perko90

Great Q! So, it starts with designing a system around 5-card majors, weak NT, and a strong club. The pros and cons of 5 vs 4 card majors, weak vs strong NT, and strong vs mixed forcing 1♣ have been debated extensively elsewhere, and I won't retread that ground. There's compelling points on either side of each choice, but I've settled on which seem best. Within this framework, I've attempted to have an emphasis on somewhat natural, constructive bidding. There's a medium amount of aggressiveness (weak NT, 2m openings), but certainly doesn't go nearly as far as some (no 4CM, no super light openings, etc.). But the biggest goal is avoiding as many awkward sequences as possible. To that end, here's some of the flaws in other systems that I've tried to improve: Std | 2/1: wide range on 1-level openings causes many problems, including: - needing false preferences, gadgets (e.g. Gazilli) and such to sort out 2m rebids after opening 1M - sloppy jump shifts (space-consuming, sometimes on 3-card suits, etc.) - clumsy reverses (more often than not, the hands are somewhat of a misfit) - chance to go 1m-all pass with the 18-19 balanced hands - BW Death Hand - awkward rebids with some unbalanced hands. 1-4-4-4 is a classic headache after 1♦-1♠, but there's plenty more. For ex. x AQxx Axx Qxxxx. 1♣-1♠ and now what? Polish Club - 2♣ w/ the 5 C's and 4CM shape can be awkward - 1♦ opening and 2♣ rebid with 5-4 either way (maybe I get more than my share of 2-2 minor hands as responder, but I hate this treatment) - awkward handling of the 12-14 bal hands after 1♣-1♦ when not having a 4CM - sometimes it takes a long time to sort out strong hands by opener: 1♣-1M; 2♦ and such Precision: - nebulous 1♦: no matter how you slice it, it's a weakness. Hard to raise in competition vs it's natural counterpart and doesn't have any of the rebid advantages that my artificial unbalanced 1♦ enjoys - assuming 2♣ promises 6, the 2♦ opening can be awkward and land in some sub-optimal partials (4-3 major fits and such) Blue Team Club: (I have a lot of admiration for the principles of canapé) - 5-4 either way uncertainty of a 2m rebid after a 1M opening - wide range 1NT

Thank you all for the constructive feedback so far. Let me respond to a few of the Q's. Me neither! This is definitely a lesser of evils choice. I used to have the 3♣ rebid promise 5/5 shape, but I couldn't find a good home for the 5-4 D's/C's hands that were in the 15-17 range. Q: Can 1NT have a lower limit (11), especially NV? A: This becomes more of a case of personal preference rather than a foundation of the system. I tend to liberally "upgrade" 11 counts when NV v NV myself. One of the strengths I've found for weak NT is that it tends to collect a ton of profitable penalty doubles (more so at MPs), for which it's important to not "water down" the range too much. But there's room to make tweaks to the range to suit partnership preferences. Q: Why 2NT 20-bad 22? A: This is more of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" choice and should be thought of as a 2.5 pt range. But in general, I wanted to relieve some pressure on the 1♣ structure, which already has to accommodate a wider range of strong balanced hands than most big club systems. And the other reason is that I've never been crazy about the alternate artificial uses of a 2NT opening. But if so desired, I'm sure a partnership could tweak the rebid structures to fit that range into the 1♣ structure. Exactly! For all other rebids besides 1♣-1♦, the system clearly differentiates between 15-17 and 18-19. I'll expand my opening post on this part another day when I have more time. Q: Why is the 1♥ rebid natural? A: This is more personal preference. Even still, I didn't mention it in my OP, but I do include the 25-26 bal hands as an exception to being strictly natural

Well, I've studied 2/1, Precision, Polish Club, Blue Team Club, and some even rarer systems in the search of my ideal system. I wanted to make the best system I could with 5-card Majors, Weak NT, and a Strong Club. But I couldn't find it. And then I read Miles' book on his Unbalanced Diamond System. While I wasn't fond of the entire system, it gave me inspiration for the missing piece to the system I was crafting . Here it is: 1♣ = 18+ Any dist. OR 15-17 Bal OR 15-17 4(5)+ C's Unbal (the only distro w/ 15-17 and only 4 C's is 4-4-1-4) 1♦ = 11-14 Artificial Unbal (<5M & <6 C's) OR 15-17 4(5)+ D's Unbal (the only distro w/ 15-17 and only 4 D's are (4441)) 1M = 11-17 5+ M 1NT = 12-14 Bal (1st and 2nd seat), 14-16 Bal (3rd and 4th seat) 2m = 10-14 6+ m (2♦ will only have 4CM w/ strong D's and weak 4CM) 2M = weak 2's 2NT = 20-bad 22 I will outline some of the bidding structure for 1♣ and 1♦. The other bids can follow established treatments. 1♦-1M: 1♠ (over 1♥) = 11-17, 4 S's, 0-3 H's 1NT = 11-14 Unbal, 0-2 M (the only time this won't have a 5-card m is 1-4-4-4 hand after a 1♠ response) -- 2♣ = pass or correct -- 2♦ = artificial NMF 2m = 11-14, 5 m + 3 pc raise 2M = 4 pc raise 2♥ (over 1♠) = reverse, could have 3 pc raise, strong but NF 2NT = 15-17, 5+ D's w/ 3 pc raise 3♣ = 15-17, 5+ D's and 4+ C's, 0-2 M 3♦ = 15-17, 6+ D's, 0-2 M 3M = 4 pc invitational raise Pass (only if ptr is a passed hand) = 10-13 and usually exactly 3 of M 1♦-1NT: (6-12 semi-forcing, no 4CM) Pass = 11-13, any (4441) (w/ a singleton M, auction not likely to die w/ opp's having 9+ card M fit) 2m = 11-14 5+ m (14-15 4441 should fake a 5-card minor) 2M = 16-17, classic reverse OR (14)44, strong but NF (although almost never passed) 2NT = 16-17 4-4-4-1 3♣ = 15-17, 5+ D's & 4+ C's 3♦ = 15-17, 6+ D's 1♦-2♣: 13+ natural (3+ C's) GF (4CM possible w/ strong 5+ C's) responses are natural, 2♦ shows 5+ and can still have a 4CM 1♦-2♦: 6-10 5+ D's, no 4CM 2M = misfit 3♦ = preemptive 1♦-2M: 13+ GF, 5+ D's, no 4CM, stopper showing 1♦-2NT: reserved for feedback 1♦-3♣: 6-10 usually 4-4 in minors (but cheating w/ only 3 C's can be a good gamble NV) 1♦-3♦: 11-12, 6+ D's (2 of top 3) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1♣-1♦: 0-5(6) or strong 1♥ = 15+ w/ exactly 4 H's and unbal (canape' or 4441) OR 5 H's "balanced" (includes 18-19 where suit isn't good enough for an immediate 2♥ bid) OR 25+ bal (w/ or w/o H's) -- 1♠ = 0-6, waiting, 2+ S's, denies 4 H's (unless total bust) *** 1NT = 15-19 bal w/ 4-5 H's (includes some 18-19 w/ a stiff and rebid problems: 4441 and 5431) *** 2m = canape' (4 H's & 5+ m) (if C's, it's 15+; if D's it's 18+) *** Pass = 15-16, 4 H's & 5 S's *** 2♠ = 17+, 4 H's & 5+ S's *** 2NT = 25-26 bal -- 1NT = 10+ bal, may have 4 H's -- 2m = 0-6, 5+ m, 0-3 H's & 0-1 S's -- 2♥ = 3-5 HCPs, 4 H's -- 3♥ = 4-6 HCPs, 4 H's & nice distribution 1♠ = 15-19, exactly 4 S's unbal (canape') or 5 S's "balanced" (includes 18-19 where suit isn't good enough for an immediate 2♠ bid) , NF 1NT = 15-19 bal, denies 4 H's 2♣ = 15-18 6+ C's, NF 2♦-3♣ = 18+ 5(6)+ strong suit, no side 4CM 2NT = 22+ -24 bal Other responses to 1♣ follow closely w/ Adam's Precision responses: 1♥ = 7(6)+, 4+ S's 1♠ = 7-9 bal (may have 4 H's) or 7+ & 5+ D's 1NT = 6+ & 5+ H's 2♣ = 7(6)+ & 5+ C's I may outline more detail to opener's rebids and beyond a little later, but the concept is to show the 15-17 bal hand as soon as possible (usually w/ a 1NT rebid (or completing a Jacoby-ish xfr with 2♥ over 1NT) and keeping the bidding low for the unbal 15-17 club hands (2♣ most commonly, but also 1♥ and 1♠ w/ a 4CM). The 18-19 balanced, after a constructive response, most often rebids 2NT (whether a jump or not)

I'll take Straube's suggestion and start a new thread for my unbalanced D system. But before I do, I'll answer Adam's Q's here (out of order on purpose): 2. Except for 4144 and 4441 shape, all 15-17 1♦ hands have 5+ D's. The other unbalanced hands w/ 4(5)+ C's are indeed opened 1♣ 1. The 2 (4441) hands tend to have easy 1♠ rebid or 3M raise to a 1M response. After 1♦-1M, many 15 counts (facing a misfit) should be downgraded to a 1NT rebid. There's also: 3♣ = 15-17 5+ D's & 4+ C's and denies 3 pc raise 2NT = 15-17 5+ D's with a 3 pc M raise 3♦ = 6+ D's and denies 3 pc raise (avoiding the "Bridge World Death Hand" problem of Std) 2♥ (reverse over 1♠) = 15(16)-17 5+ D's & 4 H's (may still have 3 pc raise) NF 3. 2 options here: rebid 3♣ on the stronger hands or, yes, 1NT with the weaker ones. I know the 1NT seems odd at 1st, but responder will often take it to 2♣ (pass or correct) or the opponents will help w/ a 2M balance, where you can bid 3♣ easily. And if it swishes at 1NT, you may not end in the best contract, but the Opps have a good chance they missed an 8-card major fit. 4. 2♣ = pass or correct and 2♦ is an artificial NMF of sorts 5. I've done the math on it and was rather pleased with the spread. Unfortunately, I can't find my calculations, so I'll have to defer the complete answer to my new thread.

A few thoughts. I've looked at 100s of computer generated 2C auctions and by far the biggest winner was knowing the difference between GF and bust replies. And the biggest loser was making space-consuming positive responses that were more often than not in partner's short suit. So, I highly recommend 2♦ = GF, 2♥ = bust. I also like Mbodell's treatment after the 2♥ response. Pretty cool. Also, if you're used to playing Puppet Stayman over 2NT, you'll want to just play regular Stayman following a 2♥ bust response.

I would lead 2S. 3 reasons: 1) auction calls for a major lead 2) ptr can have any of 3 cards that will make you smile inside (A,K,T) whereas only the A,Q are as useful with a H lead 3) KJ H more likely to be a side entry than QJ S

A big part of the reason is that the 1NT rebid (unbalanced, misfit) after 1♦ - 1M is so useful. Another is that you lose a lot of inferences in other rebids/sequences when it's polluted with balanced hands too. See my above post for more examples. The key difference here is that there's more room to sort things out. I'm not just talking about the extra step between 1♣ and 1♦; I'm also referring to the strength of the 1♣ bid allows you to safely go to the 2 and 3 level to figure things out. Or if perhaps you're referring to the classic PC where the weak NT is included in 1♣ and you sometimes have to start 1♣ - 1♦; 1♥ with a weak hand and only 2 of 'em, you'll have to have someone else defend that, because I don't like that either.

I hope the evaluation of an unbalanced 1♦ doesn't begin and end with "can't be raised T1, so can't be good." You have to balance that with the many advantages. Whether you think the penalty is reasonable for opening the various 5431 and 4441 hands 2♣ or 2♦ like you do in many PC / Precision auctions or open some of them 1♦ but with no unbalanced guarantee, you still are paying a penalty. Besides adding clarity to auctions that are NOT opened with an unbalanced 1♦, one of the biggest strengths of the unbalanced 1♦ is that you often wind up ahead in pattern recognition than if you had started with either a natural or nebulous 1♦. Don't you hate these: 1) a 1444 hand after 1♦-1♠; ? 2) having 2-2 minors when the auction goes 1♦-1M; 2♣ (5-4 either way) - ? 3) having a 3-3-5-2 hand facing a Precision 2♦ - ? These are all handled better when starting with an unbalanced 1♦. 1) 1♦ - 1♠; 1NT (with a misfit warning!) 2) 1♦ - 1M; 1NT - Pass 3) 1♦ - 1NT; Pass Or let's say you start with a 3451 shape and the auction goes 1♦ - 1♠; 2♠. I'd rather have my auction of 1♦ - 1♠; 2♦ (showing 5 D's and exactly 3 S's). There's also times where the shortness in D's turns to a strength. Imagine LHO with a nice 4441 hand with a perfect TO double of a normal 1♣ opening, but instead hears 1♦. Or maybe he has a nice D overcall. Either way, the uncertainty can make the opponents' choices harder, too. And who says you can't raise D's T1? Not as often for sure, but you still can. 1♦ - 3♣ = a pass or correct preempt. Sure, you need at least 4-4 in the minors, but if that bidding normally denies a 4CM, it will be the case many times anyway. Similarly, 1♦ - 2♦ = natural forcing, no 4CM. Unwinding the shape of the 1♦ bidder isn't that hard from here and you'll reach 3NT when it's right about as often as any other normal inverted minor auction.

Fun thread! I too have theory-crafted a similar hybrid system that uses weak NT, an unbalanced 1♦, and a 1♣ that either shows 18+ any dist, 15-17 bal, or 15-17 unbal w/ 4(5)+ clubs. 2♣ and 2♦ are 10-14 w/ 6. It solves many issues that I find w/ Std, Precision, and PC. For ex. after 1♣-1♦, opener can rebid 1NT w/ 15-19 safely without the awkward 1♥ bids of PC (although bidding 1♥ w/ 4 seems fine). Anyway, the unbal 1♦ can be short in diamonds as well - as inspired my M. Miles. However, my 1♦ which is 11-17, may only have short diamonds when 11-14, so at least it will be their hand if it goes 1♦-swish. And unlike Miles' system, the 1♦ isn't over-burdened w/ the 1-suited minors, which allows for some nice 1♦-1M sequences. Rebids are: 1NT = 0-2 M, 2M raise is always 4, and - the key innovation - a 2m rebid is a natural 5c suit + 3 card support. There's also room to bump up the strength of the 1NT opening in 3rd and 4th seat to 13-15 or 14-16. The only modification needed is that 1♦ includes the bare minimum balanced hands in 3rd and 4th seat and then passes a 1M response with 3 pcs and the 1NT rebid would still be 0-2 support, but may actually be balanced. Food for thought.

There's also a case, even when playing canapé, to open 1♦ w/ a 4-2-5-2. That was Hamman-Soloway's choice, presumably because auctions like: 1♠-2♥; 3♦ chews up a lot of space even without interference.

I use NMF (inv+) after opener rebids their minor. I would follow Marlowe's advice on whether your 10 HCPs is enough of an invite.

Yup, West should bid 4NT.

In that situation, as the opponent, something like Precision (even if that's not the system being played), seems perfect for this situation. Double = big, but not too big (assume a strong NT). Any giant balanced hand or shapely strong hand can pass 1st; 1♦ = nebulous (1NT rebid is ~12-14), and 1M = roughly a 1-level overcall (8-15), 5+ length. I'd use the 1NT overcall for something (anything!) other than a balanced hand. I'll suggest a hand with 5-4 shape (clubs + 4-card M) w/ constructive pt count (10-14). It has built-in safety and yet eats up bidding space. Responses similar to Woolsey Defense to 1NT (2♣ = to play, 2♦ = what's your major?) If opps both have 15+ hands, there shouldn't be much decision, it's either a preempt or an easy pass. If 1 opp has a 15+ hand and the other a 0-8 hand (the most likely scenario), the above treatment should be well-placed for the likely partial battle. And if they both have 0-8 hands, it's nice to have limited strength immediate actions and an immediate way to show extra strength.

Just from watching the USBC over the weekend, the descriptions for replies to 1♣ were (as I recall): 1♦ = 0-7 1♥ = 8-11, <5 H's 1♠ = 8-11, 5+ H's I didn't observe any other responses.

Awesome partner!!

There's certainly times where knowing whether the limit raise has 3 or 4 trumps is quite valuable. But, you can find that out, as you mentioned in your OP. And, yes, I do believe the 3♣ inquiry is the best use of that bid after a 2NT LR. I've played semi-forcing NT for a long time. The fewer 3-card LR's it has the better! And not because of the scores when 1NT gets passed w/ an 8-card fit! Those usually come out alright, on balance. It's the regrettable continuation bets you make as opener on the upper end but flat hands, saying to yourself, "but if ptr has a 3-card LR, I want to be in game." Removing 3-card LRs entirely from 1NT is a very freeing experience! I recommend it. However, if you're not willing to go that far, at least save only the flat, weak trump, 3-card LRs for 1NT. Now when opener rebids a minor, it's really 4+ length, because passing all the 5-3-3-2 hands is worry-free.

I normally don't like to open 2♣ w/ a 5 loser hand, but I'll make an exception here. It at least passes the 2 Q's test and has plenty of offense and defense. 1♠ with a plan to JS to 3♣ is OK, but not great. It still doesn't get your shape across and I don't have the 3NT agreement (showing a 6-carder) that others have mentioned (maybe I should).

Wow, looks like I stirred up a lot of responses. Let me clarify a few things, that may explain my original response more fully. First, it's true that the GCC of the ACBL does not allow 2♣ to be a 3-card invitational raise of the major, unless it also promises 3+ clubs. So, regardless of its merits, let's save that for a different discussion. As I previously stated, my preference is to have the 3-card invitational major raise as it's own separate bid. But, considering Std Am includes strong jump shifts (the Soloway kind, I hope, not the super old-fashioned 19+ kind), I'll assume that's off the table and go for my alternate suggestion, which I'll get to in just a sec. Let's get back to 2/1 vs Std Am. One key difference is what the go-to "default" rebid is for opener with a non-descript minimum. 2/1 (at least the flavor that Hardy and Lawrence advocate) favors a rebid of 2M that doesn't really show anything more than the original 1M bid and reserves 2NT for promising stoppers in the unbid suits. Std Am treats the 2M rebid as highly suggestive of a 6-card suit and lets the 2NT rebid serve as the default minimum, regardless of stoppers. I favor the in-between, where 2NT promises partial stoppers in the unbid suits (so you at least don't wrong-side 3NT) and 2M is allowed on a "chunky" 5-card suit. Either way, in Std Am, 2NT is a common rebid. If the 3-card invitational raise is left in the 2/1 structure, it can muddy up many sequences. After something as common as 1♥-2♦; 2NT-? If 3♥ = an invite and 4♥ = a sign-off, there's no way to explore for slam while agreeing hearts. It doesn't take long to think of other muddy examples. As for my suggestion of making the auction forcing to at least 2NT, it protects against hands like this: AKx KJxxxx xx Ax. After 1♥-2♦, this is an easy 2♥ rebid for 2/1 players, but a tough decision if the Std Am responder is allowed to pass a 2♥ rebid. Making sure the auction reaches 2NT at least, takes the pressure off the Std Am opener. Essentially, my point is that Std Am bidders, by having 2/1 serve for both invitational and GF hands, put a lot of pressure on 2/1 auctions and can lead to "is it forcing?" scenarios or "how do I explore for slam?" dilemmas. My suggestion is for the 2/1 bid and the 1NT bid to share the load for invitational hands. So: 1M-3M = a 4-card invite or a good 3-card invite (side singleton or a nice 12 pointer) 1M-1NT = 6-11 HCPs, with the 11 pointers being either a balanced 3-card invitational raise (intending to rebid 3M) or a balanced 11 pt hand (intending to rebid 2NT). Opener will pass 12-13 pt balanced hands (often ending in a superior 1NT contract at MPs). Even when a 5-3 major fit is missed, a good result can come from +90 or +120 vs a -50 or -100 from the field (or even +150 vs +140). Anyway, I'm not saying that part is a strength, but this is: Pulling out the green card after 1♥-1NT holding KQx Qxxxx Axx JT feels pretty good! As for the 2/1 bid, it gets a little strengthened and disciplined. Invitational only strength only comes in a few packages (never including the 3-card limit raise): 10-11 HCP and a nice 6-card suit (intending to rebid it) 10-12 HCPs and 5 H's over a 1♠ bid (intending to rebid 2NT)(because 1NT handles this holding even worse!) 11-12 HCPs with a 5-card suit (usually intending to rebid 2NT or raise a 2m rebid by opener to 3m) 12 HCPs and balanced (intending to rebid 2NT) Now bidding for both partners is better and simpler. Opener has 3 ways to show a minimum: - rebid major w/ 6 or a "chunky" 5-card suit (but still forcing, so can include stronger hands) - rebid 2NT - rebid 2X below opening suit (forcing, of course, so can include stronger hands) 2/1 Responder has 3 ways to show a minimum: - rebid 2/1 suit at 3 level - rebid 2NT - raise opener's 2m rebid to 3m Notes: Supporting opener's major on 2nd rd is strong and GF! Any bid past a 2NT "caution flag" is GF Anyway, that's my suggestion. I'm not claiming to fix all the holes, but if you can make Std Am simpler and better at the same time, why not? As a bonus, this is a little bit of a hybrid, so if you choose to convert to 2/1, there will be less "unlearning."

There's no doubt most players playing a natural system in NA play 2/1 and, as a general rule, without any other info to go on, 2/1 players tend to be better than those that only play Standard American. That being said, the 2/1 system - at it's worst - can create some lazy bidders and presents some inconvenient problems some people forget they have because "everyone plays it." For ex., 1♥-2♦; 2♥ is used as a "default" bid so much that it really says nothing more about the heart suit, which could still be a moth-eaten 5-card suit. 1♥-2♣; 3♣ doesn't have universal agreement on when the raise can be only 3 cards and whether it shows extra values. The forcing 1NT can also lead to some awkward choices, as well. Std Am certainly has its warts, but the worst ones have the easiest fixes. Make sure if you play Std Am that you have the simple rule that the auction after a std 2/1 can't end below 2NT. Also, don't be too quick to learn Jacoby 2NT, even though it's taught to beginners. 1M-2NT as a natural GF simplifies a number of auctions. And, you can't do it fast enough, get the 3-card limit raise out of the 2/1 structure!! It's the source of many misunderstandings and limits slam exploration sequences. Just about anywhere else is better. The simplest solution is to include it in a limit raise along with the 4-card version. Novices won't notice the difference much. A better solution is to include it with 1NT and make that semi-forcing. My preference is to put it into a Bergen Raise structure in place of the "mixed" raise, but that requires you to give up strong jump shifts in Std Am (not hard to do). Whatever you choose, enjoy. It's a wonderful game!

I agree with everything said so far, but just wanted to add that even if you agree to help suit games tries, be mindful of how much room is left. For ex, 1♥-2♣-2♥-3♣; 3♦. 3♦ might be a "help suit game try" but it's also the ONLY invite available (assuming competitive raises and penalty X), so don't read too much into it beyond a generic invite.

Yikes! Bergen limit raise followed by a game raise over a sign-off is standard stuff in my book. However, only showing a Bergen mixed raise - with 3 key cards! - risks much more. You could miss slam and, even worse, lose partner's trust.

Oh wow, that's a disappointing dummy at 4NT : ) 4♦ should never be bid. It's either slam-ish strength or offering a place to play (more likely if the 6-5 shape were the other way around). However, after the 3NT bid, responder has to know that 5♦ will never be a good place to land. The overcaller will only choose it if perhaps 3-1 shape in D's & S's, in which case, responder's already meager hand will shrink even more with that spade holding opposite a stiff, and the 4 level will be a better hope than the 5 level. It's hard to blame responder for not wanting to sit for 3NT. But if so, 4♥ is a better bid. Yes, the 2 baby H's is a little less than ptr will expect, but it suggests a 6th S (otherwise, why introduce the suit?), and is the only way to offer up a choice of the alternative contracts that should really be considered.

4NT is for sure to play and definitely my choice. Clubs are locked up tight and partner's got some goodies for you. Trouble is, you can't be sure what. Chances are, if you're left in 4NT, it's only 2 out 3 that you hope for: fitting heart honors, solid spades or solid diamonds. With NT, you can make do with any 2 out of 3. If you instead choose 4♠, you really don't want ptr's spades to be mediocre. Also, considering the bare minimum nature of your overcall, you really want to discourage slam as much as possible. And 4NT is more discouraging and descriptive than 4♠. BTW, 4♥ really misrepresents your hand and wouldn't even get my slightest consideration.

Adam, I'm quite interested in your system. I love the concept of showing shape info on semi-positive responses to 1♣. Your structure is efficient and elegant. I intend to steal some ideas. I have a few questions about your system: 1) There's no 2♦ opening description in section 7. I assume 2♦ is 11-15 HCP, 6+ diamonds or 5+ and a 4cM? 2) (34)15 shape hands don't match the description of the 1♦ or 2♣ opening bids. How does your system handle these? 3) Earlier in the text, it states that the 1♠ rebid after 1♣-1♦ can be made on balanced hands with 4 spades and too strong for a 1NT rebid, yet that bidding section says the 1♠ rebid is unbalanced only. Assuming the former is correct, after 1♣-1♦; 1♠-2♣ (negative w/ 0-2 spades and 3+ clubs), I assume opener with a balanced hand passes w/ 4 clubs and perhaps bids 2NT with all others? (2♦ and 2♥ would seem to imply unbalanced hands)

At MPs, I'll bid 4♠ and at IMPs I'll bid 5♦.