PrecisionL

In Gatlinburg last year, on Saturday, I played ATTACK in KO Teams: 1♣ = 11-15 hcp, any distribution 1♦ = 16+ hcp A & F 1♥/♠ = 8-11 & 5-cards 1NT = 10-12 / 13-15 2X = 11-14 hcp, 6-cards 2NT = 8-13, Unusual: 5-5 in the minors We had fun, wished we had played it in pairs as our teammates did not live up to their advance promise. Larry

Agree. Although I would slightly modify the advice to: Find one regular partner and work with him together, on system / declarer play (monitoring each other) and defence. Marlowe Better yet, Find 3 other players that think like you do and learn together and add conventions slowly and be partners to each other. Larry

Some of my partners play that a jump rebid by opener shows a solid suit: AKQxxx+. Hardy (Standard Bridge bidding for the 21st Century, pg. 58) teaches a good suit (AQJT9x KQx Axx x) AND a good hand. 1) Requests a cue bid 2) Cue: A or K Larry

Yeah I would agree with this. Having decided that I really liked the opening structure, I read the book expecting it to be full of great ideas. But it isn't really. The book is typical of what you get from someone writing up their pet system, except that in this case he has found a very good opening structure. My own opinion hasn't changed much in the three years(!) since I started this thread. If I was playing a weak NT (which ideally I would do in 1st seat NV) I would base the system on MC. But since it's too difficult to play completely different systems in different positions, I currently play Polish throughout. Interestingly, I have been playing my version of MC for 3 years. I like our revisions, but others may not. 1♣ = same as MC, but rebid of 2♦ asks for controls, not 2♣ so we avoid rebidding 3♣ with a 15+ hcp hand and 5 or 6 clubs and unbalanced. Responses to 1♣: I play 2♣ as the main G.F., artificial, opener rebids 2♦ with 15-18 balanced and natural bidding from there. 2NT rebid = 19+ hcp. Suit rebids are two suited with 5+♣ or very strong (rebid the suit to show 5). Other responses to 1♣: 1NT = 5-5 and G.F., opener can discover both suits under 3NT 2♦ > 2NT = transfer to good 6-card suit and G.F. 3X = G.F. 1-under splinter, either 4441 or 54 in minors or 6-cd minor with slam interest Other opening bids: 1♥/♠ = 4 or 5 card major 1NT = 11-14 2♣/♦ = 10-14 and good suit, no 4-card major (Qxxx+) 2♥/♠ = 6-10 & 6-cards in 1st & 2nd seat, 10-14 and 5M332 in 3rd 7 4th seats 2NT = 5-5 minors, rare 5-4 with good 4-card suit and poor 5-card suit Also: 1M - 2♣ = A. G. F. asking for major suit distribution Larry

I ran a quick simulation: to deal 1000 MC 1C openers to West: takes 25000 deals. to deal 1000 ACOL (with weak 1NT) openers to West: takes 24000 deals. so the two are very close to each other. STRANGE!? My long time usage of Millennium Club type opens 1 ♣ 6.5% of all hands, not 4%. Larry Revised 2/25/08: Millennium Club = 6.8% Balanced = 5.0% 5+♣ Only = 0.4% 5+♣ & 4-card suit = 1% All G.F. hands = 0.3% Blue Team Club is 6.4% of all hands = 1♣ (17+ hcp) Precision is 9.8% of all hands = 1♣ (16+ hcp) Moscito is 14.2% of all hands = 1♣ (15+ hcp)

Yes, http://ia300219.us.archive.org/2/items/Ult...y2007/Ultra.pdf http://ia300219.us.archive.org/2/items/ UltraClub-July2007/Ultra.pdf A few errors, not re-posted yet. Larry 12/23/11 New URL: http://bridgewithdan.com/systems/Ultra.pdf

I choose 2NT (compressed 'Bergen') = Artificial G.I. or better with 4 trumps. Opener rebids according to losers: 3♣ = 5 or less, 3♦ = 6, 3♥ = 7-8 (if♥ trumps], 7 if ♠ are trumps, 3♠ = 8. If partner bids 3♠, I pass otherwise raise to 4♠.

Benito Garozzo's Strong Club Theory: (from google.rec.games.bridge) World Cllass by Marc Smith, 1999, pg. 66: in the section on Benito Garozzo subtitled 'Systems' "The Blue Club system that we played years ago just is not good enough for top-level play today. Lea du Pont and I have improved on it a lot, and it's now ten [10] times better than the old one. The old system was based on controls, and it has taken me many years to realize that was wrong. The distribution is the most important thing and you should gear your bidding to concentrate on that first. When we played C. C. Wei and the Precision Team, we developed Super Precision. That was a fairly good system, but still at that time we were focusing too much on controls and not enough on the shape of the hands. First it should be distribution, and only when you know enough about partner's shape should you worry about controls." "In pairs competitions, you can effectively forget all about slam bidding. You need to concentrate on declarer play and defense - that is where most of the points are lost. At teams, you need to have more system, particularly for competitive bidding. More than 70% of the auctions nowadays are competitive, and you have to know what you are doing. Even when we were winning regularly, out slam bidding was not good enough. We didn't study enough. You should never stop studying, no matter how many times you win. Thee are always new things you can learn, and ways for you to improve your performance. I accept that there are those people who love to study, and those who hate it. I do not love to study, but of course it is much easier when you create the system yourself. In my early days though, I had to learn what someone else had created. I forced myself to do it because I wanted to be a winner." Garozzo & Lea only seem to play Ambra, a 2-over-1 system with 4-card diamond suit openings, 5-card majors, and 15-17 NT. Ambra is not a Strong Club system. Is Benito Garozzo saying that Ambra is the system "10 times better" than Blue Team Club? Does Benito believe that "The Roman Club" meets much of his criteria? What are some other distributional bidding systems that meet his criteria? System geeks want to know! Larry Lowell Knoxville, TN, USA

MPs or IMPs? At Match Point Pairs: X = G.F. and bids = 5-7 and 5-card suit or better where partials are just as important as games and slams. At IMPs, reverse the above where games and slams are more important. Larry

Thread not complete, truncated by software. Try this one: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/ browse_thread/thread/eef5ee489e73a16/41c3d00fb4701a75?lnk=gst&q=1NT+-+3m#41c3d00fb4701a75 Larry

I play a 4-card Major system with a Strong Club and canape. 5M332 hands are an enigma! We have played 2M as (1) 5M332 & 10-14 hcp, or (2) 5M + 4♣ & 10-14 hcp. I like the intermediate 2M, have had good results with them at both pairs and teams. But, the problem hands are then the 5M & 4♣ hands. We will be trying (2) at the next tournament in Feb. Our 1NT is 11-13 nV and 14-16 V. Only xxxxx (no honor) would be opened 1NT. Larry

Others have thought about using an opening bid of 1♦ as an unbalanced hand and published it. Miles (MY SYSTEM, 2007) promises a void or singleton when he opens 1♦ and the short suit could be diamonds. If the Diamond opener rebids NT, then responder just bid his singleton! Also, Carl Samuleson (1997) has published a little pamplet, "A New Approach to MATCHPOINTED PAIRS." 1♣ promised a balanced hand and 15-19 hcp (includes 5422 hands). The only positive response to 1♣ is 1♦ = 9+ hcp and GF. Other responses are weak and show distribution. A 1♦ opening promises a 3-suited hand (4441, 5431, and 5440 without a 5M). 1NT response to 1♦ is 8+ hcp and asks for opener to bid the suit below his shortage. 2NT is a slam invitation and also asks for opener to bid the suit below his shortage. And Peter Oakley, 1998 has published a booklet called the Diamond Major with an artificial club opening. An opening bid of 1♦ promised at least one 4-card Major. If responder responds in a major that opener does NOT have 4-cards, opener rebids NT with a balanced hand or shows a minor implying 5-cards and shortage somewhere. This works rather well as I have used it in several of my Precision partnerships. It is available on the internet (3rd edition, 2000). http://www.bridgeclublive.com/Include/Diamond.htm Larry

Yes, Marshall Miles (2007) in his MY SYSTEM, The Unbalanced Diamond and George Coffin (1969) in his NATURAL BIG CLUB have ideas for doing something similar. Miles uses 2♣ with a 5-card Major and 17+ pts. Coffin used 2♣ as a transfer to 2♥ with 5 or 6-cards and 2♦ as a transfer to 2♠ with 5, 6-cards and no singleton or side 4-card suit and 11-14 hcp or 20+ pts. Details upon request. Larry

1) I'm leading 8♦ at pairs, worried about giving up a ♠ trick. Was the 2♣ bid lead inhibiting? 2) I'm leading a low ♠, attitude lead - what is he tanking about? Larry

Playing 2NT = 55+ minors: Only 0.8% of all distributions. Here is what we (Keylime & PrecisionL) play: 3♣/♦ = to play 3♥ = A & GI 11+ pts. asking for distribution 3♠ = A & S.I. asking for better minor: 3NT = ♣ (4♣ = Beta); 4♣ =♦ (4♦=Beta) 3NT = to play w sure major stops 4♣ = G.I. 4♦ = G.I. 4♥/♠ = CAB: Control Asking bid in the suit named After 3♥ Asking: 3♠ = 1255 w 1♠ 3NT = 2155 w 1♥ 4♣ = 1156 w 6♣ 4♦ = 1165 w 6♦ 4♥ = 0355 w 3♥ 4♠ = 3055 w 3♠ 4NT = xx66 Larry

Simplified Club? I have a xerox copy (less than 200 pages), was going to use if for building my next system and got detoured using Sabine Auken's canape responses to 1♣ strong. Larry Revised 2/12/07 - Actually the book is only 101 pages (Just found my copy). Edited 9/11/21: The Simplified Club, 2nd edition, 1989, 114 page pamphlet. Autographed copy!

If you mean the Diamond Major: http://www.bridgeclublive.com/Include/Diamond.htm If you mean something else, please state exactly what system you are looking for. Larry

What the GCC and directors forbid is for you to bid a 3-card major suit as an opening bid. Responses in 3-card majors are infrequent and tactical just like a 1♦ response to a natural 1♣ opening might be only 3-cards in certain situations. I have more than once jump rebid in a 3-card minor. Then there are responses to the Precision 2♦ Opening which shows a hand short in diamonds. It is not unusual to respond in a 3-card heart suit with a weak hand to keep the bidding low with 3♥s and 3♠s and 6♦s. Finally, there are responses to the mini-Roman 4441 opening bid of 2♦. Once again, with a weak hand responder might bid 2♥s with 4+ ♠s and only 3♥s. Larry

I have played Precision with 5-card majors and 1♦ promising at least one 4-card major for over two years. I like it and it works fine. Responder with a weak hand usually responds 1♥ or 1♠, with 1♥ promising 3+♥ and 1♠ promising 4 or more ♠. Even with 5♠ responder bids 1♥ if he has 4♥ and a weak hand. This approach is GCC legal (ACBL). When opener does not rebid a major, but rebids NT or a minor then responder knows a lot about opener's hand. Example: 1♦ p 1♠ p 2♣ = 4♥ and 5+♣. Or 1♦ p 1NT p 2♣/♦ showing 5+ and unbalanced. Major is unknown. A 2♦ opening is now like the Precision 2♣ opening (natural 10-15 and good 5 or 6-cards), but denies a 4-card major. We usually promise JTxx or QTxx in the major. 1NT denies two 4-card majors. The other aspects of Peter's DIAMOND MAJOR ARE INTERESTING TOO. Larry

Yes, Transfer responses to a Strong Club (15+) are GCC Legal in ACBL. I have been playing several versions the past two years in many events including the 0-5000 Spingold in Nashville this summer. Larry

Check out amazon.com for one detailed review. Quick summary: A hand pattern system using canape and lots of asking bids. simpler than other relay systems, yet lacking in follow-ons and asking bid sequences. Larry

Yes, American Forcing Minor by Lutz & Fink, 1995, ISBN 0-939460-52-2. 1♣ = 18+ hcp balanced, 17+ hcp Major suit, 21+ ♦ hand, 16+ ♣ hand 1♦ Response = 0-3 hcp / 8-13 hcp 1M Response = 4-7 hcp & 3-6 cards in the Major 1NT Response = 14+ hcp 2♣/♦ = 4-7 hcp & 6+ cards 2♥/♠ = 4-7 hcp & 7+ cards 2NT = 4-7 hcp & 6♦ + 5♣ 3♣ = 4-7 hcp & 6♣ + 5♦ X = 9+ hcp XX = 10+ hcp Larry

Buy Sabine's book, I LOVE THIS GAME. She was in a Bridge World "Challenge the Champs" Bidding Contest in October 2004. She did not do so well at Shanghai. We made our system similar to hers. :unsure: I have one word document on the Bridge World Oct. 2004 bidding and another on 1M - 2C sequences only. If interested, e-mail me: lnlowell@flash.net Larry Ultra Club Canape Notes: http://ia300219.us.archive.org/2/items/ Also see Daniel Neill's web page for Mecwell Notes or Ultra Club Canape Notes: http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/

It is beyond sad. I would not hire any of the Venice Team Champions to play on my team (if I had enough money that is). I doubt any worldly person needs to be reminded that actions of governments do not necessary reflect their person wishes. I am reminded of this daily as I read the newspaper and listen to talk radio. Anyway, I thought they were there for bridge, let them go back at their own expense and give interviews. Anyway, congrats for their bridge victory, commendation for their poor judgment. Congrats to Norway for their excellent play! I will reread the Viking Club again. It was sad to see Germany and Sabine do so poorly. :<(( Larry

The reverse is better and is what I have been playing for 2 years which allows more room for slam exploration. Now 1M - 3m can be mini-splinter or fit jump. 3C = 5-losers or less 3D = 6-losers 3H = 7-8 losers if Hs are trumps, otherwise 7-losers 3S = 8-losers if Ss are trumps Larry