jwmonty

> 1♥-1NT can be a 0 count, but you can also pass with a 6-9 count. So after > 1♥-P-1NT-(anything), it's very difficult for opener to know whether to bid. Why? Opener is bidding again here on shape, not on extra high-card values (which cannot be more than 14-15). If you are 5-5 or 6-4 or short in their suit with shape suitable for a double, just make the bid you would make in regular Precision. Partner will either show up with three-card support for hearts, or some values. Either way, he should be able to find something intelligent to do. > On the other hand, the 1♥-2♥ is a strong bid, a solid invitation. This is a hand that > could safely bid at the three level . . . No, it is not a hand that could safely bid at the three level. One of the worst auctions in most forcing notrump structures is 1M-1NT, 2m-3M, P. You end up hanging at the three level when the opponents didn't even bid anything to force you up there. This happens a lot in a Precision style, where opener often has 11-12. You are much better off giving yourself a chance to stop in two when opener rejects game. > . . . Larry Cohen (the total tricks guy) says that when the opponents have a 1♥-2♥ > bid with your kind of fitting response, you should never let them take it that > cheaply. You have a fit, they have a fit, don't let them get it cheaply. Actually, I don't think Larry Cohen ever said anything about how to defend against a 2H raise that could be as much as a balanced 12 count with three-card support. They could be in trouble if they throw in a BIDS (Balancing In Direct Seat) overcall on garbage. And even if they aren't in trouble, so what? Your side can still push on to three if it wishes. I just don't see this auction as being a problem for our side. We have already found our fit and both our side's players know it. We should know what to do next. > 1H-2H shows the trash hands that previously would have gone 1♥-1NT-2x-2♥, > including hands with 0 points and 2 card support, and hands with 3 hearts but only > 7 support points. Hands that have 10-12 support or HCP points, with or without a > fit, bid 1NT followed by 2♥. The only thing you lose is the 'prayer' 1NT > hands...hands that bid 1NT hoping to pass one 2m bid and bid 2♥ when they get > the other minor. This could work. You are losing a lot of definition with the direct raise, but the opponents will be in the dark also. The question will be whose side is caused more trouble, yours or theirs. This is the sort of idea that can't be adopted or dismissed based on armchair theorizing. Practical experience is the only guide. I don't intend to try it since it's not my style and I like what I already have, but be my guest. I'd like to hear how it works out, especially if you keep statistics. > It also means you don't have to explain telepathy...why with one hand you passed > 1♥ but with the identical hand in another set bid 1NT followed by 2♥. If it doesn't > work, it's bad, and if it does work, you may get a bad reputation. I don't get the identical hand in the identical situation often enough to have to worry about explaining anything. Hands, position, and vulnerability vary for me each time partner opens 1H or whatever. But the basic strategy is pretty simple. Any time you have a known eight-card fit, or a hand so weak that you think the opponents are likely to have a game, you respond (except vul versus not, you can pass with a very weak nonfitting hand). The idea is not original with me. Lots of Precision players have been doing this for a long time, because it works. I haven't heard that anyone else gets a "bad reputation" for doing it. > Finally, I'm curious how you explain the bid. 1♥-1NT is forcing, but can be a 0 > count, but you can pass with a 9 count? How can you do full disclosure on a bid > which, in a 350 page treatise, doesn't seem to be explained except by 'I felt like > bidding 1NT'? Jeez, RTFM already. When you respond and when you don't, and why, are all spelled out in the book. If you don't like my methods or don't agree with them, fair enough, but it is simply false to say that I don't explain my ideas to the reader. As for how you explain things to the opponents, I assume that anyone experienced enough to even consider playing Revision would know how to alert and explain, but here goes. When the auction goes 1H-1NT by us, you alert and if asked, explain that the bid does not necessarily show any high cards, and may be a hand that would raise to 2H in standard. If the opponents ask further specific questions, go ahead and answer them. You also alert 1H-P as possibly containing 6 to 9 HCP, but always with a doubleton heart if you have that many points. It is not hard to do.

I am aware of the problem you point out here concerning NF bids. This comes up both with the responses to 1C, and in NFB auctions after limited openings. If I had found a way to easily show all three possible ranges by responder (GF, game invitational, game unlikely), I would have used it. The problem, of course, is that when you are talking about low-level bids, there aren't enough cards in the deck, so to speak, to show all of them right away. Specifically when talking about 1C openers, one thing you can do is cheat a little bit as responder. Normally you adopt a GF auction with an eight count and a suit to bid. This can lead to 24 point games, but in modern bridge, the attitude seems to be "so what, that's what you are supposed to do." So if opener with 16-17 chooses to drop out at a low level, you rarely miss a decent game. Similarly, in potential NFB auctions, you tend to drive to game with a close hand so that there won't be so much pressure on opener when you do make an NFB. One thing that has turned out to be true about the system is that in real life, opener rarely does pass the nonforcing responses. If he does, he is minimum with a doubleton; with anything else, he rebids, and responder will have a way to show the invitational hand with approximately 7 points at his next turn. The NF responses usually have the effect of slowing the auction down, not of stopping it completely. To my mind, if as responder to 1C you hold something like KQxxx/xx/Qxxx/xx, you are going to have a problem sooner or later. Whether you respond 1S (my way) or have an auction like 1C-1D, 2C-2S (regular Precision), there will always be a hand where you have maximum values and partner must choose whether or not to keep the auction alive just in case you have that hand. It is not a problem specific to Revision, it is a problem that exists universally. And while it might be possible to solve this *specific* problem by designing your system to address it, other problems will pop up somewhere else. If 1C-1S shows specifically 6-7, let's say, then when partner shows a minor suit after 1C-1D, you have to have a way to show both a hand weaker than that and a hand stronger than that, with spades. I don't see any obviously attractive way to do it. Maybe someone else can think of one. Anyhow, I have never said that Revision is perfect or problem-free, only that it is pretty good, and that it was the best I could come up with. The maximum-negative problem doesn't seem to come up all that often in practice. If you will be willing to take my word for something, I will tell you that I didn't adopt upside-down responses to 1C without a great deal of thought. I reviewed a couple of thousand world championship deals to satisfy myself that it would actually work in practice and not just in my armchair. It looked as though it would, and the (limited thus far, to be sure) experience of me and others seems to confirm that it does. However, be assured that I don't mind having potential soft spots in the system pointed out to me. Maybe I can do something about them and maybe I can't, but I am always willing to take another look. At this point, allow me to thank Adam and everyone else who has commented. I am very pleased that my work has received such favorable reviews, and many of them from people who have much greater credentials as players than I have. I was prepared to be told that I was some kind of a nut, but so far that hasn't happened. Now, all that is needed is someone who is willing to actually learn and play the system, all 350 pages of it. Wait a minute, maybe *that* person would have to be some kind of a nut . . . John Montgomery

I have played the system some on OKB. In practice there were no obvious problems with the responding structure, although the sample size was pretty small (you can easily play for an hour, or two, or three, without any big club hands coming up for your side, or with those that do come up being uninteresting). There are two pairs I know of out there using Revision at least to the extent of adopting the responses to 1C, and both have reported that it works well as far as they can tell. Assuming that 1C-1S is going to be natural, you can either play it the "normal" way, GF, or my way, weaker than that. (I suppose you could play it as 0 to infinity, but I haven't heard of anyone trying that, and I don't think it would be a great idea.) Either way, you only get to show one set of hands right away. The other type has to wait to bid its suit. My theory is that you are better off showing the weak hands right away, because those are the ones that may not get another chance. The opponents will have to bid pretty high to give you a problem when you have the strong hand. Example: 1C-(P), 1D-(2H), P-(P), 2S. You still get to show spades at a reasonable level with the GF hand. Sure, the opponents can bid higher than the two level, but how often does that happen? Both experience and research suggest to me that my way works at least as well as the positive responses of regular Precision. I am aware that some people have a visceral negative reaction to the 16-18 range, because it sounds like old-fashioned Goren. My experience is that it works fine. But if you would really rather play 15-17, there is an attractive way to do it as long as you don't mind adopting a Midchart convention. Play 2H instead of 2D as the Precision three-suiter short in diamonds; this is an approved Midchart method with a published defense. Use 2D as Mexican/Italian, 18-19 balanced. (If there were enough interest, I might write an additional chapter for the book to include this alternative method.) 2NT opening is 20-21 or 20-22, and so on. This takes care of all the balanced hands; what you lose is a weak two in hearts, but I could live with that. If you couldn't, you could try 2D Multi showing a weak two in hearts or 19-20 balanced. I'm not sure that one is Midchart legal, although it would be easy enough to make it work. Another way to accomplish all this would be to drop the 2NT opening to 18-19, but I don't like that one a whole lot. It took me a while to get up the nerve to say that it was OK to open 2NT with 19; I probably only did it because Rodwell and Meckstroth do it that away, and I surmised it must be all right if they were willing to do it. To go along with the reduction of 1NT to 15-17, you could then drop the lower limit for the 1C opening to 15. This allows limited opening bids of 10-14, or 11-14 if balanced. That would create a great deal of action since you would routinely be opening the bidding on ten counts with any shape. Of course you would have to raise the lower limits for positive bids by responder by a point to compensate. John Montgomery

The second and improved edition of The Revision Club is now available for the price of $0.00 American. At today's exchange rates, that is €0.00 for you Europeans, and £0.00 in Britain. Those of you who use other currencies will have to consult your local bureau de change. The new files can be downloaded from Dan Neill's systems page at http://www.geocities.com/daniel_neill_2000/sys/ . As before, I will send them directly as email attachments to anyone who prefers to get them that way. The email address for that is still jwmonty@earthlink.net. John Montgomery

Thanks, hrothgar. This sort of background information is exactly what I wanted to know about. I hope you and everyone else who has experience with this sort of thing will continue to spill the beans here and on rec.games.bridge. These forums are the only source of such information we have.

"Meckstroth has openly stated that he'll never permit the methods to be played in North America." When and where did he state this?

OK, you asked for it. Actually there is not much to the opening structure that is different from Precision as played by other people. 1C - Strong 16+ 1D - 11-15, can be a doubleton (but no shorter) 1M - 11-15 5 cards 1NT - Natural 16-18 2C - 11-15 6+ clubs 2D - 11-15 short diamonds, 4414 4405 4315 3415 2M - weak two 2NT - Natural 19-20 3 any - preempt 3NT - one solid major 4 any - preempt The key features, I would say, are the revised responses to the strong club. 1D is not (necessarily) negative; it is waiting, but can be weak. 1M is a weak natural response, not forcing, 5+ in the suit bid. 1NT is a special response showing weak 4-4 majors. You can see the emphasis on responder's showing his major suit cards immediately when he has a weak hand. 2m is also weak and nonforcing, but now showing a 6+ suit. Higher responses show GF 4441 hands and such. Essentially I am giving away the ability for responder to show immediate strength (most of the time) in exchange for showing his shape when he is weak. The strong hands catch up later. After hearing the waiting 1D response, opener rebids naturally with 1M. Rebids of 1NT and 2C are from Rigal, showing clubs and diamonds respectively, forcing, and giving opener a guaranteed third bid if he wants to make one (when responder simply accepts the transfer to 2m). Opener rebids 2D over 1D to show a strong 4441. 2H is Kokish, natural or very strong balanced. 2S and higher are mostly natural. Other features are not so different from regular Precision. Mostly it is the level of detail. No one has gone to the depths that I have (and you can take that any way you like). The other stuff that is new is the defensive bidding. I have replaced some bids that are normally natural with Astro definitions, so that intervenor can show hands with four card majors and five- or six-card minors conveniently in one bid. These hands are normally difficult to show. I also think the section on handling the strong club auctions after interference is pretty good, or at least, pretty detailed. Hope this helps. -- John Montgomery

I have (finally) finished writing The Revision Club, a bidding system book. It's free. Well, it's not really a book. No one, not even me, is going to send you an actual bound and printed book for nothing. What I will do is send you eleven Portable Document Format files. These total some 316 pages. You can read them on your computer's screen, or print them out if you like. By printing them on three-hole paper and putting them in a looseleaf binder, you will have an actual "book," although you have to do that part yourself. Revision is short for "revised Precision." The system incorporates ideas from the four R's (Rigal, Roth, Rosenkranz, and Rodwell), plus other theorists. Some guy named Gitelman is mentioned in it too. But most of it is stuff I made up myself. If you are interested, send me an email at jwmonty@earthlink.net, and I will send you the files. Those of you with too much time on your hands are invited to read them and post comments and suggestions here, or send them directly to me. So, come and get it, system freaks! One thing's for sure: Even if you don't like the system, you can't beat the price. -- John Montgomery