote:

> ". . . it is not surprising that a user would find your 1♦ "more nebulous", and I don't
> believe it is quite fair to bring R-M into it."

I suppose my 1D opening is indeed more "nebulous" if that means it contains more hand types (although if the alternative is assumed to be a 15-17 notrump, the additional hands are only the balanced 15 counts, so it is not very many more hands).

[snip]

If reducing "nebulousness" is to be a goal, the bid in any strong club system that truly causes a problem through lack of definition is the 1C opening. In Revision, the number of 1C openings you have to make is cut almost in half by getting the balanced hands with 16-20 HCP out of it. I'm happy to open 1D a little more often if in exchange I can open 1C a lot less, and with better definition when I do.

14-16 is more common amongst the top Precision pairs, I believe.

As JMC says, the idea of removing 16-20 balanced from the strong ♣ opening is interesting. I'm not particularly keen on it because -

a ) I think minimum balanced hands cope well after opening 1♣ - they can pass in most competitive auctions and partner will play you for approximately what you have
b ) I don't see that knowing that opener has an unbalanced hand (or a lot of extra strength) will help much in competition.

I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise, particularly on the second point.

It is perhaps worth noting that one of the OzOne pairs (Ish+Vince) have had a similar idea - they are playing MOSCITO with a 15-17 NT. Their 1♠ opening shows either diamonds or a weak NT and the 1♣ opening either 15+unbal or 18+bal.