[1Wishbone1]

This is a bit of a continuation of "The 4 H Club" Topic which has disappeared into das Noumena below the box.

Montgomery's Revision Precision has 1 NT = 16 - 18 HCPs. The Precision 1 C opening also begins at 16 + HCPs and some interesting things begin to happen when Hand Eval pairs these 2 considerations (See: http://www.whidco.co...g_Precision.htm ).
If Balanced hands Open @ 16 - 18, then 1 C implies that, at least for the 16 - 18 range, there is a high(er) probability that Opener has a Singleton or Void. NEAT!
Almost immediately, another idea impinges: The 1 C - 1 NT Sequence should be suppressed. Consider:

1 C - 1 M must be open for immediate notification that Responder has a 5 Card Major. Also, if Responder bids 1 NT, Opener has to bid a Major at the 2 Level - not good.
The 1 C - 1 NT Sequence, however is just waiting to be used.

What would 1 C - 1 NT mean?

1. First, it could mean a real bust hand. This has been considered for decades by some Bridge Experts - friends, actually - and found wanting. If you think that would work lemme know... BTW, I have somthing better on this idea.

2. The Bid for 8 - 10 flat should be 1 D, showing more next round. What about 1 C - 1 NT = 11 + HCPs? This seems so 70s but it might work. Game Force => 16 + 11 = 27 HCPs.
3. If 1 C implies Unbalanced, then the 1 NT Response could indicate that Resp. also is Unbalanced, with no 5 Card Major (Though possibly with a 5 C m?).
4. Montgomery has 1 NT = 4 - 4 in the Majors and that would work fine. Other 2 suit combinations might recommend themselves here as well.
5."I've got 11+ with features, mebbe 12/13+ without. I've 3+ Controls and I'll bid the Controls over anything you bid. We're going places..."
6. My LTC is at most 8. GF.
7. Combination Bids galore: "I've got a long Minor and a 4 Card Major". "...4 or more Controls and a good LTC." Etc. Not just #4 but some non-similar combinations.

Anything good here in the Bargain Bin?

CW

[steve2005]

I always thought 5-4 in majors made sense as they are hard to bid.. Weak 5-4 hand you show 5M and hope right or can show 4M in Revision. Can use more distributional hands if make forcing.
8-10 bal wrong sides things if end up in 3N. 3 Kings makes more sense except for low frequency.
So maybe if balanced much stronger which are hard to bid when start at 2N can use 1N.
4441 are another hand hard to bid as start at high level, but again low frequency.

[PrecisionL]

I have played 1♣ - 1NT = G.F. With 5-4 or better in the majors or 4=4=(4-1) for 5 years now and am very satisfied with it.

Balanced 8-10 hcp hands are in the 2♦ response as per Rodwell.

[Zelandakh]

 1Wishbone1, on 2017-August-20, 17:53, said:

1 C - 1 M must be open for immediate notification that Responder has a 5 Card Major.

Why? Here are 2 alternative ideas for a response structure to 1♣:-

1♦ = any non-GF
1♥ = GF, 4+ spades, not bal or 3-suited with <4 hearts
1♠ = GF, no 4 card major
1NT = GF, ♥+♣ or ♥ 1-suiter
2♣ = GF, ♥+♦
2♦ = GF, 4+ hearts, 0-3 spades, bal or 3-suited
2♥ = GF, 4+ spades, 2-3 hearts, bal
2♠ = GF, 4-5 spades, 4-5 clubs, 4-5 diamonds, 0-1 hearts

and

1♦ = GF with 4+ hearts (if both majors then longer hearts or 4-4; or any <INV
1♥ = GF, 4+ spades (if both majors then longer spades or 5+-5+
1♠ = GF, no 4 card major
1NT-2♠ = semi-positives (ie invitational hands)
--

The simple truth is that using 1♥ to cater only to GF hands with 5+ hearts is a gross underutilisation of an important response. If you start with a logical fallacy then you will end up with something less than optimal at the end. There are a number of better uses for this call - 4+ spades (as above); Kokish; 5+ spades or 5+ clubs to name but three.

For 1NT, the 4+♥, 4+♠ meaning is an obvious candidate as it minimises the chance of wrong-siding. You can see in the above schemes that there are plenty of alternatives but it depends very much on the rest of the structure. I would suggest working out a good solution for 1♥ first and worrying about which hole to use 1NT for only once you know in which direction you want to go in for all 3 lower-ranking responses.

[Kungsgeten]

Perhaps Carrot responses could work? This gets responder out of the way unless he's got an interesting hand.

1♣---
1♦ = Negative.
1♥ = GF. No five card major, no six card minor, not 5-5 minors.
1♠ = GF, 5+ hearts.
1NT = GF, 5+ spades.
2m = GF, 6+ minor.
2♥ = GF, 5-5 minors.

Another option is to use the 1♥ response as a strong bid, and limit the other ones (kind of opposite of what Meckwell Light does).

1♣---
1♦ = Negative.
1♥ = Any 12+ hcp.
1♠ = 8-11 hcp. No five card major, no six card minor, not 5-5 minors.
1NT = 8-11 hcp, 5+ hearts.
2♣ = 8-11 hcp, 5+ spades.
2♦ = 8-11 hcp, 6+ clubs.
2♥ = 8-11 hcp, 6+ diamonds.
2♠ = 8-11 hcp, 5-5 minors.
2NT = 8-11 hcp, 5-5 majors.

[1Wishbone1]

I may need to start over.

1. Are there advantages to having a strong NT paired with a Precision 1 C Opening?

That's the start.
Given that,what follows?

2. NOW we have a 1 C open that is probably Unbalanced at the 16 - 18 level which places pressure on a Defense that counts on a high probability of a balanced 16 - 18 one Club open. See referenced article in OP.

3. THEN...

That's what I am exploring.
Thnx

[PrecisionL]

It depends. How do you show a 20 hcp balanced hand?

II suggest this NT ladder:

14-16 1NT
17-19 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT
20-21 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ (4+♥ or balanced 20-21) - 1♠ (dbl Neg., 0-4) -1NT
22-23 1♣ - 1♦ - 2NT
24-25 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ (as above) - 1♠ - 3NT

[steve2005]

The advantage to using 16-18 1N and Revision also uses 19-20 2N(though could skip and use for minors)
So now 1C is either 21+ or unbalancedso handling interference should be easier.
Also you don't need a natural 1N rebid after 1C. So can use 1N=♣, 2♣=D and 2D=4441. So can have extra bids when a minor especially 4M5+m

Not sure if this is truly advantage but that is the theory.

Disadvantage
1D has to be used for all balanced hands from 11-15

[1Wishbone1]

 PrecisionL, on 2017-August-21, 14:03, said:

How do you show a 20 hcp balanced hand?

Bid 2 NT or your Partnership agreement.

The pairing of 1 ♣ - 1 NT works for you on the 1 ♣ side since it allows the 1 ♣ opener to shift the Balanced 16 - 18 hands to 1 NT.
Defenses built around obstruction of 1 ♣ Sequences being balanced @ 16 - 18 more often than not now do not have that statistical guarantee that your hand is probably balanced at a minimum 16 (to 18).

The rest of your hand evaluation is not affected. You are simply making the 1 ♣ bid an Unbalanced Bid more often. The Strong, Balanced 1 NT machinery has decades of work behind it.

[Zelandakh]

1. Yes there are advantages to removing some balanced hands from a strong 1♣ opening. Unbalanced hands typically have slightly more power than balanced ones of the same hcp strength so using a structure of 16+ unbal or 17+ bal can help to homogenise the minimum strength. Moreover, in competition the balanced ranges above the minimum can be awkward, in much the same way as 18-19 bal can be problematic in natural systems.

2. Here I think you are overegging the pudding. Whether the minimum range is balanced or not adds zero pressure to the opps. They just want to gobble as much bidding space as possible quickly and get out and whether Opener has a singleton or a doubleton makes little difference.

3. To me, you are giving up more by using a 16-18 NT range than gaining against the more typical 14-16. If you want to remove balanced hands from 1♣ and move them to 1♦, it probably makes more sense to go the whole hog and make it the 17-18 range, breaking the limited nature of the opening but gaining in return a 1♣ opening easier to handle in competition.

As far as responses go, I am not so sure that removing the lowest balanced range has very much impact here. For relayers it does make having a structure including a reverse relay option more appealing. For non-relayers I think the difference comes more on Opener's rebid than the initial response.

[1Wishbone1]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-August-21, 23:53, said:

1. Yes there are advantages to removing some balanced hands from a strong 1♣ opening. Unbalanced hands typically have slightly more power than balanced ones of the same hcp strength so using a structure of 16+ unbal or 17+ bal can help to homogenise the minimum strength. Moreover, in competition the balanced ranges above the minimum can be awkward, in much the same way as 18-19 bal can be problematic in natural systems.

2. Here I think you are overegging the pudding. Whether the minimum range is balanced or not adds zero pressure to the opps. They just want to gobble as much bidding space as possible quickly and get out and whether Opener has a singleton or a doubleton makes little difference.

3. To me, you are giving up more by using a 16-18 NT range than gaining against the more typical 14-16. If you want to remove balanced hands from 1♣ and move them to 1♦, it probably makes more sense to go the whole hog and make it the 17-18 range, breaking the limited nature of the opening but gaining in return a 1♣ opening easier to handle in competition.

As far as responses go, I am not so sure that removing the lowest balanced range has very much impact here. For relayers it does make having a structure including a reverse relay option more appealing. For non-relayers I think the difference comes more on Opener's rebid than the initial response.

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.

[Zelandakh]

 1Wishbone1, on 2017-August-22, 01:07, said:

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.

You are welcome. On the subject of incorporating a diamond positive, my suggestion would be to look at Adam's (awm) IMPrecision system, which uses the 1♦ response to cover a split range of hands that ends up being more efficient than a pure 1♦ positive. Hopefully he will read this and weigh in at some point - if not you could try messaging him and hope that he has email notifications on.

In any case, IMPrecision should probably be your first port of call in evaluating anything you come up with. If you took it with a natural (20-21ish) 2NT opening it would probably be pretty close to your design goals out of the box. And I am sure you could fiddle with the NT ranges - 14+-17 instead of 13+-16 for example - without doing too much damage. Again, Adam is the best contact point here - he could probably tell you precisely the best way of adjusting the system and is always happy to help on questions of system design.

[Kungsgeten]

 1Wishbone1, on 2017-August-21, 12:03, said:

I may need to start over.

1. Are there advantages to having a strong NT paired with a Precision 1 C Opening?

That's the start.
Given that,what follows?

2. NOW we have a 1 C open that is probably Unbalanced at the 16 - 18 level which places pressure on a Defense that counts on a high probability of a balanced 16 - 18 one Club open. See referenced article in OP.

3. THEN...

That's what I am exploring.
Thnx

1. Yes, it makes the strong club somewhat easier to handle in competition and it may also allow for better strong club continuations in an uncontested auction (especially over a negative response). However, some players think that an advantage of strong club is to put the strong NT hands there, since you gain more space (Kit Woolsey is an advocate for this theory).

2. As Zelandakh said, I do not think there is more pressure on the opponents. An interesting thing though is what the strong club opener's pass mean. In a normal strong club structure, my guess is that opener's pass most commonly has the strong NT hand (something like 17-19) since that is the "minimum" of the strong club opening. In Revision, the minimum is 16-18 balanced, but these usually want to compete anyway?

3. I thought this post was about response structures to the strong club, which may benefit from the 16-18 NT range being removed. There's a theory that unbalanced hands should tell, while balanced hands should ask. That to me means that responder perhaps should have some kind of low level waiting bids, as a response to the strong club? Meckwell Light sort of does this, with 1♦ being a negative (opener describes his hand), and 1♥ being almost any hand with 8-11 hcp (I'm not familiar with the system, but I guess opener now takes control) and other bids showing 12+ hcp (takes up space, but at least we have a nice portion of the hcp).

---

In our Swedish Club system we've removed the strong NT hands from the 1♣ opening. The most common Swedish Club structure is to play 1♣ as 11-13 NT or any hand with 17+ hcp. We've removed 17-19 NT range (and also 17-19 with primary diamonds, but that's another story), because opener does not have the strong club luxury of passing in competition when holding the 17-19 NT (responder will think he has the weak NT). This is quite different from a strong club ofcourse, but regarding the benefit of responses (especially if you play a negative diamond response), the benefits may be similar.

Our diamond response is almost any hand with 0-7 hcp, or 8-10 NT without a four card major. If you were to adopt our continuations over this to a Revision club (16-20 NT doesn't open 1♣), it would probably look something like this:

1♣-1♦;
1♥ = Forcing, but limited. Unbalanced with 4 hearts and longer minor, about 16-19 hcp, or an unbalanced non-forcing strong two bid in any suit (about 19-22 hcp).
1♠ = Unbalanced with 4+ spades, less than a strong two. May have a longer side suit, hearts included.
1NT = Forcing. 21+ NT, or any GF not covered by 2♠ or higher.
...2♣ = Waiting. Most hands bid this.
......2♦ = 21-23 NT.
......2♥ = Natural GF, 5+♥.
......2♠ = GF with 5+♣.
......2NT = Natural GF, 24+ NT.
......3♣+ = GF with 5+♦.
2♣♦♥ = Natural unbalanced, less than a strong two bid. Denies side suit in a major (2♥ could perhaps be 5-5 hearts + minor).
2♠ = Natural GF with 5+ spades. No five+ side suit.
2NT = GF with 5-5 diamonds and another suit.
3♣ = GF with 5-5 clubs and a major.
3♦ = GF with 5-5 majors.
3♥♠ = Natural GF, sets trump suit.
4♣♦ = Natural GF, sets trump suit.

16-20 hands with 1-4-4-4 are a problem.

---

I think it has been suggested in another thread, but another way to remove some awkward NT hands out of a strong 1♣ could be to remove the "medium" strong NT range, while keeping the "minimum" strong NT range. Something like this:

1♣ = 16-18 NT, or 22+ NT, or 16+ unbal.
1♦ = Nebulous, including 12-15 NT.
1NT = 19-21 NT.

or like this:

1♣ = 15-17 NT or 22+ NT or 16+ unbal.
1NT = (11)12-14 NT.
2♦ = 18-19 NT.
2NT = 20-21 NT.

or like this:

1♣ = 16-18 NT or 21+ NT or 16+ unbal.
1♦ = Nebulous, including 13-15 NT.
1NT = 10-12 NT.
2NT = 19-20 NT.

Now if they compete, opener has already shown that he has a strong hand, and will often pass (unless partner does something ofcourse) with the minimum strong NT hand. With the "really strong NT", he has enough to bid voluntary (like in Revision).

[1Wishbone1]

 Kungsgeten, on 2017-August-22, 02:36, said:

Yes, it makes the strong club somewhat easier to handle in competition and it may also allow for better strong club continuations in an uncontested auction (especially over a negative response). However, some players think that an advantage of strong club is to put the strong NT hands there, since you gain more space (Kit Woolsey is an advocate for this theory).

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.

Quote

As Zelandakh said, I do not think there is more pressure on the opponents.

That's OK. Responder needs Information and this gives him some. If the opponents want to dive into an empty pool, let 'em.

Quote

I thought this post was about response structures to the strong club, which may benefit from the 16-18 NT range being removed.

Yeah, well, I forget things sometimes...You are very correct. My Sequences Handbook isn't finished yet. My Goal is to rival Montgomery...

Quote

There's a theory that unbalanced hands should tell, while balanced hands should ask. That to me means that responder perhaps should have some kind of low level waiting bids, as a response to the strong club?

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?).

[1Wishbone1]

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.

[1Wishbone1]

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...

[PrecisionL]

1Wishbone1 said:

1503715622[/url]' post='931386']
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...

That is 7 World Titles for Sonty!

Their Precision System is very simple and direct, similar to what Berkowitz played with Larry Cohen.