[david_c]

joshs, on Feb 21 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

I personally, was not impressed with that book. He gives many example auctions, which all basically involved someone guessing at the correct final contract, or guessing to make an agressive or conservative bid at some point. Yes it was an ok foundation, and it was easy, but it did not give superior auctions...

Yeah I would agree with this. Having decided that I really liked the opening structure, I read the book expecting it to be full of great ideas. But it isn't really. The book is typical of what you get from someone writing up their pet system, except that in this case he has found a very good opening structure.

My own opinion hasn't changed much in the three years(!) since I started this thread. If I was playing a weak NT (which ideally I would do in 1st seat NV) I would base the system on MC. But since it's too difficult to play completely different systems in different positions, I currently play Polish throughout.

[PrecisionL]

david_c, on Feb 22 2008, 07:43 AM, said:

joshs, on Feb 21 2008, 09:01 PM, said:

I personally, was not impressed with that book. He gives many example auctions, which all basically involved someone guessing at the correct final contract, or guessing to make an agressive or conservative bid at some point. Yes it was an ok foundation, and it was easy, but it did not give superior auctions...

Yeah I would agree with this. Having decided that I really liked the opening structure, I read the book expecting it to be full of great ideas. But it isn't really. The book is typical of what you get from someone writing up their pet system, except that in this case he has found a very good opening structure.

My own opinion hasn't changed much in the three years(!) since I started this thread. If I was playing a weak NT (which ideally I would do in 1st seat NV) I would base the system on MC. But since it's too difficult to play completely different systems in different positions, I currently play Polish throughout.

Interestingly, I have been playing my version of MC for 3 years. I like our revisions, but others may not.

1♣ = same as MC, but rebid of 2♦ asks for controls, not 2♣ so we avoid rebidding 3♣ with a 15+ hcp hand and 5 or 6 clubs and unbalanced.

Responses to 1♣: I play 2♣ as the main G.F., artificial, opener rebids 2♦ with 15-18 balanced and natural bidding from there. 2NT rebid = 19+ hcp. Suit rebids are two suited with 5+♣ or very strong (rebid the suit to show 5).

Other responses to 1♣:
1NT = 5-5 and G.F., opener can discover both suits under 3NT
2♦ > 2NT = transfer to good 6-card suit and G.F.
3X = G.F. 1-under splinter, either 4441 or 54 in minors or 6-cd minor with slam
interest

Other opening bids:
1♥/♠ = 4 or 5 card major
1NT = 11-14
2♣/♦ = 10-14 and good suit, no 4-card major (Qxxx+)
2♥/♠ = 6-10 & 6-cards in 1st & 2nd seat, 10-14 and 5M332 in 3rd 7 4th seats
2NT = 5-5 minors, rare 5-4 with good 4-card suit and poor 5-card suit

Also: 1M - 2♣ = A. G. F. asking for major suit distribution

Larry

[Flame]

Glad someone brought back this link,because i desided to play it at our next nationals

[benlessard]

Comparaisons between what i play and MC for the opening structure.

2D---weak so we have no way for 4414.
2C same thing except we prefer 11-15 instead of 10(11)--14
1Nt--- we play 10-14/12-15 instead of 12-14
1M we have 12-14+ 18-22 always unbalanced vs 12-22
1D--- at least 4D unbalanced
1C--- 15+ balanced, 15+ clubs, 15-17 with 5M unbalanced. All GF hands

The frequency of our 1C opening is lower then in precision but higher then in MC. The key is that the 5M hand are splitted into 4.

weak or 18--22 its 1M , 15-17 or Gf its 1C.

So we have a part precision with natural D. Our system might have legality issues since some 5M are upgraded into 1C withouth having their full 15 HCP