junyi_zhu

yes, I wrote a structure on this issue one year ago. Over 1H 1N 2S(GF) 2N is a relay: 3C: true spades, value in C 3D: true spades, value in D. 3H: strong heart one suiter, GF(can also have 4 spades without value in C or D). 3S: 5-6, forcing. 3N: balanced GF with 6 hearts. 4C/D/H: self splinter, heart is strong, but not solid. over 1H 1N 2S 3C/D: long suit, heart shortness and forcing. 3H: weak, tend to be sign off. 3S/4C/D: invitational with 3 hearts and the control in the suit you bid. 3N: 3-3-4-3 or 3-3-3-4 shape, invitational, nonforcing. You may have a problem with 4-5-2-2 and 15-16, you have to rebid 2C here. With 17-18, you can bid 2NT over 1NT. with 4-5-3-1 or 4-5-1-3, 15-18, you can just bid 2 m. With solid H and strong, you can self splinter directly. With 5-3-3-2 shape, 19, you can just rebid 3NT and hope to make it. It can also apply for 1D 1N 2H: you can here use 2S as a relay, similiar stuff. 2S: relay: 2N: 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-4-0, 3C to ask for the position of the singleton. 3D: C, 3H: H, 3S: S. 3C: true hearts, value in C. 3D: diamond one suiter, GF. 3H: 5-6 3S: true hearts, value in S. 3N: 6 diamonds, balanced, 19. With 4 H + 5D, 16-18 hands, you have to bid either 2NT with 17-18 or 2D and hope partner could give you a raise. 1C 1N 2D (GF) 2H: relay: 2S: true diamonds, sp value. 2N: exact 4-4-1-4 or 4-4-0-5 shape. 3C: C one suiter, GF. 3D: 5-6 3H: h value, true diamonds. 3N: 6 clubs, balanced, 19. with 4D-5C, you have to either bid 2NT or 2C and hope to survive that round. If your 1NT guarantees 3 clubs, you can also bid 3C.

Well, probably you shouldn't try 2/1 with any pick-up partners. With random partners, it's best to play sayc or bws. 2/1 needs a lot of systemic discussions than sayc or bws. It's no easy, and I am sure a lot of 2/1 players don't fully understand some basic idea of 2/1 GF. I have seen professional players played so called 2/1, bid 1S 2H 2S 4S with a broken 12 and three baby spades, which is definetely against the basic slow arrival principle of 2/1 GF.

This is not playable if you hold a strong balanced hand: SAx HAKxx DAQx Cxxxx you claimed that your partner has to bid with 2-3-4-4 shape, ok, let me give your partner a decent 7 HCP hand without HCP wastage: Sxx HQxx DJxxx CKJxx, you think you can make 5C or want to play 5C?

Is BridgeWorld Standard "really" 2-over-1 Game force? Seems an immaterial question to me, the poll was posed that it 2/1 was being used. Even so, the BWS version circa 2001 is not "really" game force, the bidding can stop in responsders minor if opener fails to show extra values, but 2H and 2D are both forcing. This bidding contest was from 1988, and if memory serves me correct, it was game forcing then...but I could pull out old issues and review. It is clear, however from the values held in this hand that game (at least) will be bid, and the 2D bidders had no concern partner would pass. In a voting poll based upon understanding of "Standard treatments" is an inapproriate place to going deals on "your framework" (or others home grown ones). Start a new thread, and I will be glad to discuss the advantage and disadvantage of your method. You may not know it, but I too I have my own pet methods, for me, 2♣ over 1 of a major can be a lot of hands (drury, balanced - no fit, or true 2/1 GF), but for the purpose of this question, I am stuck, as should be to the issue at hand... what would a normal, 2/1 GF opener rebid with this hand. Thus, with in this thread, I have no desire to evaluate or discuss your framework or the use of a 2D bid to be a heart rebid, or a 2H bid to show diamonds. Neither of these non-standard treatements can have any bearing on the data obatined in the poll, or the sharing of hand evaluation ideas. If polls were run where anybody could invent (or use) any bid they wanted, someone could say, I rebid 3NT here to show four modest spades, three strong hearts, a singleton club and 15/16 hcp. That of course would be a very descriptive bid with this hand. We might all agree that is a great use or a horrible use for a 3NT bid, but we couldn't argue that if you had that method, this would be a wonderful hand to use that bid on. So in final analysis, even if you method was the best thing since sliced bread, I wouldn't get into an evaluation of it within this thread. The rules of the site require that we "Keep posts on-topic". We all know that topic drift occurs, and alternative bidding structures can be a drift, but on a poll, you are FORCED to vote for the structure proposed in that poll. You can abstain. You can offer a reason for abstaining ("my structure is better"), but a back and forth on your structure really deserves a separate thread. If your treatement is so wonderful, simply start a new thread and gather support for it. This poll has shown that a very simple and routine 2/1 auction with a routine hand has enough interesting things to discuss and long discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of a non-standards treatment such as yours has a tendency to stiffle the purpose and intent of the orginal poll and subsequent thread. So to keep this thread on target... which is how to handle this hand in standard 2/1. Ben First, your hand over partner's 2/1 can bid into a game doesn't mean this system is 2/1 GF. 2/1 GF and 2/1 is GF only when responder doesn't rebid his 2/1 suit are two different animals. For the latter one, some 3 card temporizing bids have to be included in their system, which is actually against the nature of 2/1 GF system, that once in 2/1 GF situations, a new suit usually shows at least 4 or more. 2/1 GF is just a framework, it's not even a fixed system and most don't play the same thing although they name what they play as 2/1 GF. That's why the votes are so different. Without talking about a fixed system, there is no way for anybody to come into the same conclusion. For some, reverse over 2/1 needs extra, for some, reverse over 2/1 doesn't, for some, reverse over 2/1 needs extra, but 14 HCP would be enough for them to reverse. Also, I am just against your comment on my 2/1 framework. It wasn't even me to start this thread to comment on my system. It was yourself. So, when there is no standard treatment in 2/1, it's just no use to discuss about what to bid in 2/1 for the problem, because people are just playing different systems. Even though there is no "standard" 2/1 GF system, some basic principles are still there. One key issue of 2/1 GF is just to get rid those 3 card forcing bids in old standard systems to describe the shape of hands in a more natural and sound way and both sides don't have to worry about getting passed below games. That is actually what you have seen in this thread. Either 2H or 2S is right in my point of view. It's a sysmic issue, not a hand evaluation issue. Also, I have stated the hand's strength in a very clear way: it's about 6.5 losers at this stage and a normal 15 HCP hand. Still, after all, a natural 2D is not a sound bid if one plays 2/1 GF, you may survive when partner doesn't hold diamond suits and a lot of extra values, but you may have a huge bidding disaster if he does. The problem can be presented in a much nicer way: Should reverse at 2 level over partner's 2/1 GF show extra? If it shows, then what's the minimum requirement for such a reverse? Now, there are just some disputes and it doesn't really go as smoothly as you expected, because you used some words like those who bids 2S doesn't know how to bid. The last issue is about multiple meanings of 1S 2C as GF. I don't think it's a sound structure for a wide range opening bids although many top players play it. Most don't play 1S 3C as strong jumpshift, and they should always have a problem to set up their 2/1 suit as trumps because it usually goes to 4 level. 2/1 can't do very well in this area although you are in a GF situation. That means although 2C is low, you still have a lot of hand types to describe and it's no easy to include more hand types into it. I have been thinking about this problem for a long while. It's true that 2C is low, but 5C or 6C are low as well, that means you actually don't have that much space as you assumed. That's why minor suit games or slams are no easy to bid.

most world class players wouldn't even have an agreement on this one I guess. 5H is extremely space consuming so it must be a picture bid showing extreme details that no other sequences can show. That makes it a puzzle. With 4 hearts support balanced, opener can just bid 3H over 2NT which is forcing, with 4 hearts support shortness somwehere, she can bid 3S over 1S or 4C over 1S. With long diamonds and 4 card heart support, she can bid 4D over 1S to show it. So 5H can't show 4 card support in hearts because we have a neat way to show all these patterns at low level. So it can only be strong diamond one suiter hands and grandslam invitation. However, why can't opener bid 3D to show it? One problem is that 3D over 2NT doesn't really set up trumps as diamond, it just shows a strong one suiter. So opener may not have an easy way to set up trumps at three level. A possible way is to bid 3S over 2NT to set up trumps in D and then RKC later, but she may have a problem if she holds a void in heart and still want to RKC. Also, partner's failure to redouble 2S usually denies SA. A possible holding is something like this:S- H- DAKQxxxxx CKQJT9, so actually she uses 5H as an ERKC showing void in hearts and strong diamond suit.because she knows if partner holds CA, she'd like to play in 7D, something like: S- H- DKQJTxxxx CAKQJT is also possible.

Without much discussion, it has to be RKC because you just have no other ways to RKC in this sequence without discussion. 4NT would be invitational here. Also, a better treatment is to use 1N 2C 2h 3S as splinter in an unspecific suit and 3NT as a relay to ask where it is for standard system. That saves two bids. Actually most shortness showing conventions should adopt this principle because this way saves a lot of space and partner doesn't have to relay sometimes if his hand is no good to ask so opps would be in dark in that case.

Yes, the panel played 2-over-1 game forcing. This was a MasterSolver problem, using Bridge World Standard. To quote the editor "You might think this is a pretty straight foward 2-over-1, or Eastern scientific, or BWS bidding problem, or non-problem. Wrong! I will let it to the readers of this thread to decide if "2D is the worst bid ever", in fact, i agree with Larry Cohen, Robert Wolfe, Gail Greenberg, Barbara Haberman, Carl Hudecek, Sami Kelela, Al Roth, and Auther Robinson, that it is the best bid. A number of other panelist consider it second best to their choice. I wonder how many will agree with you that it THE WORST BID EVER. You must live a perfect bridge life if you find this the worst ever. As for reversing the meaning of 2D and 2H? Seems unnecessary to me..... allows them to double 2di for lead, or for other competitive purposes. But to each his own. Ben Is BWS 2/1 gameforcing? I really don't think so. If you think BWS is a 2/1 GF, aces' system as 2/1 GF, then we are not playing the same system. Also, my structure is not to simply switch 2D and 2H. It's a super gain because your partner can raise you at low level and at the same time show minimum or balanced hands. Still, after such a long post, you still didn't tell me how do you feel if your partner RKC over your 2D rebid. For 2/1 GF system, it's just insane to distort your shape at the second bid I'd say and for most time, you can't even recover from that. Here, let me show your some other nice features my framework has: 1S 2C 2D(waiting) 2N(spade support, extra) instead of 1S 2C 2S 3S that saves a whole level of space for you to describe your hand and that also allows responder to support his partner and show his extra at two level. 1S 2D 2N(6 or more spades, extra) most waiting system can not show this feature at 2 level. 1S 2C 2D 3H(set up clubs as trumps and asking for cuebids) most 2/1 GF system can not set up their 2/1 suit below 4 level over partner's waiting bids. 1S 2C 2D 2H(responder's waiting, either minimum or balanced) then you can stop at 4 m if you find 3NT is not playable and no fit in major suits. When both showed minimum, system allows players to stop at 4 m. No other system ever has a clean and neat scheme to show when to stop at 4m and how to stop at 4m without messing up their slam going bids. 1S 2C 2D 3C showing extra and 6 or more clubs, most 2/1 system can't even afford such a desriptive bid, if they play 2S as waiting, then 3C can't gurantee extra or they have to bid 2NT to be responder's waiting which might not save the day either because 2NT can be to high. It's actually a tremendous edge over 2/1 systems nowadays and in the future, most serious 2/1 players would probably play at least a variation of my structure I predict. So it's really not wise to evaluate a system without much knowledge of it.

This is a kind of hand that has always interested me. Everyone knows how to make first bids, and even most first rebids... but diverge often on later bids. But here is one where I thought there would be a lot of reasons for alternative bids. And I was wondering if the world has "improved" (read match my choice). since this question (hand and auction) was originally published in the july 1988 master solver chargers bridge world. In 1988, the results of the MSC was (first number was number of expert votes, percentage is the percentage of readers votes who wrote in) 2S = 12, 33% 2D = 8, 21% 2H = 4, 32% 2N = 4, 13% So in 1988, and now, the most popular vote was 2S. Surprizingly, the right vote (that is my vote) was second with the experts thne (2D), but not too popular with the readers. Then, 2H and 2S were very close among the readers but the experts. Here, in our poll, 2H is almost an after thought. If you play 2S DOES NOT PROMISE extra value (hence, no "precison" part of the question, 2S rebid seems fine). Otherwise, I have to agree with RON and say that if you rebid 2S on this hand, you (and the 12 expert voters in 1988), don't know how to bid. BTW, someone suggested that Mike Lawarence would rebid 2S with this hand. Maybe today, but in 1988 he rebid 2H's on this one. I agree with the group of experts who, in 1988 said 2D.. People like Larry Cohen, who said "2D, Seems to leave more room than 2S. We can still get into spades if partner has them." And Carl Hudecek who said "2D. Caters to a lot of auctions and does not overstate the heart suit". Maybe R. Wolff said it best, "2D. Least of evils." I throw 2NT out, singleton club. I throw out 2S, as I save it for a hand with better spades or more strength. So that leaves 2H and 2D. I agree with Mauro that 2H neither promises nor denies extra values, but this hand has GREAT diamond values and I can bid 2D to show something there and wait for parnter to clarify his holding. I would love to hear a 2H or 2S rebid over 2D. I can also handle 3C, 2NT and 3D rebid without having overstated my hand with a reverse on my second bid. To me, 2D seems clear...but the results of htis poll shows me, as always, I am out of that silly iceberg by myself again. I thought more people (aka readers) would go to 2D now... it was 21% in 1988... today it is 3%, and that 3% is me. Oh well. For the 2H bidders, you are right. To me 2H is much better bid than 2S. If the club and diamond suits were reversed, and partner had responded 2D (I now have a singleton diamond, and 3 clubs to AKx), I would rebid 2H knowing that was the right bid. Ben Did this panel really play 2/1 GF? I guess they didn't. 2D is the worst bid ever, if you bid 2D and partner happened to hold 4 diamonds, strong hand and RKCed, how would you feel? In that sense, it's even worse than 2NT which actually is not as horrible as many assumed. The major reason to play 2/1 GF is to get rid of the 3 card temporized rebid as standard systems do, because you are in a GF situation, so you can pretty much bid your hand naturally. Whether or not this hand qualifies a reverse is still open to discussion. Here, if you bid 2H as waiting, and partner bids 2S, you may still splinter 4C to show 4 spades and shortness in clubs. However, if your partner rebids 3H to support you, you would have a hard time to show your shape and strength; you are preempted by the raise. So 2S or 2H are not perfect either, but that doesn't make 2D sounds nicer because 2D in nature show 4 diamonds and unlimited. However, if you play my 2/1 frame, I have a simple cure: 2D! Yes, 2D here in my 2/1 frame is a waiting that just solves all the problems. so 2H here would show diamonds and extra, 2S shows hearts and extra length, 2N shows spades and extra value. So 2D just shows either balanced hands or minimum hands. This hand should be treated as minimum because of the club shortness. So the hand is about 5.5 losers + 1 (because of the club shortness), all hands >= 6.5 losers would justify the waiting bid. Bridge is a game that has to live with judgement calls, the goal of system improvement is to minimize the judgement calls.

she can still only get two trumps even if she played a top heart to force me to ruff. I get 4 sapdes, 1 heart, one diamond and two clubs instead. after the diamond switch, the contract was cold.

It's quite straight forward if you play my system: 1N(good 14 to normal 17, balanced) 2C(stayman) 2D(denies 4 card major when minimum may have spade suit when maximum) 3S(short spades) 4C(natural) 4D(RKC) 5C(two KC with Q) 5D(K?) 5H(HK) 5N(DQ?) 7C(yes) 7NT( now you can count 5 clubs, 3 diamonds, 4 hearts and SA)

The Hand [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sat642hakq6d92cq7&w=sqj973h75datcakj8&e=sk5hjt943d875ct92&s=s8h82dkqj643c6543]399|300|Scoring: IMP This is a hand I played with my partner Qing Yang against Hansa Narasimhan and Irina Levitina in a set game on Nov. 3. The bidding was rather straight forward: 2♦ was natural weak two opening and my 2♠ got doubled. Irina led ♥A and K, noticed her partner gave high low in hearts, she switched a diamond (a low heart would kill the contract here), which I had to duck, otherwise, e-w would have communication in diamonds. After the duck, the contract is virtually cold. Hansa did well by switching a club, which I won in hand; and here came the second key play: I have to play ♠9 to pin down Hansa's ♠8, which did pin down ♠8. now I cashed ♦A to eliminate Irina's exit card, and played another spade, which Irina ducked, but it made no difference. now I have the whole count of the hand, Irina had 5-4-2-2 shape, and I made the third key decision to drop down her ♣Q and soon claimed the contract. This contract was indeed defeatable, however the winning defence wasn't very obvious. [/hv]

As I said, 1S 1N 3D 3S, 3S by reponder is natural and shows 3 spades. Otherwise, you really have no way to distiguish about 4-5 HCP with 3 spades support hand and balanced invitational hands with 3 spades playing 2/1 gameforcing. So you actually can't bid 3S to show this hand at all. However, for 2/1 GF, 2C 2D 2S 2N 3D 3S should show honor doubleton support, so it's really quite easy for declarer to find a 6D bid. Change the hand to spade low doubleton, what's the point to bid 3S here, spade king is the only sure cover card for responder, without sp K, his QJ riched hand would only justify a 3NT bid. for 2C opening, the big advantage is that 2NT really denies spade support and 1S 1NT can't afford doing so. For this kind of two suiters, you really have a much easier time than 1S opening, because you may eventually get passed out and nobody would save you or even if partner bids 1NT, your hand is still too strong for 3D; If it goes like 2C 2D 2S, it would be just like a traditional strong two opening in spades and you would be at a much firmer ground than your 1S opening, but not distributional enough to pull partner's possible 3NT. So which opening is more informative and easier to develop?

mmm lovelly bidding, now try to bid after this ones: 2♣-X-pass-4♣ 2♣-pass-2NT-pass If the double is for penalty, and 4C is natural, you can make a forcing pass here to show either penalty oriented hands or two suiters. Over partner's possible double, you can bid 4D to clearify your hand type. It's not mission impossible to bid two suiters at high level, as long as you have the right gadget and good partnership agreements. If the 2NT is natural, you have really an easy 3S rebid and plan to bid 4D over a possible 3NT. For strong two suiters, 4C can't hurt it. 4H or 4S can, but you are not in a good shape in that case even if you open 1S. The only exception to open 1 level with stronger hands are three suiters. or 5-4-3-1 shape, you really don't have a good way to show them if you open 2C. In a lot of case, you'd distort your hand one way or another if you open 2C. For example: with Sx HAKx DAKQxx CAQxx, it's awful to open 2C, because you have to rebid 3D which takes up a lot of bidding space and you'd have no sensitive way to bid it again. The same is true for Sx HAKxx DAKQx CAQxx, I prefer 1D opening to 2C then 2NT or 2H both distort the nature of this hand much.

I consider 3S over partner's 3D on this hand as automatic as I do bidding 2S over partner's 2D rebid. If I had a limit raise, I would bid 4S over 3D. Partner may have invented a jump shift with 6 spades. If you rebid 3N, he has a guess. Even if you play 3S to show only two spades, you still should bid 3NT here, slam is super remote, and your partner can hardly bid 3NT which can be your best game, because you hold a lot of values in H and C. You wait only when you don't know the direction of the bidding, here you really have a clear 3NT bid. It's not the same as the 2C auction, because your partner has shown a strong opening, it's safe for you to explore minor suit slam possibility or 6NT, that's the reason why you want to bid 3S here.

The problem is that once your partner holds some support in either S or D, and about 4-5 HCP, you may get passed out and nobody would save you if your opps don't balance as insanely as a lot of self claimed "good players" do in this world. So even if it can be a small portion to be passed out, it still costs a lot comparing with 2C guys.

They are completely different. For the 2C opening, the opener knows that partner doesn't have 3 card spade support, so responder can bid 3S as a false preference. For the 1S 1N 3D sequence, 3S here should show 3 card support and invitational value, so responder has to bid 3NT with a lot of semibalanced or balanced hands with some sort of support in diamonds, because if he bids 4D, they may get too high.

it's probably better to open 1S here. The hand is rather weak, and your club suit isn't very good either, so 1S is practical.

2H, stiff SK doesn't look great and minor suits unsupported Qxx are also rather negative. Give partner SAxxxx Hxx DAxx Cxxx(very decent hand), you need a trump lead or spade lead with trump 3-2, DK on side to make 4H. If opp leads D from DK, you still nedd trump 3-2; if opp leads diamond from Dxxxx, you need CAK on side.... if opps lead a low club, you are probably dead, if opps lead A from CAK, you still need DK on side and trump 3-2....so it really doesn't produce a good game facing a rather decent dummy and sometimes, partner may raise you to 4H with even weak hands. For example, he might have SAJxxx Hxx DKxx Cxxx, you are even worse placed. I think this shows why 2N is better than 3H. 3N is cold with ur 1st hand, close with the 2nd hand. 3NT isn't cold, it has some fair play if heart breaks and opps has no AJxxx or KJxxx of clubs. However, if you bid 2NT, partner would raise you with a lot of weaker hands, he'd raise you with any fair 7 HCP hands, like Sxxxx Hx DAKxx Cxxxx, which you really don't have a good play. Also 2NT is rated to bid even more games than 3H here. If you bid 3H, partner would often pass with no heart support nad normal 7 HCP hands. 2H would usually guarantee a plus score and may miss games sometimes.

2H, stiff SK doesn't look great and minor suits unsupported Qxx are also rather negative. Give partner SAxxxx Hxx DAxx Cxxx(very decent hand), you need a trump lead or spade lead with trump 3-2, DK on side to make 4H. If opp leads D from DK, you still nedd trump 3-2; if opp leads diamond from Dxxxx, you need CAK on side.... if opps lead a low club, you are probably dead, if opps lead A from CAK, you still need DK on side and trump 3-2....so it really doesn't produce a good game facing a rather decent dummy and sometimes, partner may raise you to 4H with even weak hands. For example, he might have SAJxxx Hxx DKxx Cxxx, you are even worse placed.

I think 1NT and 2S are close, 1NT describes the shape well, however, when you hold xxxx in opps' suit, you often belong to suits, even if partner has a stopper, he might not be able to duck it, xxx facing Kxx, partner may duck it and cut the communication, xxxx facing Kx, partner has to win K on the first trick and opps still probably have their communication. but change xxxx to Txxx or even 9xxx, the situation may change dramatically, because opps may be blocked in the suit.

2C here. It's actually an overbid, but since nobody play strong two, this hand is probably too risky to open 1S if your partner doesn't like to bid 1NT with 4-5 HCP, 3 spades with something like Kxx xxx Jxx xxxx, you might not make 6S which is a reasonable contract, but at least you want to play 4S. Also, facing xxx xxx xxx xxxx, you probably still don't mind 4S which needs some luck. Another bid problem is that if you open 1S and jumprebid 3D, you still may miss an excellent 6D facing SKx HQxxx DJxx CQJTx, partner has no other choice here, but it's not clear for you to pull 3NT to 4D with your hand. If you overbid 2C, you'd probably find 6D in this layout: 2C 2D 2S 2N 3D 3S 4D 5D 6D. 2C is bad only when you find a misfit and broken hand from partner.

sometimes you go down, it happens even for some 28 hcp games. But on balance, you'll find out that opening 11 counts made of AK only (and nothing wasted) and inviting with 10 count made of AK only (and nothing wasted) tends to payoff. (DISCLAIMER- do not provide 4333 hands please :) ) Remember, most of the time you won't have the overlapping of the 2 most minimum hands you posted, worst case scenario, admittedly possible, but not the percentage scenario. Most of the time you'll have: - a "normal" opener opposite a good 10 count made of AK , which makes 2NT (min opener) or 3NT (max opener) more often than not, OR - an 11 count opener made of AK opposite opposite a "classical" GF or invitational hand, which also makes quite often. You'll bid many games that have play in a combined 24 count, sometimes you'll go down, sometimes game will be cold, and sometimes you will make thanks to your magnificent dummy play technique :D You'll also put moire pressure on opponents which will need to defend very accurately to avoid sllipping. And the increased frequency makes it such that defenders tend to slip here and there or on opening lead (ask the Meckwell... ;-). Furthermore, we have the added bonus everytime we discover a fit after inviting. (e.g. typical example, checkback after 1x:1y:1NT) If you bid 2NT with 10 HCP, no fit, balanced, A,K,K, facing a 12-14 1NT rebid, I guarantee you are a loser in a long run. You may find some lucky games once in a long long while when partner's fillers hit your suits and may over bid 3NT with no play facing a normal 14 HCP misfit hand. And the major draw back is that you play 2NT which can often go down facing a 12 to normal 13 partner. You can raise 1NT rebid to 2NT only when you play R-S and don't open most 12 balanced and play a 16-18 1NT opening. Good controls hands usually work very well when you find a fit, and if you have no fit, fillers are the key for marginal games. Anyway, all point count systems are just training wheel for kids to learn bike.

It's rather simple. 2C 2D(gameforcing waiting) 3C 3N 4C 4H(denies D stopper) 4S(cue) 5D(DQ) 6C.

that's why people preempt. Also, 3S might be better than 3NT I think. You may miss sp games or slams sometimes, but at least you probably play in the right suit. I think people are bidding too many offshape 3NT nowadays. 3NT is still in nature balanced.

2H is bad. The right bid here is 1NT. Later you can introduce your clubs at some level. How many clubs you bid is no science though.