mikestar13

Opening ~17 flat hands with 1♣ works fine if the opponents are silent. But if they are not...... Reducing the frequency of the 1♣ opening is not necessarily a bad thing--I not heard Moscito partnerships (who of necessity open 1♣ lighter than Precision partnerships do) advocate "open 1♣ as often as possible". The 1♣ opening is the price we pay for more narrowly limited one bids--even if well-designed, it tends to lose imps/matchpoints when used. The gains from the limited openings outweigh these losses by a considerable margin. if a designs could reduce the losses from 1♣ without reducing the gains from the limit bids by as much. I am not at all certain that a Revision-inspired method will accomplish this, but I am not certain it won't, either. I deem it a hypothesis worth testing, rather than rejecting the idea out of hand. YMMV. I have played1♦=diamonds or any balanced hand <16 without 5cM.,without that much more difficulty than 1♦=diamonds or any balanced 11-13 without 5cM. (it involves passing flat 11's--anathema to some readers.) I have also played a method when 1♣ is any 16+, 1NT=12-15, and 1♦ is unbalanced--the unbalanced 1♦ opening is easy to handle, but 1♣ is more vulnerable to intervention.

An idea worth considering, if I can work out a useable structure for the 1♦ opening.

Thanks everyone for your input. Some more detailed explanations: This is not an attempt to create a modified Revision Club, I have borrowed some of Montgomery's ideas while going other directions on many sequences. I have played Revision from Montgomery's notes but I just don't care for some of his ideas. I love taking minimum balanced hands out of the big club--it really helps 1♣-(intervention) sequences for responder to know that opener is 20+ or has some shape. But I find Montgomery's 1♣-1♦ =almost any unbalanced positive or any 0+ balanced hand workable if and only if next opponent shuts up, unlike a 1♦ game forcing response in Moscito, for example, which is more playable. I also have become quit fond of the 1♣-♦-1M sequences such as PrecisionL uses. I learned them from Kit Woolsey's articles on Bridge Winners, but have seen them elsewhere. Mongomery himself attributes the 1NT and 2♣ transfer rebids to Barry Rigal's Precision in the 90/s. I do like these--they are a big help on almost but not quite good enough to force to game minor suit hands: after 1♣-1♦-2♣ transfer to diamonds, responder bids 2♦ on any hand which would have passed 2♦ natural, and opener can bid again if interested in inviting game. The knowledge that opener can't have a four card major makes the follwups on responder's invitational hands simpler than in Revision. Certainly, the point ranges for the NT bids can be adjusted to narrow the ranges if desired. I rather like opener's 2♦ rebid on a minimum 2NT-ish hand--responder can get out in diamonds or spades at the two level with a five+ card suit and a weak hand.

I am working on a new version of Precision, combining some ideas from John Mongomery's Revision Club and the 1♣-♦-1M structure Kit Woolsey has presented on Bridge Winners, combined with some ideas of my own. In principle, all 16+ unbalanced or semi-balanced hands are opened 1♣. But the structure for balanced hand is different. Balanced hands with good 11-15 are opened 1M with a 5 card major or 1♦ without one. The 1nT opening is a super strong 1619, while 2NT a good 22 to 24. One club is opened on balanced hands 20-bad 22 or 25+. Thus 1♣ shows 20 points or some shape. Some preliminary tests indicate this really helps with handling interference--responder can bid with more confidence knowing opener will not have a flat ~17 point hand. It also helps constructive auctions on opener's minor suit hands, a weak point in some Precisions. A brief outline of opener's rebids after 1♣-1♦: 1♥ = Unbalanced with 5+ hearts, or 4 hearts with a longer minor, or 4H441.Forcing. 1♠= Unbalanced with 5+spades, or 4 spades with a longer minor, or 4-1-4-4. Forcing. 1NT = Transfer to clubs.6+ clubs or 5 clubs with 4 diamonds, no 4 card major. 2♣= Transfer to diamonds, 6+ diamonds or 5 diamonds with 4+ clubs, no 4 card major. 2♦=20-bad 22 balanced, may have 5 card major. 2M=Strong two in the major. 2NT=25+ balanced, may have 5 card major. Forcing to game. 3m=Strong two in minor, tends to be one suited, denies a four card major. 3NT=16+ gambling with solid minor.

Got every opening thru 5♦, responses to 1♣ and openers rebids in 1♣-1♦ sequences. Much more to come. System notes are now public.The export to Word feature works well, though the .doc file has some header information that I don't need opening it with Open Office (Word itself might need this info, I don't own a copy and can't check).

Holding 3 aces is not a bad thing for a 12-14 NT. They promote whatever random kings and queens partner may hold. It is true that Axxx Axx Axx xxx or the like will get hurt worse than 12 poinits made up of a more diverse set of honors if partner lacks those king and queens--but if partner has a worthless hand and and no long suit to run to, you will be murdered in 1NTx anyway--but if this happened often, no one would play 12-14. if have heard too many 15-17 NT player decrying a 16 count with 4 aces as if it were a terrible calamity, saying "aces and spaces"with a vocal inflection approaching the one most people would use to say "murder, mayhem, and rape." An ace is worth more than 4 points, even in NT. It's just not wrth as quite as much more than it would be in a suit contract. Culbertson valued a ace the same as a king and a queen, which is IMHO too high, but 4 points is clearly too low. Nothing magical about it. 4-3-2-1 count is not fine grained enough to capture the average value of the honors exactly. It virtue is its simplicity which make it easy to use at the table. In most cases the inaccuracies cancel--lets say you have a 10 count including an ace, a king, a queen, a jack, and a ten. Now 3 point for a king is plenty accurate (true average value is 3.0+- 0.1 at most). The 4-3-2-1 count undervalues the ace and ten, but also overvalues the queen and jack--and on the example hand these cancel, so on this hand,4-3-2-1 will give the same results as a more accurate count. Danny Kleinman has a useful article on the subject here.

Love the way the website has evolved. I am entering notes for my own Unbalanced Precision system. I'm keeping it private for now, but will make it public when my notes are a bit further along. The name of the systems refers both to design philosophy (quickly distinguish opener's balanced vs, unbalanced shape--in the case of the limited openings, with the opening bid itself) and (perhaps more importantly) the designer's metal state....

With 14 tricks on top on any lead, these hands belong in 7NT, and a less sophisticated approach might work: 1♣-1♥ 2♣-4NT 5♦-5♥ 5♠-7NT 1♣,1♥,2♣ = as before 4NT = Blackwood -- I'm willing to gamble on 6♣ right now, I am checking for better things. 5♦ =One key card 5♥ =Queen ask. 5♠ = Got ♣Q, also have ♠K. 7NT = I can count thirteen trick if hearts or clubs split. As it happens, the clubs are solid and 7NT is absolutely unbeatable--but change ♣JT to ♣32 and the odds are still excellent--maybe 90%.

The way I learned, opener's non-jump rebid of a new suit is not forcing after a passed hand 2/1--which might be a good 8 count. 1♠-2♦-2♥ by an unpassed hand is forcing is almost any system, even assuming 2♦ isn't game forcing t begin with. So I think there is a set of hands where P-1♠-2♦-2♥-P is the correct bidding sequence. This hand sure as h-e-double-hockey-sticks is not part of this set. Maybe you could argue 3♥ vs 4♥ (I would bid 4)-- it depends on how light the standards are for a third seat opening. But pass is inconceivable.

I have no idea what is right with this hand--this is one hand type that 2/1 will get you too high and it is a pure guess what game goes down less. Or is this a crazy hand where a pair uses some obscure bidding technique to stop in a partial and gets a bottom board because opponents' cards split perfectly and all games make?

1M-3M is an easy and obvious way of showing a mixed raise when 1M-2NT is limit+ (or limit/slammish in a limited opening system), these used together free up 3♣/3♦ for whatever fits your system best. I never had much success with the classic Bergen preemptive 1M-3M = 4 trumps and 0-6 ish and don't miss it..

It is close, however, IMHO. The red suit honors would work better if they were in the black suits, but still this hand would be slightly better than a minimum double of 1♦ if a small diamond were a small heart--so I won't pass, but is can see the reasoning behind it. Again, were we talking about AQJx xx xxx AQxx, double would be a complete no-brainer (my cats would double with those cards).

Pass. To me it isn't that close, even at these colors: we will set them and we may not have a game. At equal vul, it would be a no-brainer: if we can make game when I am this flat, they will be down for more than the game.

This is quite good advice. In my limited opening partnerships, the rule is to always to bid the four card suit with extra values (=would have accepted a limit raise); with a minimum, rebid the major if it is reasonably good and the four card minor is poor, but we virtually never suppress a heart suit (maybe with ♠AKQTXX ♥xxxx ♦Jx ♣x).

You have a very valid point: F-N were gaining imps on their two bids, while I would expect honest players would show a loss (though comparison with other wide ranging preemptive styles would be useful). That still doesn't mean the the overall system is a net loser, though of course it can be. Anybody have numbers about how F-N style one bids do in the hands of honest players?

F-N's cheating would invalidate any stats obtained by F-N themselves. It does not prove their system has no merit for honest players--some stats from such players would be useful. Cheaters can get better results from any system than honest players would with the same system (else why cheat?), and cheaters can probably do better with a poor system than honest players can do with a good system--which many assert is exactly what happened in F-N's case. But we really need more data from honest players before we can reach a conclusion about the merits or lack thereof of the system formerly known as Fantunes. Bill Jacobs says his partnership loses imps on the two bids, but gains on the overall system if I understand him correctly. Richard Granville has done some interesting work on variants of the system (see his articles on Bridge Winners). In any case, weak twos are useful, but another use might fit the overall system better, depending on what it is--you need to look at the whole system under consideration. How many imps an alternative bid gains or loses vs a weak two is only one factor--how the negative inferences cause gains or losses in the one bids is quite important as well.

1-3-5 is a reasonable short suit evaluation in the short trump hand if it holds 4+ trumps; in the long trump hand, no so much.

For me, thinking about bidding 2♦ would be a very severe overbid. Actually bidding 2♦ would probably give me (or my partner) a heart attack.

Interesting as far as it goes, but do you really never respond 2♦ or higher to 1♣? The transfer negative structure is more resistant to interference than the usual 1♦ negative, and the 1NT response is mostly done on hands where wrong-siding 3NT is least likely to be a factor: when a major two-suiter is held. I like what I see but keep thinking there must be more. 1♣-2♣ looks difficult to unwind.

You won't find 6♦ on this perfecto even playing a better system than SAYC. Count it a triumph if you can diagnose that this is the rare matchpoint hand where 5m is better than 3NT--very hard to do if North can't show heart shortness. If he can, 5♦ is a fine contract. East throwing in a heart overcall here (if North is dealer) makes the task easier, not harder.

I pass this one, my concern is we may get too high if partner has a good hand and expects more. Switch the red suits and I bid 2♠.

The field bid a bad slam that happened to make. So what? You will gain more often when the field bids a bad slam that fails. A 1♥ opening has a better chance than 2♥ to get to a good slam if one were available. It also is more likely to induce opponents to take undue liberties in spades, which on the actual hands would be a good thing.

Original poster (Frager) did not give the bidding, just the final contract. When 1eyedjack constructed a readable diagram for him, he gave the final contact as the opening bid rather than guess the bidding sequence, which was irrelevant to the claim in any case. I assume a more normal sequence would have happened at the table.

Good decision, especially with your partnership's tendencies. But this hand has a quite low ODR: the ♦A is just as useful on defense, and the ♠A is not much more useful than on defense (they are unlikely to be void) unless partner has a good fit. ♠QJ9xxx OTOH, would be very offensively oriented it will provide tricks opposite mild support, and is dead worthless on defense

Perhaps better than either standard for this purpose is the "clear and convincing evidence" standard used in the US (and probably elsewhere) in certain civil matters where jail time is of course not possible but the consequences beyond money damages may be severe--this standard applies in some states to professional licensing, which is a good analogy. When I and others call cheating a bridge felony (or worse) we are expressing cheating's moral significance in a bridge context, not suggesting which legal rule should apply.