[VM1973]

I have designed a system because of some frustration over mixing Zar Points with standard HCPs. Zar points are useful with unbalanced hands, but I feel that standard points are better for NT hands. The problem has been that a person may open a shapely 8 HCP hand and then feel uncomfortable when his partner doubles for penalties. It occurred to me that one solution was to switch to a 12-14 HCP NT, an innovation that solved some, but not all of the problems. Recently, I hit upon the idea of using a semi-strong 1♣ opener to describe 15-19 balanced hands. The rebid shows whether the hand is 15-17 or 18-19 with 20-21 handled by a 2NT opener. The 1♣ is also used mega strong hands. To clarify, a person does not open 1♣ with any strong hand. Holding 34 ZPs and 5-4-3-1 the opener should open 1♠, as usual.

The first problem I encountered was that 4-4-1-4 and 4-4-4-1 hands became difficult to handle. One solution was to abandon 5 card majors, but I decided to experiment with a 2♦ opener to show an opening hand with 4-4 majors and a stiff in one of the minors.

So the next question becomes how to handle a hand such as the following:

♠ K2
♥ K2
♦ K432
♣K5432

Since the hand contains 12 HCPs (29 ZPs) it's a pretty standard minimum opener. The problem is, what to open? Since 1♣ is out, one possibility is 2♣ and another is to open 1♦. Both have drawbacks. Any thoughts?

[Zelandakh]

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 08:41, said:

It occurred to me that one solution was to switch to a 12-14 HCP NT, an innovation that solved some, but not all of the problems.
<snip>
So the next question becomes how to handle a hand such as the following:

♠ K2
♥ K2
♦ K432
♣K5432

What's wrong with opening 1NT?

[mycroft]

1NT, especially in a structure that makes me declarer most of the time, seems like the obvious answer. Not only obvious, but perfect. Partner will transfer and put us into a 5-2 fit most of the time? What's so wrong with that - and if you open anything else, are you not likely to still be playing the 5-2, but with the opening lead going through the king?

[VM1973]

That wasn't the question. It's apparent that you haven't thought about the topic enough.

You like bidding 1NT with this particular hand. Fine. Do you also bid 1NT with:

♠32
♥32
♦KQJ2
♣AJ532 (26 ZPs)

Or what about:

♠2
♥K32
♦KQ32
♣K5432 (27 ZPs)

still 1NT?

Or are you going to actually give an opinion as to whether 1♦ or 2♣ is a better way of handling the fact that a 1♣ opener is systemically not possible with 4-5 minor hands?

[m1cha]

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 08:41, said:

Recently, I hit upon the idea of using a semi-strong 1♣ opener to describe 15-19 balanced hands. The rebid shows whether the hand is 15-17 or 18-19 with 20-21 handled by a 2NT opener.

I did that for quite a while. More precicely, we opened 1♣ with 15 - 20 points balanced, the 1NT rebid showed 15 - 18 pts while the 2NT rebid showed 19 - 20 pts. I have always felt that worked pretty well.
(The 2NT opener showed both minors, weak, but that's a different matter.)

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 08:41, said:

The first problem I encountered was that 4-4-1-4 and 4-4-4-1 hands became difficult to handle. One solution was to abandon 5 card majors, but I decided to experiment with a 2♦ opener to show an opening hand with 4-4 majors and a stiff in one of the minors.

Interestingly, I have turned to treating 4414 and 4441 hands as 'semi-balanced', even 5431 with 5-1 in the minors. So I wouldn't worry about that. Unless of course it is illegal in your country to open 1NT with those.

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 08:41, said:

So the next question becomes how to handle a hand such as the following:

♠ K2
♥ K2
♦ K432
♣K5432

1NT.

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 21:28, said:

♠32
♥32
♦KQJ2
♣AJ532 (26 ZPs)

Or what about:

♠2
♥K32
♦KQ32
♣K5432 (27 ZPs)

still 1NT?

Or are you going to actually give an opinion as to whether 1♦ or 2♣ is a better way of handling the fact that a 1♣ opener is systemically not possible with 4-5 minor hands?

I also tried opening 1NT with a singleton in a major but stopped it. It failed too often.

In my country we regularly open 1♣ and rebid 2♣ with 5-card suits, so these hands would qualify.

For also quite while I opened 1♦ and rebid 2♣ with weak xx45 hands. That also works if you are aware that the second suit might be longer. There are very few hands where the difference really matters.

For a little while I also played a system where we would bid 1♦ ... 2♣, 1♣ ... 2♦ or 1♦ ... 3♣ with all 5-4-in-the-minors-hands, the bids not depending on shape but only on strength. We had follow-up bidding to find out the shape if we needed. We stopped using that not because it didn't work but because we felt it wasn't worth the trouble remembering the system. Those hands are too rare at least for my then-partner and me.

[Zelandakh]

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 21:28, said:

That wasn't the question.

Wasn't it? This was the question as far as I can see:

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 08:41, said:

So the next question becomes how to handle a hand such as the following

♠ K2
♥ K2
♦ K432
♣K5432

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 21:28, said:

It's apparent that you haven't thought about the topic enough.

It should perhaps be even more apparent to you that insulting those that try to answer your questions is not a good way of attracting further responses. It is a cliché but every hand is different. If you read up on the many previous threads for minimum (31)45 hands in natural systems you will see that there are advocates for mostly opening 1♣ or 1♦ but far more choose their opening bid based on the character of the hand generally.

The hand you gave has the general character of a weak NT so this is the answer I gave you. When you provide other specific examples then you will obviously get different answers.

Are there specific systemic reasons why the same reasoning that applies to a natural system should not apply to yours? You write in the previous message that 1♣ is systemically impossible with 4♦5♣. If that is really so then you are in a similar position to strong clubbers and the answer seems to be obvious but that is nowhere presented in the OP, so expecting posters to reply on that basis is rather silly, don't you think?

[helene_t]

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 21:28, said:

♠32
♥32
♦KQJ2
♣AJ532 (26 ZPs)

Or what about:

♠2
♥K32
♦KQ32
♣K5432 (27 ZPs)

I normally open 1♣ but these hands have more honour strength in diamonds so I would probably make an exception.

I am OK with 1NT on the first one, by the way. Not with a small singleton. A stiff king will do, maybe a queen if I am really desperate.

[fromageGB]

VM1973, on 2016-December-09, 08:41, said:

It occurred to me that one solution was to switch to a 12-14 HCP NT, an innovation that solved some, but not all of the problems.
...
Any thoughts?

A 12-14 1NT open? Such innovations should be patented.

[mycroft]

I actually have thought about this problem, quite a lot, in fact. Close to 12 years actively playing a weak NT in the ACBL (where 15-17 is universal) - and several more years playing 10-12 - means I sort of have to.

32 32? 1NT or pass. I'm actually quite happy about 1NT. 1NT is a good bid, you should do it more often, especially when you don't have the Majors. However, note that I play a K/S style weak NT. I don't have any other options, because partner is going to play me for a stronger hand if I open either minor.

The (13)45? That hand (along with the 4441) is the bane of most systems. If I chose to open it in my weak NT system (which I won't without aces or spots), I'm opening 1♣ and rebidding 2♣ over 1♠ (showing x Kxx KQx KTxxxx); I'm raising hearts and apologizing to partner when she jumps to the crappy Moysian game. In Calgary Standard 2/1, this is an opener (even with the crappy spots); 1♦, preparing to rebid 2♣ is de rigeur.

You don't want to hear the answer "open 1NT". I can understand that. It does in fact distort the hand. It does in fact lead to several 1NT-3NT off 1 on the hop (of course it has its advantages - 1NT AP +120 after they cash the same 9-card suit breaking 2-2 is a common one). But if you play a weak NT, and you don't open your minimum balanced hands 1NT, you will never recover.

[Kungsgeten]

Well, if you use 1C as strong(ish) or artificial, then your club based hands have to go somewhere. What is your 1D opener? It seems to me that you play five card majors, and that you used to play a natural system, so your 1D is natural and unbalanced (since you open 1C or 1NT with balanced hands)?

With 5 clubs and 4 diamonds I think a 1D opener is a good choice; you can rebid clubs in order to show both minors (you won't know which is longer though) or perhaps use a 1NT rebid as both minors longer diamonds and 2C as both minors longer clubs. A harder question would be what to do with five clubs and a four card major: 1-4-3-5 or similar, or what do do with 6+ clubs. From what I understand your 1C opener is 15-19 NT or game forcing? This would lead to a system like this:

1C = 15-19 NT or GF (or 22-24 NT?)
1D = Unbalanced 4+D, may have longer clubs, 11-21
1M = 5+ major, 11-21
1NT = 12-14
2C = 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and a four card major, 11-21

This 2C opening will be unplayable, you're too high. So how does similar systems solve it? Let's look at the Nightmare system:

1C = 15+ NT or 15+ with clubs or any GF
2C = 6+ clubs or 5 clubs and a four card major, 11-14

Now the 2C opening is limited and thus easier to handle. This is the same 2C opening as in Polish club. Many strong club systems also use this. Common critique is that they should really promise 6 clubs, but it isn't possible if you want 1D to be natural.

Another approach is to play 1C as natural or balanced "short club":

1C = 15-19 NT or 11-21 with clubs
2C = Strong

You could also take inspiration from a system called "An unassuming club":

1C = 15-19 NT or 11+ with 5 clubs and 4 card major or 16+ with 6+ clubs or any GF.
2C = 11-15, 6+ clubs

This could probably be modified even further to include hands with 6+ clubs too. Then you're pretty close to "Baltic club" (but they use 1NT as 15-17):

1C = 15-19 NT or 11+ with clubs or any GF
2C = Whatever you want