[glen]

MickyB, on Feb 12 2007, 06:37 AM, said:

...Their 1♠ opening shows either diamonds or a weak NT ...

Transfer nebulous -> now the 1♠ opening is nebulous

Interesting would be a Revision of the Carrot Club, so that 1♣ is 11-12 balanced or 21+ balanced or 16/17+ unbalanced.

[MickyB]

officeglen, on Feb 12 2007, 01:11 PM, said:

Interesting would be a Revision of the Carrot Club, so that 1♣ is 11-12 balanced or 21+ balanced or 16/17+ unbalanced.

Ooh, yes, now that I like. 17-20 balanced(ish) is now much less happy to pass in competition as it could still be a flat 11 count!

Of course, if your 1♣ opening included 11-13 bal then the 14-16 bal hands aren't getting their strength across immediately. How about 1♣ as 14-16 bal, 17+unbalanced or 20+balanced, with a 17-19 1NT opening that can be fairly off-shape?

[Hilver]

Autumn 2005 I printed John Montgomery's book on The Revision Club. Like some others I was impressed by this welltimbered book. Every serious bridgeplayer should at least read foreword and introduction of The Revision Club.

Starting a new partnership and looking for a bidding system to use, my pard and I decided to choose a Big Club system. We hunted in the bookshop and at the WWW. Studying Montgomery's book I really was impressed by it. The book contains a lot of new and interesting ideas and maybe You don't like them at all, at least it makes You thinking about an esential part of the game, bidding. My pard and I did!
From October 2005 untill May 2006 we spent hours and hours on discussing The Revision Club.

For me one of the most attractive ideas of Revision is the structure of responses after opening 1C. The idea of showing weak hands with a major suit immedeately and using the response of 1D as a relay for either weak (without a 5+-card major), average or strong hands does work. Also the other responses after partner opening 1C are effective. The idea of removing the strong balanced hands with 16-20 HCP from the 1C-openingbid has been a good idea.
The opening bid of 1D causes no great problems in partnership bidding, maybe just for the opponents.

I have to admit that my pard and I at some parts developed our own ideas, but we basically do use John Montgomery's inventions and especially the basic structure of his responses after opening 1C.

My pard and I now use our modified version of Revision since June 2006 and all I can say is:
1. bidding is great fun;
2. the bidding system is effective; if things go wrong in 95 out of 100 it's our mistake and not the systems blunder.

Why we play a modified version? Not because we don't trust John Montgomery's full version - as I wrote above we highly admire and appreciate his great work and we use a lot of his inventions!- but simply we are as bloody-minded as one can be :-). Moreover my pard and I are just modest players.

All I can say is, give it a try, it does work!

Hilver

[jtfanclub]

Hilver, on Feb 12 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

Why we play a modified version? Not because we don't trust John Montgomery's full version - as I wrote above we highly admire and appreciate his great work and we use a lot of his inventions!- but simply we are as bloody-minded as one can be :-).

I have to ask...what mods did you make?

[jwmonty]

jmc wrote:

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

I have not attempted to create a full set of responses, but I would csuggest at least the following:

2H = transfer to spades, 5+ spades guaranteed, partner can superaccept, continue as after 1NT-2H

2S = transfer to 2NT, further bidding *not* the same as after a 2NT opening (because responder can't have certain hands, e.g. with five spades he would have transferred already); what that further bidding should be is open to suggestions

2NT = transfer to 3C, possibly to play, therefore no superaccept (either weak or strong hand for responder; he will either pass or force to game); follow up with 3D to show a forcing bid in diamonds, anything else to show a forcing hand with clubs)

3C = long clubs, invitational

3D = long diamonds, invitational (pass 2D opening if weak)

3H and higher: available for various meanings; possibly a good idea to use them as slam tries, with all game-only hands responding at some lower level to start with (except Texas at the four level to get to game in a major)

Obviously a lot of detail would have to be added. Bear in mind that a proper responding structure to this 2D opening will be a lot more complex than the responses to a 2NT opening because with the lower start, many more sequences are possible.

This problem may already have been solved. Since some of the Italians (and others) are already playing a 2D opening as strong balanced, fully formed response structures must be out there. You can also refer to George Rosenkranz's Romex books for responses to the original Mexican 2D opening (I have those books, and although I don't think I would adopt his methods here without some changes, they are good enough, certainly a lot better than nothing).

[GaryFisch]

Hi. I am a (so-far) casual SAYC player who might eventually like to play this system after studying it at my own pace for a few years. I have been slogging my way through chapter 3, am still on the 1♥-1♠ subsection, and am starting to get lost amid all of the special, shape-showing bids. A few additions would be majorly helpful (no pun intended). First, a bidding chart for each section or subsection, with a complete chart at the end of each chapter, would help to memorize the bidding and as a reference. Second, and even more importantly, a number of carefully designed examples at the end of each subsection (1♥-1♠-1NT, for example), would really help to drive home the point. The most basic SAYC and 2/1 teaching books use these tools; your system deserves no less. Many players who have never used any form of Precision might be interested in reading your book, and maybe studying it in depth and becoming serious players using the system. For these players, the use of charts and example hands will help their ability, desire, and confidence in mastering the system.

I have long felt that a well-designed and understood big club system is the most powerful bidding system available; the 2♣ opening wastes bidding space (not to mention the 2NT opening!). I play exclusively online, and always find it frustrating playing against opponents using Precision. They always seem to move right along to the best contracts, mowing our side down in the process, because we rarely come up with effective interference. Meanwhile, when we get an unopposed auction, we struggle with our prayer bidding loosely based on SAYC.

I like showing majors with weak hands after the 1♣ opening right away. It's the same principle as in Reverse Drury as opposed to regular Drury, although for somewhat different reasons there.

The omnibus 1NT is something I think even SAYC players could benefit from adopting. There is no reason why opener shouldn't rebid 1NT if that is likely to be the best contract given a minimum response. I would go up to 16 HCP if I could get my partner to agree.

[srtor]

I have read through your systems. Kinda like it. Hopefully I will employ it after finding a suitalbe partner! Great Job!

[Vilgan]

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

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. 

......

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.

I don't know that I agree with this statement. I love all aspects of precision EXCEPT the meaningless 1♦ opener. It seems like one of the great sacrifices precision players make in order to add more significance to their 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT and 2♣ openers. If I lose matchpoints entirely because of system, it is usually due to having to open 1♦.

I haven't read the full system.. and it sounds interesting. However, as someone who plays modern precision (with 2/1 responses) those two statements really made me cringe.

Eric

[hrothgar]

Vilgan, on Mar 7 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

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

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. 

......

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.

I don't know that I agree with this statement. I love all aspects of precision EXCEPT the meaningless 1♦ opener. It seems like one of the great sacrifices precision players make in order to add more significance to their 1♣ 1♥ 1♠ 1NT and 2♣ openers. If I lose matchpoints entirely because of system, it is usually due to having to open 1♦.

I haven't read the full system.. and it sounds interesting. However, as someone who plays modern precision (with 2/1 responses) those two statements really made me cringe.

Eric

For the record... There is a reason why some many people have migrated towards strong club and 4 card majors.

[rbforster]

In your chapter on 1M openings and the 2/1 GF style of bidding, you said

jwmonty, on 1M Opening Chapter, pg 34, said:

I actually developed a complete set of nonforcing 2/1 responses, along with auctions to show the strong hands, as a possible method for Revision...

I would be interested learning more about the NF methods you mention - would you be willing to share those notes or at least describe them briefly?

Quote

My research indicates that it is impossible to prove whether 2/1 NF or 2/1 GF is a better method.

I ran into similar issues investigating 2/1 NF methods in response to 1M - the NF hands were pretty rare and so it was hard to tell if the method was an improvement or just "different." In the methods I was working on, I used a forcing 1NT for most inv+ hands without support for opener's major (although some weak hands could bid 1NT too).

[jwmonty]

Rob F, on Mar 12 2007, 01:31 AM, said:

In your chapter on 1M openings and the 2/1 GF style of bidding, you said

jwmonty, on 1M Opening Chapter, pg 34, said:

I actually developed a complete set of nonforcing 2/1 responses, along with auctions to show the strong hands, as a possible method for Revision...

I would be interested learning more about the NF methods you mention - would you be willing to share those notes or at least describe them briefly?

Quote

My research indicates that it is impossible to prove whether 2/1 NF or 2/1 GF is a better method.

I ran into similar issues investigating 2/1 NF methods in response to 1M - the NF hands were pretty rare and so it was hard to tell if the method was an improvement or just "different." In the methods I was working on, I used a forcing 1NT for most inv+ hands without support for opener's major (although some weak hands could bid 1NT too).

No prob, Rob. Send me a private message and I will email you an old version of the 1M opening chapter that contains that material. You will see that I used the same basic approach that you did.

[jwmonty]

I have just finished the third edition of the Revision Club book. As usual, it is available for download in zip format at Dan Neill's website:

http://www.geocities...neill_2000/sys/

You can also download the individual files (there are thirteen of them) from box.net. The addresses for each file are as follows.

Foreword:
http://www.box.net/shared/yk8m7lzubx

Introduction:
http://www.box.net/shared/n2ol767nv5

Part 1, Major suit openings:
http://www.box.net/shared/xa0v09yfen

Part 2, 1D opening:
http://www.box.net/shared/vo08fq7l2m

Part 3, 1NT opening:
http://www.box.net/shared/30czj25vym

Part 4, 2NT opening:
http://www.box.net/shared/bu29m9unvo

Part 5, 2C opening:
http://www.box.net/shared/jites5v4dz

Part 6, 2D opening:
http://www.box.net/shared/3e6pdvzv5b

Part 7, 1C opening:
http://www.box.net/shared/iatb9uz5b9

Part 8, preempts:
http://www.box.net/shared/nucigyh8he

Part 9, defensive bidding:
http://www.box.net/shared/emg3koqci0

Part 10, miscellaneous extra ideas:
http://www.box.net/shared/d3iplkri1t

Part 11, carding:
http://www.box.net/shared/p82xcl6cb0

For those of you who prefer to receive the files directly from me as email attachments, or who wish to communicate with me for other reasons, the email address is as before, jwmonty@earthlink.net.

Most of the changes made in this edition were the result of playtesting and bidding practice sessions (thanks to Greg Morse for partnering me). I was gratified to learn that almost everything in the system seemed to work well enough. There have been no major disappointments. I noticed a few things that could be added or improved. Here are some of them:

1. The 2NT response to a 1M opening, which shows a limit or better raise, did not give opener enough different rebid sequences to show different hand types. This created problems in slam auctions. Opener is now allowed to define 18 different hand types without going beyond 4M. It works much better now.

2. There were some idle bids in the 1NT opening structure that could be used to show slam tries by responder. I added some sequences.

3. I never liked the followup auctions in the sequences 1D-1M, 2M and 1H-1S, 2S. I have always believed opener should be allowed to raise with three-card support, but this resulted in problems when responder had a game try. The 1D sequences have been rewritten so that there are more ways to stop in a partscore and avoid getting to 3M on a 4-3 fit when opener does not accept a game try. Slam tries in these auctions are improved also. As for the auction 1H-1S, 2S, I learned that a lot of the pressure could be taken off of this auction by redefining the sequence 1H-1NT, 2x-2S to show exactly four spades, invitational values, not forcing. The 2S bid here is not really needed for any other purposes, and this allows you to play either 2S or 2NT when opener is rejecting the game try, something that formerly was not possible with the 2NT bid in the auction 1H-1S, 2S-2NT being used as forcing, as it should be.

4. Previously, when a 2C opener had a four-card diamond suit on the side, without extra values, there was no way to stop in a diamond partscore facing an invitational hand. This proved costly, since many of responder's invitational hands that are short in clubs (so that there is no 6-2 club fit to use as a signoff spot) contain four or five diamonds, and you need to find the diamond fit on these hands. In the new version, it is possible to do this. (There is also an equivalent method for doing the same thing when opener shows clubs after opening 1C.) I thought my methods after a 2C opening were good before, but now they are even better. If you play Precision with a 6+ 2C opening, you should at least have a look at this chapter even if you have no interest in the rest of the system.

5. Defensive bidding methods when the opponents open at the one level in a suit have been rearranged. There are now more ways to show a canape hand, 4M and 6m, without going past 2M. This is accomplished through various cuebids and canape jump overcalls.

There are hundreds of other changes, most of which are really just corrections of typos and the like. If you found the previous editions to be of no more than casual interest, you don't really need to read this one. However, I thought that since I have finally cleaned up the details to my own satisfaction, I ought to make the results available to anyone else who is interested.

[glen]

thanks for all your revision work! now hopefully Dan has enough bandwidth

[Rossoneri]

I can host it as well, if you (Jwmonty) don't mind.

[jwmonty]

Sure, go ahead.