New bidding system book available

[jwmonty]

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

[glen]

Would it be possible to post a thumbnail description about the system - opening structure and key features? Thanks in advance!

[jwmonty]

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

[Flame]

After reading it for few hours i must say you did a great job, your ideas makes lots of sense, they are revulutional and will be lots of fun to play, i hope i will find someone to play this with. Thanks alot for this book.

[luke warm]

very nice, excellent job.. now if it was all in FD B)

[cyh]

I printed the Revision and reading in every opportunity.I really got impressed from amount of work and time needed.Thank you for this beautyful system and book.

[bearmum]

Thank you for the book -- now all I have to do is read it all :P

[jwmonty]

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

[keylime]

John,

 

It is a splendid effort that you have placed into the method. Truly well done, and worthy of a drink and discussion if you're still in the D.C. area.

 

What I found to be the most interesting is the consistency of approach that you espoused in the excellent dichotomy between a "system", a "treatment, and an "approach". That, and the devastating beatdown you gave to 2/1 GF was joyous to my eyes.

[civill]

Opening seems not anything fresh.

[the hog]

Oh for heaven's sake - he gave it to you for nix; be grateful. And please get rid of that idiotic sig.

[rbforster]

Thanks for all your hard work John. I enjoyed looking over the basics of the system, and will take a more careful look later. I liked the responses to the limited 1 of suit openings on 0 counts :huh:.

[glen]

I especially like the section in the forward about prep work, including:

Any serious competitive pursuit requires a lot of study and preparation, as compared to the relatively small proportion of time during which the actual work is done. So why should bridge be any different? The answer is, it isn’t. If you hope to compete at the top level, it is a good idea to put in the work.

[kenrexford]

John,

 

It is a splendid effort that you have placed into the method. Truly well done, and worthy of a drink and discussion if you're still in the D.C. area.

 

What I found to be the most interesting is the consistency of approach that you espoused in the excellent dichotomy between a "system", a "treatment, and an "approach". That, and the devastating beatdown you gave to 2/1 GF was joyous to my eyes.

I am not sure that I saw the same "beatdown" you saw. I was impressed by the analysis, as well, as it pertained to general theory. However, I think the point made throughout was that any general approach can be successful if particularized well enough and that most 2/1 players have no such methods OR that those pairs who use sufficient methods in the context of 2/1 GF necessarily end up with much more complexity than a strong club system requires.

 

In other words, the problem with 2/1 GF seems to be that an effective 2/1 system is possible but requires too much work for the average or even above-average player, the result being that most simply decide against that extra effort.

 

I have experimented with a number of general approaches, sometimes at complexity levels worthy of the title "system." The obvious four are Standard, K-S, 2/1 GF, and Precision. I have also experimented with two versions of a canape system, once with a strong club and once with a strong 1♦; the former with hundreds of pages of system notes. I have also experimented with various structure differences to these approaches, and with a number of LIA systems. Each general approach has merits and deficits, and strange conventions and treatments arise from basic approaches if one understands the overall theory and maximizes its benefits properly while minimizing deficits as best possible.

 

After this experience, my reading of the theory essays in this book impressed me as both thoughtful and fair. It seems that the author has a good grasp of core issues faced by various general approaches, as applied by real people.

[keylime]

Let me expound on why I chose the word "beatdown".

 

When I read it the 2nd time today the one theme that I sense was a strong dislike of not the 2/1 approach as much as it was the aura, the sense of utmost superiority that many 2/1'ers express. For me, one of the main failures of 2/1 GF is not the mechanism of 2/1 GF initially; it is as alluded to by many the follow-ons that cause utter confusion. I think this is part of the reason why many pick-ups playing with other pick-ups struggle at first - there are many regional styles and differences. Recently I played with an up and coming player in a team match and she and I had a complete disaster in an unopposed auction because the follow-on bids were so badly misinterpreted by both of us. No one's fault; more like we thought the bids meant something distinctly different.

 

The level writing that John used was both honest and revealing - for him to have made it a point to explain the failings of the 2/1 perception was why I chose such a sharp noun.

 

So let me instead substitute it for another word(s). "Resoundingly stated".

[kenrexford]

As a 2/1 GF player, I'll type slowly so you understand. LOLOL

 

I'd have to agree completely on that point, actually. Some of the most absurd auctions I have seen are absurd because supposedly qualified Flight A players have remarkably difficult times reaching amazingly simple contracts because of the problems you have noted. The "2/1 GF" system for many seems to be that we bid two over one when we want to be in game, find a fit, raise it, and then wonder about slam without a clue as to what to do next.

 

Let alone introduce Bart or the like.

 

The system "Practical 2/1 GF" often features solutions like the head-scratching slam invite, the Really Fast Arrival sign-off, and the like.

[mikeh]

I have only read the introduction and started reading the major suit structure.

 

I am not pretending to comment on the entire system, since I have seen only a miniscule part of it. Frankly, I doubt that I will ever read the entire work, in part because I doubt that any of my current or future partners will, which will be a shame.

 

Let me, however, add my strong endorsement to the Introduction: a well-written, and logical 'introduction' to the book... and written in a style entirely consistent with that part of the 'meat' I have so far read.

 

I personally lived part of what he writes about: in 1995-2000 I was one half of an extremely hard working partnership that had a true 'system'.... to the point that we had agreements that never came up... but we were ready if they did. We viewed playing in our national team trials as work... we spent countless more hours discussing methods than we ever spent playing. Which is how a grinder like me got to play in back to back world championships... no-one has ever accused me of being a natural card-player... and I am (or was) living proof that, for a well-prepared partnership, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

If John's system is as coherently reasoned as his introduction.... then he has done the bridge community a definite favour.

[DrTodd13]

Please, somebody do a FD version of this. I would but my schedule is pretty booked these days.

[keylime]

I'm going to cross-reference Dan's site with John's work on the blog tonight or tomorrow with some comments.

[david_c]

I've got to agree - the book is brilliantly written, particularly the introductory sections. Even though I really don't like the system, I'm glad I read it.

[akhare]

I have only been through the introduction and a couple of chapters and almost feel compelled to stand up and shout "bravo!!!".

 

Eloquent, humourous, precise, insightful and eminently readable -- when was the last time you could say that about a bridge systems book?

[Impact]

I have only delved into various chapters and scanned the remainder generally:-

 

1. It is well- written (unusual in this day and age - all the more so from a "system book") and actually readable as opposed to my own system notes which are designed for minimal reproduction and maximum information;

 

2. Although I disagree with many portions of the underlying principles as being optimal or even close thereto, the case is well-argued;

 

3. Unlike many such system books which are mere egofests, this acknowledges the work of others, and at least essays alternative bases;

 

4. There is an internal cohesion and cogence to many portions which is sensible;

 

5. On individual themes John has adopted Majors first as an on-going theme (cf Moscito, Symmetric, Mafia, Blue etc) and I agree with the policy - albeit not the detail, and prefer relay aligned with transfers and fit style, together with more puppets and substitute bids;

 

6. As opposed to readability for absorption and/or learning the system I think a chart of the base responses to the opening bid at the beginning of each relevant section would aid someone seeking to understand how the system is put together/learn it by perceiving the overview of style from the responses.

 

anyway - FWIW - congratulations

[gwnn]

This is a wow book... Very nice ideas... The ideas are very well stated and defended.. The more unorthodox a treatment is, the more explanation it gets and the more logical and obvious they seem after reading about it :(

 

Congratulations!

[jmc]

I have really enjoyed your book. It has helped me think a lot about the system I play and ways it could be improved. Thanks for all your hard work.

 

I was wondering how much you have played the system. It seems like making many game forcing responders bid 1D after opener's 1C goes against your general colors and shape first philosophy. My worry would be that weak hands get to describe their shape but stronger hands are vulnerable to preemption. In practice how has this worked out?

 

I really dislike the 16-18 range but would you be more apt to describe this as 15+-18-? Do you feel playing the range 15-17, 18-20, and 21 + would be a big minus? I think your idea of taking all but the biggest balanced hands out of the 1C is very interesting.

 

Thanks again,

 

jmc

[awm]

Congratulations! Nice to see a book with detailed continuations and explanation of the reasoning, even if I don't agree with some of the methods adopted.

 

One thing I've noticed (in my own messing around with methods) is that non-forcing bids which show "up to just short of GF values" don't seem to work very well. The reason is that the main advantage of non-forcing bids is that partner can pass! But with this type of bid the range of hands where partner can pass is extremely narrow. Partner needs to have dead minimum values (even a queen better and we could miss a game opposite a max NF response). Partner needs enough support that playing in the suit named will not be embarrassing, but not so much support that a fitting suit-contract game is likely. And even then, it's quite possible to be wrong since the NF bidder could have a bit of extra shape (even just one more card in the suit) which makes game suddenly feasible. In my experience non-forcing bids work a lot better if they deny values for game unless a good fit is present (or unless a wide-ranging opener is substantially stronger than the norm). One of the nice things about limited openings is that this is actually a pretty wide range of hands (say 0 to a bad 10 hcp)! Opposite a strong 1♣ opening the 0-5 range (where game is actually very unlikely) is sufficiently uncommon that I'd expect better results from either game forcing positives or responses that are a one-round force with something like "semi-positive or better" values.

 

In any case, difference of opinion on what methods are "best" are part of what makes bridge fun. I definitely endorse the idea of having comprehensive notes and agreements rather than stumbling in the dark with "standard" methods and no further discussion, and this book adds something to the field.