1Wishbone1

Thanx, everyone. Keep the comments coming. 1.I would like to bring things back to the OP idea (I'll even Block the problem in a different manner): Precision looks to Classify hands by "5 Card Majors", "Strong One Club Opening", "Limited Bids" etc. When you follow the Classification System to the end, you are left with a few "Other Hand Types" that fall outside the Scheme. This becomes a "Feature", not a "Bug". With a bid such as "2D", you access a Set of Sequences that return a quite specific description of the problem hand. OK. We all know this. 2. This isn't a matter of "Tinkering". The modern advocacy of the 2C Bid as limited to 6+ Clubs is Systemic for many. Others are not convinced. Remember the quote above from Berkowitz and Manley: If you are OK with 5 Clubs - 4 of a Major, the 2D opening becomes a matter for 4-4-1-4 Responses, a simplified Return on Investment. 3. Within the Scoring System, the Majors are separated from the Minors and the Minors have had separate Treatments (Clubs vs Diamonds) for a long, long time. Would there be advantages to treating Spades and Hearts differently in Precision? One solution would be to have limited use of 4 Card Heart suits as Direct Bids. Kantar wants a Strong 4 Heart opening and, if allowed in a Precision Classification Scheme (Not every 4 Card Heart Suit would apply), would end the necessity of the 2D "Special Bid". It could be replaced with a 2D Flannery Bid and that would appear to be a Perfect Fit in such a System. Asymmetric Majors might be a Good Thing. All I was trying to do was examine an Opening I saw. 4. BTW, I'm not Glen. The link in the first Post was to a very fine article on this idea. Very predictably, I disagree with his Mappings. If there is a weakness at the 16 - 18 HCP 1 Club Opening, then maybe pairing a Strong NT with 1 Club would solve the problem. Balanced Hands would open 1 NT, hands with Singletons would Bid 1 Club. Just a thought. 5. Finally, Attn: Spotlight7: Tell me about Montgomery. His Revision Precision intrigues me, therefore he intrigues me. Thanx, all, CW

This Project has rapidly spun out of control. http://www.bridgematters.com/bridgematters/2010/03/big-club-five-or-four-card-majors.html http://www.bridgehouse.org.hk/resource_/FCM.doc Some guy named Hamman advocates 4 Card Majors as well. 1. So, I started a Critique of my favorite Precision - whichever one I'm reading about at the moment - and I began thinking about making allowances for Hearts and Spades, building a Metric around the leading role for Spades. If you follow Kantar here, a strong 4 card Heart open would be quite nice. As I began considering what happens after that, some other things fell into place. 2. The Precision 2 D Complex has always been an ongoing battle. I TAKE NO POSITION ON THIS. "The Precision 2 Diamond Opening: Threat or Menace?" just isn't going anywhere so don't get started. Arcane Sequences are everywhere and the Original Precision could be supplanted by 3-4-1-5, 4-3-1-5... Hand Patterns and you'd grit your teeth and learn them or grit your teeth and not. See your dentist for details. I do note three items: John Montgomery's Revision Precision finds at a particular point in the discussion that, for his Classification System, there are 18 Hand Types and 18 Bid Slots to hold them. Sontag and Weichsel had their Hand types mapped out to the level of, "We've never run across this Sequence before in a match but we still believe it is important to carry this sequence", or something like that. In Precision Today, ISBN 978-09642584-5-7, p. 108: "If you are comfortable opening 2 clubs on a 5 card suit [with a 4 card major], you can handle three of the four [2 Diamond] patterns with that bid but you will still be forced to open 1 Diamond on the singleton with 4-4-1-4 shape." Note that if a limited 4 card Heart opener is allowed, the 4-4-1-4 problem disappears as well. 3. SO! We've got a 2 D bid that just opened up. What could replace it? FLANNERY? In a Major Centered System, Flannery seems to be a good fit. In a Precision System, it would seem to be just right. 4. The question is about "Systems". You can make almost any System "work" if you are willing to spend enough time on the "Patches" and "Sequences" (See: Precision vs. 2/1). I've read of an Acol variation that used 5 S - 4 H Sequences. The solution might be to find a "Friendly System" for you. I began looking at a Precision that took into account "Spades over Hearts" in the same way as "Majors over Minors". Flannery may have as many Sequences to learn as "4-3-1-5, 3-4-1-5...". Would a "Four H Club" be friendlier with something like Flannery? CW

Running PCLOS, old, old 32-bit (It works, OK?). I get a message that Flash is out of date but I get a button that lets me proceed anyway. Seems to work fine except when I tell Meckstroth to play a Spade or something on a hand. It's like he doesn't hear me screaming at him! Thing is, he usually makes the Contract. How's that work?... Best, CW

Ahh, but in your mistake, you are onto something. A 2 Club opening, if Natural, is Alertable. Precision 2 Clubs may guarantee 6 Clubs and 11 - 15 HCPs but it must be alerted since the Standard or SAYC reserves 2 Clubs as the Artificial Bid for a Strong Opening. CW

Thank you phoenix214! 1. Could you expand on your points, please? Did you feel you had an advantage playing Revision? How were you able to "see" the Contracts better? Etc. 2. As I have looked at this as a "Project", my concern was that little would get accomplished since everyone would want changes. I wouldn't really be surprised either. Revision is a wonderful tool to see into the mind of one man. Emory Bellard comes to mind here. Bellard was a Genius in American Football but he was a singular genius nonetheless. There might be exactly 18 slots for 18 hand types in a particular section of the Revision System. That's nice to know, I suppose. Sontag wrote in his Precision book that "This sequence has never come up but we believe that it is important that we carry this sequence". YIKES! Don't book my flight to the next Bermuda Bowl just yet. 3, Have System Mappings caught up to Precision? 2/1? Maybe I need to find another hobby... Thanx, CW

http://www.bridgewithdan.com/systems/ Scroll down the page 'til you get to Revision Precision. CW PS: Nige1: Have a look at your concerns with "Overloading" the 1 D Positive. It's not a matter of "Knock down the Responses by 3 HCPs and everything else is Bid 1 D". It is elegant. That much comes through!

Hello everyone -- Since the early seventies, I've kept notes on a "Diamond Positive" Precision. Goren had a section on it in his Precision book and there are many points in support of a System based on the idea. John Montgomery codified a System and is it ever complete! However, its completeness is its undoing. I gather from comments on Revision through the years that many look at it admiringly and then think, "Um, hmm...Yep...Nice. Can you imagine trying to learn all those sequences? YUCK!!! Say...Did you read about the newest solution to that 2/1 problem we talked about last week...?" First Note: Montgomery is correct. If you are to LEARN a sequence with a Partner, you gotta LEARN the Sequences. I have organized Football Offenses and I know first hand that placing all of the Offensive Plays the Team will use into a 2 Color, 2 Number System, f'rinstance, can be done. Getting a High School Ath-a-leet to learn said System is not easy. It has to be done but there also has to be some Understanding of what Football is all about... No one, however, is going to sit down at a table, cold with a new Partner and ask, "Whadd'ya play?" and get, "Oh...Standard Revision, I guess". "ME TOO!!! WOW!" The Educator Spence Rogers usta' say that you had to repeat a Fact 26 times before you could move that Fact into Long Term Memory (or was it 28?). Anyway, for a while it was possible to sit down and play a Basic Precision and at least have some fun. Tournaments have been won with a only a few days preparation. So, I ask: Is there any interest in providing an Organization Summary as found in almost any Precision book for Revision Precision? "The One Club Bid is based on 16+ HCP, unbalanced (Balanced 16 - 18 opens 1 NT). It announces a strong hand. The Partnership is looking to find a Trump Suit quickly and at a low Bidding Level. The following are NATURAL and NON-FORCING Responses..." Boom!: The reader can begin to build a framework in her head that gives an organization and a reason for the upcoming sequences. "1 Heart - 1 NT" Forcing is a common sequence. Montgomery explains it well. "OH! I know that!" It's easier if you don't have to dig into the deep forest to find something that you already know. Any interest here? Thanx, CW