[mikestar13]

I am working on a new version of Precision, combining some ideas from John Mongomery's Revision Club and the 1♣-♦-1M structure Kit Woolsey has presented on Bridge Winners, combined with some ideas of my own.

In principle, all 16+ unbalanced or semi-balanced hands are opened 1♣. But the structure for balanced hand is different. Balanced hands with good 11-15 are opened 1M with a 5 card major or 1♦ without one. The 1nT opening is a super strong 1619, while 2NT a good 22 to 24. One club is opened on balanced hands 20-bad 22 or 25+. Thus 1♣ shows 20 points or some shape. Some preliminary tests indicate this really helps with handling interference--responder can bid with more confidence knowing opener will not have a flat ~17 point hand. It also helps constructive auctions on opener's minor suit hands, a weak point in some Precisions.

A brief outline of opener's rebids after 1♣-1♦:

1♥ = Unbalanced with 5+ hearts, or 4 hearts with a longer minor, or 4H441.Forcing.
1♠= Unbalanced with 5+spades, or 4 spades with a longer minor, or 4-1-4-4. Forcing.
1NT = Transfer to clubs.6+ clubs or 5 clubs with 4 diamonds, no 4 card major.
2♣= Transfer to diamonds, 6+ diamonds or 5 diamonds with 4+ clubs, no 4 card major.
2♦=20-bad 22 balanced, may have 5 card major.
2M=Strong two in the major.
2NT=25+ balanced, may have 5 card major. Forcing to game.
3m=Strong two in minor, tends to be one suited, denies a four card major.
3NT=16+ gambling with solid minor.

[PrecisionL]

My only suggestion (until I understand your system design):

1NT should have a 3 pt range maximum for better bidding.
2NT should have a 2 pt range for accurate bidding.

1♦ can be balanced OR unbalanced 11-15 hcp?

More tomorrow ...

[phoenix214]

The 1D is a mess, if you play it as 11-15 balanced.
Hard to figure out when to invite and when to not - you will land too much in 2N if you play standard methods. In that case you could try 1H as some sort of range ask.

[steve2005]

The Original Revision by Montgomery used a 1N range of 16-18 and 2N 19-20
Now good 15s were included in 1N, so 1D/1M if balanced were 12- an indifferent 15 which is more manageable. I think some balanced 12 hcp hands are even passed but I wouldn't go that far lol.
Good 18's were upgraded to 2N, this is kinda brave. But also bad 19's could be downgraded to 1N.

[steve2005]

I don't understand why 4 card majors that have longer minor are included in 1♣-1♦-1M
Revision's idea is to basically use your standard 2/1 GF system at this point which I think is brilliant and a major point to the system. Allowing 4-card majors defeats the whole purpose.
You have 2 ways in Revision to show 4M5+m: Ive omitted + from below
1♣:1♦-1N (♣)-bid-2M = 4M5♣
1♣:1♦-2♣ (♦)-bid-2M = 4M5♦
big hands
1♣-1♦-3M=4M5♦ GF
1♣-1♦-3♣=GF now 3♦ asks for 4M

Additionally if a real minimum you can just show the minor.

And if you use Kokish 2♥ your can use 1♣-1♦-2♦ for 4441 hands.
Now you guarantee 5M after 1♣-1♦-1M

[Phil]

Hate 3 point NT ranges. Hate 4 even more.

Not worth any other gains this structure may deliver sorry.

[PrecisionL]

 steve2005, on 2016-July-27, 14:15, said:

I don't understand why 4 card majors that have longer minor are included in 1♣-1♦-1M

I understand the 1♣ opener showing a 4-cd major after 1♣ - 1♦ as I have been playing this way for 15 years:

1) When responder is very weak, you can often play in 2 of a minor with the 4M & longer minor hand.
2) Also the 1♥ Kokish rebid handles the 20+ balanced hands very well and allows playing 1NT when responder has a double negative (<4 hcp)
3) Rebidding 1♥ allows a very weak responder to show a weak hand with 4+ ♠s.

[steve2005]

 PrecisionL, on 2016-July-27, 22:57, said:

I understand the 1♣ opener showing a 4-cd major after 1♣ - 1♦ as I have been playing this way for 15 years:

1) When responder is very weak, you can often play in 2 of a minor with the 4M & longer minor hand.
2) Also the 1♥ Kokish rebid handles the 20+ balanced hands very well and allows playing 1NT when responder has a double negative (<4 hcp)
3) Rebidding 1♥ allows a very weak responder to show a weak hand with 4+ ♠s.

Yes, I am aware of this. But Revision found a way to show 5-card majors and other ways to show 44441 or 4M5m longer. This was a major point in Revision and he just removed it. I wondered why?
after 1♣-1♦-1♥ your playing your 2/1 GF system adjusted for pts. but 1♠ is 4♠ weak NF and 2♠ is GF
Also over 1♣-1♦-1♠ you use 2/1 GF system
I think it is a major point to Revision not to be thrown out lightly.

[mikestar13]

Thanks everyone for your input. Some more detailed explanations:

This is not an attempt to create a modified Revision Club, I have borrowed some of Montgomery's ideas while going other directions on many sequences. I have played Revision from Montgomery's notes but I just don't care for some of his ideas. I love taking minimum balanced hands out of the big club--it really helps 1♣-(intervention) sequences for responder to know that opener is 20+ or has some shape. But I find Montgomery's 1♣-1♦ =almost any unbalanced positive or any 0+ balanced hand workable if and only if next opponent shuts up, unlike a 1♦ game forcing response in Moscito, for example, which is more playable.

I also have become quit fond of the 1♣-♦-1M sequences such as PrecisionL uses. I learned them from Kit Woolsey's articles on Bridge Winners, but have seen them elsewhere.

Mongomery himself attributes the 1NT and 2♣ transfer rebids to Barry Rigal's Precision in the 90/s. I do like these--they are a big help on almost but not quite good enough to force to game minor suit hands: after 1♣-1♦-2♣ transfer to diamonds, responder bids 2♦ on any hand which would have passed 2♦ natural, and opener can bid again if interested in inviting game. The knowledge that opener can't have a four card major makes the follwups on responder's invitational hands simpler than in Revision.

Certainly, the point ranges for the NT bids can be adjusted to narrow the ranges if desired. I rather like opener's 2♦ rebid on a minimum 2NT-ish hand--responder can get out in diamonds or spades at the two level with a five+ card suit and a weak hand.

[steve2005]

If your main concern is taking 16-19 balanced out of 1♣
one possible solution: 1N=15-17, 2♦=18-19 bal Mexican and 2N=20-21
The only thing you give up is your 1♦=0+♦ as your opening 4414, 4315, 3415, 4405. People have done this not me, so I can't say how it works out.

[mikestar13]

 steve2005, on 2016-July-29, 13:37, said:

If your main concern is taking 16-19 balanced out of 1♣
one possible solution: 1N=15-17, 2♦=18-19 bal Mexican and 2N=20-21
The only thing you give up is your 1♦=0+♦ as your opening 4414, 4315, 3415, 4405. People have done this not me, so I can't say how it works out.

An idea worth considering, if I can work out a useable structure for the 1♦ opening.

[steve2005]

other option if your VERY BRAVE LOL
1N=15-17
2N=18-19
will be hard to double but going down can still be a disaster

[straube]

I think the design goal of removing strong balanced hands from 1C is bad. You should want to open these low so that your partner has room to show his shape. Another thing is that if you remove strong balanced hands from 1C, your 1C opening will be noticeably under-utilized. You'll have to ask yourself why you're so seldom using your most important bid. As others have noted, you'll put more pressure on your other openings and your NT ladder will suffer.

If you really want to remove strong balanced from 1C I think steve2005's ladder is probably the best you could do, but your 1D will be overloaded and your 2D and 2N will be slam-kilers.

[mikestar13]

 straube, on 2016-July-29, 22:51, said:

I think the design goal of removing strong balanced hands from 1C is bad. You should want to open these low so that your partner has room to show his shape. Another thing is that if you remove strong balanced hands from 1C, your 1C opening will be noticeably under-utilized. You'll have to ask yourself why you're so seldom using your most important bid. As others have noted, you'll put more pressure on your other openings and your NT ladder will suffer.

If you really want to remove strong balanced from 1C I think steve2005's ladder is probably the best you could do, but your 1D will be overloaded and your 2D and 2N will be slam-kilers.

Opening ~17 flat hands with 1♣ works fine if the opponents are silent. But if they are not...... Reducing the frequency of the 1♣ opening is not necessarily a bad thing--I not heard Moscito partnerships (who of necessity open 1♣ lighter than Precision partnerships do) advocate "open 1♣ as often as possible". The 1♣ opening is the price we pay for more narrowly limited one bids--even if well-designed, it tends to lose imps/matchpoints when used. The gains from the limited openings outweigh these losses by a considerable margin. if a designs could reduce the losses from 1♣ without reducing the gains from the limit bids by as much. I am not at all certain that a Revision-inspired method will accomplish this, but I am not certain it won't, either. I deem it a hypothesis worth testing, rather than rejecting the idea out of hand. YMMV.

I have played1♦=diamonds or any balanced hand <16 without 5cM.,without that much more difficulty than 1♦=diamonds or any balanced 11-13 without 5cM. (it involves passing flat 11's--anathema to some readers.)

I have also played a method when 1♣ is any 16+, 1NT=12-15, and 1♦
is unbalanced--the unbalanced 1♦ opening is easy to handle, but 1♣ is more vulnerable to intervention.

[steve2005]

 mikestar13, on 2016-July-31, 17:46, said:

Opening ~17 flat hands with 1♣ works fine if the opponents are silent.

Also, It means when opp come in and opener doubles they are 20+ (or 21+/22+ depending on your 2NT range) and you may be able to collect a serious penalty.

[mikestar13]

I've decided to stop working on this. I haven't used it for enough deals to verify if it gains, and if it does, some idea of how much. I just miss the fun of getting in the opponents' face with a weaker 1NT opening. The system may or may not be a winner mathematically; for me, it is a loser psychologically.

[ulven]

Do remember that theorethical gains/losses may not reflect actual outcomes, often due to frequencies and human judgement.

I just came back from Summer NABC. Played strong 1C (17+ if BAL) and wide range 1M for 400+ boards against top notch opponents, winning two regional imp events and losing in R32 in Spingold.

IMHO: 17 BAL in 1C was never a problem. Limited opening bids in 1M is over rated, prefer including 5+M & 4+ sidesuit in 1M instead of 1C since these are easily the hands most vulnerable to enemy interference.
That works very well and makes 1C-1D continuations must easier.

[Zelandakh]

 mikestar13, on 2016-July-31, 17:46, said:

The gains from the limited openings outweigh these losses by a considerable margin. if a designs could reduce the losses from 1♣ without reducing the gains from the limit bids by as much. I am not at all certain that a Revision-inspired method will accomplish this, but I am not certain it won't, either. I deem it a hypothesis worth testing, rather than rejecting the idea out of hand. YMMV.

Well you can note that the largest part of the gains from limited openings can be taken with a max of 17 with lesser gains on the 16-17 point hands and take the Polish/Swedish route for 1M openings. That allows you to start your balanced ladder within 1♣ lower without overloading it. If you use the "1NT = (11)12-14; 1♣ = 15+nat/bal or 18+ any" framework you can combine it with your preferred weak NT too. Take a look at An Unassuming Club (and my system for that matter) for some ideas in this direction. If you like the structure, there are several other forms around the internet starting from this base.