1Wishbone1

Plz excuse the interruption. I like your ideas and especially the 15 - 17 (or 18) NT for Balanced hands. It implies that a 1 ♣ with 16 - 17 HCPs probably has a Singleton and if the Club Opener is greater than 17 HCPS, Defenders beware. Do you find that this Range has helped your 1 ♣ Opening? Thnx, CW

"First, do no harm..." Good points, Straube. For me it was the INFORMATION I had by merely looking at the page. Perhaps that aspect will be restored at some point. CW

billyjef -- See: https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/76725-the-four-h-club/page__hl__1wishbone1 Mostly to the point here. "Five Card Spades, Four Card Hearts" might work although I want to see the Combined Bergen Raises through to the end. Mebbe start a New Thread or continue with the above. CW

1. That's why they bet on horse races, I guess. Remember, this Thread began with the idea of Mapping a Subset of Bergen Raises to Precision Limit Bids using LTC. Perhaps BRs ARE long-of-tooth and not as useful as they used to be. I'm not so sure. The Logic is impeccable: "If we have 8 Trump in a Major, the odds are 8 to 1 that Opponents have an 8 card Trump Suit as well. If we have a 9 card Trump suit, Opponents are guaranteed to have an 8 carder as well." (PLZ see: TNT Bridge, ISBN-10: 0713425431, ISBN-13: 978-0713425437). If the LAW states that we should Bid to an appropriate level based on Trump Length then "Let's get there before the Opponents do...". OK. Fine. What then of the Precision Sequence: 1 ♥ - 2 ♥? I'll repost the Link: http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/2010/03/big-club-five-or-four-card-majors.html Second paragraph, esp. "There oughta be a way!..." Well, mebbe there is, hence the Thread (Note to billyjeff: Somewhere on this Site is a Thread on "The Four H Club". I think Glen Ashton is onto something...) 2. TylerE: I am happy for your confidence and I understand. Maybe this is all Logical and stuff and it still doesn't work. Oh, Well. So it goes. 3. billyjef: Thank you for your constructive criticism. This goes to Structure and System. Berkowitz and Manley state that your preferred NT Range is OK for what you want to do. As W F Buckley use to say, "Who says 'A' must say 'B'." Weak/Intermediate/Strong NTs WILL make a difference on what follows in your System. BTW, I like Strong NT with Precision as a Defense against the perceived weakness of Opening 1 ♣ with Balanced 16 - 18 HCPs. (See: John Montgomery's Revision Club. A GREAT study.). 4. This is where people are moving these days, it seems. Hamman hates 5-Card Majors, Forcing NT over a Strong Club. He says that it's a gift to him. Perhaps "1 ♥ - 1 NT" is Semi-Forcing and "1 ♥ - 2 ♣" now becomes Forcing. I dunno. (The thing is, I LIKE 1 NT as a Contract. It gets passed over so much. Also, 1 ♣ - 1 NT in Precision is generally recognized as a horrible Sequence, so there is still some work to do.) 5. In the end, my question was, "Can we have Bergen Raises in Precision based on the Limit Bids and LTC?" I think so and I think that the reasons may be compelling for some: A. Weak Support goes through the 1 M - 1 NT route that has been around for a LONG time. NO NEW EXPERIMENTAL STUFF HERE!!! B. 3/4 Support with a Limit Raise allows 1 M - 2 M (esp. in ♥!) to be immediate and informative. The HCPs of the Limit Raise act like the colorful poisonous reptile: "Yes, I'm easily seen, but beware!...") C. With 4 Support and the Automatic, Built-into-the-System LTC, we want to explore Game at the 3 Level RIGHT NOW! We know that Opponents have at least an 8-Fit and we don't want them to find it without some PAIN. As always, "Your Mileage may Vary". Other comments still welcome. Thanx all. CW

Thank you billyjef. I'll probably add to this as there is much more circulating in my thoughts. This is why I ordered the LTC Count as I did. Responder should have LTC 8 or better to bid the 3♣. If opener is 7 LTC or worse, 7 LTC + 9 LTC = 16 and that implies that things are OK at the 2 level. Things get hazy at the 2 level oftimes, so Responder should *probably* not enter Bergen Country with LTC 9. What I'm trying to Map is the proper entrance to the Combined Bergen Scheme beginning at 3 ♣. This isn't a Menu Guarantee Scheme. Judgement matters. The best chance for success starts at Opener = LTC 7, Responder = LTC 8. 9 Trumps and LTC Bid Level @ 3 minimum. That's good. With less than that, Opener has to be able to bail out below game and Responder has to be able to show weak Support with 3/4 Trumps. This is increasingly leading me to the Simple Raise as showing 7-ish to 9-ish HCPS (w/ appropriate LTC) => "1 ♥ - 1 NT - <bid> - 2 ♥". Limit Raise: "1 ♠ - 2 ♠" "No muss, no fuss, no bother". Yes, "1 ♥ - 2♥" is laid bare for all to see but it announces "At least 20 HCPs and at least 8 Trump". Odds are 8 to 1 that Opponents have an 8 card suit as well but with at most 20 HCPs. That's why they play Partials. This should allow some level of safety, esp. if Opener, for ex., is not at all thrilled to get to the 3 level normally (Sorta' like a hidden Precision Drury...). 'Zackly. If Bergen is to fulfill its promise, it must announce a high expectation that the hand is safely bidding at the 3 level with pre-emptive squeeze on Opponents Bidding. That's why the levels are listed as they are. Don't meet the Requirements? We have other ways to Bid the hand that allows to safely describe our holdings. "Invitational Bids" are less popular these days. If Partner's holdings are better known, better judgement is available. Also good. In the end, Bergen Raises become a very circumscribed Tool for certain 5 - 3, 5 - 4 and other Trump holdings. I haven't completed 4 - 4 Trumps. I've looked a lot at extended (or intermediate) Weak-2s. An 8 - 13/14 HCPs Range looks good. The Range allowed is 7 HCPs. With these, Bergen looks good in Precision. I like "blunt, lacking nuance and finesse". I thought the Scheme I laid out had these attributes :) . So I ask again: Does the above Scheme make sense? CW

In reviewing some Bergen and LTC material, I began to see forward a bit with Completeness as a Goal. I haven't been able to get my usual feedback from friends so I present this, warts and all. It probably has already been done. If so, point the way. This is from a more Precision perspective but don't get all Hincky on me (People get the Willies these days as soon as you mention Precision. Why is that?...). We will examine a Framework built around the so-called Combined Bergen Raises, from Pat Peterson, a most wonderful person ("Hi, Pat!!!") 1. Consider: Open: 1 of a Major with 11 - 15 HCPs, looking at an LTC of 7 or better (See, for ex.: https://mrbridge.co.uk/assets/docs/library/articles/bidding/LTC_2.pdf . There are lots of other articles. The Table Format here is nice.). Responder has four support for Partner's Major Open: ___Responder has LTC = 8 or better (There is Logic behind this if anyone is interested) ___Resp. assumes that Opener has LTC = 7 or better. (7 LTC + 8 LTC = 15, with the "Magic Number" 18 - 15 = 3, so 'Playin' Around" should be OK to be @ 3 Level.) _____***Bid 3 ♣*** 2. Opener has LTC = 7 or better (Logic here again: In Precision, Major Suit Open is 11 - 15 HCPs. (A - A - A - K can give 8 LTC, as can a few other bids.). If Opener is worse than 7 DO NOT BID 3 D without good reason..."Bail Out! Bail Out!...") ___***Bid 3 D***: "Tell me more, Partner." 3. Responder's Schedule: ___3 ♥: Four Support, 8 LTC: ___3 ♠: Four Support, 7 LTC or better, FORCING to 3 NT. ___3 NT: Four Support, Something like... 7 LTC or better with Feature (Singleton or Void or 5 + Support, etc.) _____Then, 4 ♣: "Bells and Whistles" - Controls, Aces, Chocolate Cake and Ice Cream, etc. _______That is, something like: 1 M - 3 ♣ - 3 ♦ - <4 ♣> - ??? _______Perhaps 4 ♣ would be an announcement that Responder is taking over control of the hand "Tell me about your hand, Opening Partner." Opener: "Uhhh...". With 1 M - 3 ♦ = "Limit Raise with 3 Support", the only thing left for the Majors is Weak Support with 3 and possibly something to show 2 Support. Responder's Bids left unused: 1 NT and Rebid Major (See below for alternative for the Limit Raise). 4. http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/2010/03/big-club-five-or-four-card-majors.html A lot of this got started with the 2nd paragraph of the above article. Perhaps it's not really a problem: "1 ♥ - 2 ♥" => If a minimum 11 + 7/8-ish implies "If we can steal 2 ♥s so much the better". My playing these days is atrocious but I did actually have a Board the other day where we got out in 2 ♥s and everybody else went down at game (I love Precision...). This appears to lead to "1M - 1 NT - <whatever> - 2 M - Pass" but people are getting away from "1 M - 1 NT <Forcing!>". Maybe "1 H - 2 H" should be the 3 Support Limit Raise. I dunno... This would leave "1 ♥ - 1 NT" as the Weak support bid: 8 - 10 HCPs OR 3/4 Support (Weak) with 9 LTC. Opener looks to the sky ("Why me, Oh Lord, Why me?"), bids a four card suit if possible and waits for the inevitable 2 M rebid by Pard. There is more here (Intermediate 2s for 6 in a Major, for ex.) but this seems to make sense, esp. for that icky "1♥ - 2 ♥" Sequence. Y/N/M? Thanx, CW

I like how you've opened this up: May I add to it? The Precision Club is a System that may be thought of as a Complete Classification System. Initially, if HCPs are thought of as "Power", Hands will fall into certain (easy) classifications." Start with any 16+ Hand (exception: "2 NT" = 19 -21-ish). This is down one point from the Italian Systems and despite variations due to perceived "Playing Strength" this one has stood the test of time. 11 - 15 HCPs. Meckwell frequently with 10, Reese @ 12. Here is where the work begins. The Classification System LIMITS HCPs and this confers advantages for a Partnership immediately ("So they say..."). Partner knows whether Game/Slam is a function of raw HCPs more easily. Is 1 NT Forcing a "Precision Requirement"? Also 11 - 15 HCPs. Some tinkering under the hood through the years. The original was "6+ Clubs" or "5 Clubs and a 4 Card Major". Now it's (Generally) 6+ Clubs PERIOD. ("It's that clear", saith Berkowitz and Manley.) (Changing the numbering scheme here for a reason). The Weak NT was a staple of the early Precisions and there has been some variation through the years. Wei thought the Weak NT was sufficiently challenging to befuddle the Defense but, with popularity comes familiarity and the surprise factor is no longer apparent. The reasoning for it's use now is that the "1 NT" bid is seen as powerful in it's own right, the more times it gets used, the better. 5. 1 Diamond: 11 - 15 HCPs - is the "Utility Bid". Rodwell: "Like McDonalds, millions and million of 1 Diamond Bids". Hamman: "I don't like Precision because you've destroyed both Minor Suits..." Having a Diamond utility bid allows you to bid hands with 4 card Majors and certain other awkward hands (This gives the Weak NT "Utility Bid" a partner). Originally, the Diamond Bid was for traditional weak Minor Diamond hands with (preferably) 4 Diamonds and a nervous look on you face when you had 3. Now, the Standard is "One Diamond => 2 or more Diamonds" and no one gives a second look. I haven't read the computer printouts on missed partials with a Diamond Suit but Meckwell seems OK with it. With the 2 Club Bid @ 6+, the Diamond Bid takes on a little more work. *** With this Straightforward Classification System, most hands are covered and this very easy System gives a number of benefits: A. The Utility Bids, 1 Club, 1 NT,1 Diamond, give 3 strengths with which Responder can evaluate combined hands, with limits on HCPs with Distribution Bids coming. B. Major Suit Bids are featured with Limit Bids. C. The Minors require special work but since Minors have always been the poor relations, there's nothing new on this front. *** With this there are some Hands that are Not Covered or Awkward. These Hands are few but they bring the Complexity that threatens many Players: "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" Are you going to Open 2 Diamonds strictly to describe 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5 hands or do you include 4-3-1-5 or 3-4-1-5(etc.) Hands?" Question: In your 2/1 System, do you play Flannery? As you develop a Partnership, you will add Complexity as a matter of course, unless you are a member of the Becker Family. What this "Classification System" gives you is something taken away with the "Special Bids" in the eyes of many. Slam Bidding has reached a certain Level of Complexity in all "Modern" Systems today. The Precision System worked and still does. I think these characteristics above are Central to being able to declare a "Precision Bidding System". Thanx, CW

1. Thanx again, spotlight7. Was your time with Revision Precision enjoyable? Any major holes you didn't like? 2. To review a bit for those not familiar with the idea of this Thread: See for ex.: http://www.whidco.com/DBAA/350_LectureSeries/DBAA_2005_Series_Defending_Precision.htm "Some Probabilities What are the typical hand types for a precision 1C opener? Better than 85% of the hands opened 1C (discounting freak distributional hands with fewer than 16 HCP) have from 16-19 HCP. And, 47.6% of the hands with 16 or more HCP will be balanced (4x3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2). So, when your opponents open 1C, better than 40% of the time, they will have a 16-19 no trump, and, when they don’t they will be balanced or semi-balanced (adding in the 5-4-2-2, and 6-3-2-2 hands) about 65% of the time. Philosophy of Defending Against 1C Openers So, when your opponents open 1C, more often than not, they will not have shortness, and, most of the time, they will have between 16 and 19 HCP. This tells us that it is highly likely that your side does not have a game, and you should devise your defense to a 1C opener based on that. Most pairs playing against strong no trumps are not looking to find the best GAME when their opponents open 1NT, so neither should you when your opponents open a strong 1C..." As always, I am sure that there are those who would disagree with the Defensive Premise here. OK. For those Bell-Curvers out there who would look at Defense for the most common 1 ♣ Open, a 1 NT = 16 - 18 HCPs puts pressure on this idea. Opening a 1 ♣ with the higher probability of a singleton or void in that 16 - 18/19 range should bring a greater advantage to the Precision pair. 1 ♣ becomes a more powerful Open. BTW, I don't believe that this will make anyone tremble. Good players will adapt to just about any NT range. It's simply that pairing the Strong NT with the Precision Club seems to be a good idea.

I have the 4th ed. on my computer. As stated earlier in another Post, I looked a a "Diamond Positive" Precision in the '70s. Montgomery did a wonderful job with the concept and I still study it. Always willing to listen to anyone with a story on this fine System. Tell us more... Thank you VERY much. CW

I'm returning to the idea of Precision with 1 NT = 16 - 18 HCPs, no Singleton. 1 ♣ = 16+ with a possible/probable singleton/void. From a small sample size, it appears to work OK. In Blocking out the system, I looked at considering A-x as "Just about as good as a Singleton". Opening 1 ♣ or 1 NT would depend on the hand certainly but the actual Bid Probabilities would be 50/50-ish. I then thought about other hand combinations surrounding A-x and considered that perhaps A-x "wasn't just about as good as a Singleton". In other words, most hands with this 1C/Strong NT feature should probably be opened 1 NT, maybe significantly more often. It's too early for daiquiries so what to do? THNX, CW

You can't argue with success! Soooo, did 2/1 paired with Precision (Depending on Vul.) Work in an equally complementary manner?

Boards 26, 27, 30 and 32 are 16 pt 1 NT opens, not 1 Club. Not a showcase for this idea but bid the hands with 1 Club and see what you get. BTW: David Berkowitz, World Champion. Has nice sound to it, Yes? Another Title for Sonty isn't bad either. Congrats to all...

Check out Bd 27 of Berkowitz-Sontag in the D'Orsi Seniors. Simple and direct. I believe ther was another example - I'm posting ffom a phone and I cannot take forever... Anyway have a look.

First off, thanx to Z and K. Perhaps the first limit on this exercise would be to place the 4333, 4432 and 5332 in the 1 NT Group. My own analysis has found some hands that are terrific for 1 NT and others with the same Hand Pattern that are just as good in 1 ♣. It's not a hard and fast decision to make although there are balanced guidelines. We are putting together a NT Wall: 1 ♦, 1 NT, 2 NT from 11 to 21/22 HCPs. Opposite that we find the Unbalanced Hands. When does Responder need to know that Partner is Unbalanced? I'd say at the 1 ♣ bid. That's OK. Responder needs Information and this gives him some. If the opponents want to dive into an empty pool, let 'em. Yeah, well, I forget things sometimes...You are very correct. My Sequences Handbook isn't finished yet. My Goal is to rival Montgomery... :lol: Nice idea! I would think, however that Responder needs to Blast into a Major if he has one first but again, my thinking may be archaic on this (When would Responder take over the Captaincy here?).

Z- Thank you very much. If it's important enough to state "16 unb. and 17 balanced" then maybe moving some unbalanced hands to a Strong NT might be worth it. Your points are well reasoned. This is what I was looking for. It's also a matter of One-thing-leads-to-another. I've been on the trail of "Diamond Positive Precision" since the early 70s (references on request). There is enough here to put together a good System if it isn't too archaic. The Strong NT and other items (8 - 13 Weak 2s f'rinstance) look very interesting to me. Montgomery was on to something and I believe there is more. Thank you and I certainly welcome other comments.