5(4) card majors anyone?

[NickRW]

My point was that 4cM is quite playable with weak NT (indeed, for MP, arguably better than just playable).  But if you shift your NT range higher it gives problems.

Why is that? OK, if 1M openings include balanced 12-14 hands interference becomes difficult to handle but the same is true for the 1m openings in a 5cM system.

Well, never mind opposing bids, my distaste for 4cM with anything other than a weak NT coupled with a 2/1 that shows 9 (or even 10 as some play it) (as I was originally taught and played years ago) stems from this sort of hand:

 

Kxx

AQ9x

QTx

J9x

 

Flat as a pancake it is true, but a decent 12 count all the same and you open it 1♥ and partner, as an unpassed hand, comes back at you with 2m - now what? 2N? I've personally had my fill of being -1 in those sorts of contracts on a combined 21 or 22.

 

To my mind to solve this you either need to go a] 5cM or b] drop the NT range back to 12-14 (or just maybe weaker if you're that way inclined) or c] put the 2/1 response up to at least GI if not GF. (Or just maybe d] putting your opening bid requirement back to 'ye olde' 13 count - but that doesn't seem to me to be winning bridge either especially at MP).

 

If others think that is workable way to go about designing a system, well, ok, perhaps I should shut my mouth - but I will say in closing that I won't relish being your partner.

 

Nick

[NickRW]

My point was that 4cM is quite playable with weak NT (indeed, for MP, arguably better than just playable).  But if you shift your NT range higher it gives problems.

I don't know why you make this statement.

 

Coming from a 4-card majorite environment, where 'everyone' play 15-17 NT, my experience is quite the opposite. It's very easy to play 4cM, 15-17NT and 2/1 = 10+ hcp. Dropping the NT range seems to give a lot of problems to me. Sure' you solve a few things (never being minimum when you open one of a suit), but I've seen too much trouble with standard acol sequences to believe that 12-14NT makes things easier.

 

A 14-16 range is OK IMO.

Harald, if I were playing IMPs a lot, then I'd agree with you. It seems to me that the modern Acol style works fine for MP - but outside of that form of the game I'd be looking for something else.

 

Nick

[helene_t]

Well, never mind opposing bids, my distaste for 4cM with anything other than a weak NT coupled with a 2/1 that shows 9 (or even 10 as some play it) (as I was originally taught and played years ago) stems from this sort of hand:

 

Kxx

AQ9x

QTx

J9x

 

Flat as a pancake it is true, but a decent 12 count all the same and you open it 1♥ and partner, as an unpassed hand, comes back at you with 2m - now what? 2N? I've personally had my fill of being -1 in those sorts of contracts on a combined 21 or 22.

If you play a 15-17 1NT, a 2/1 should want to be in game opposite a balance 14 counts (if you need more than a balanced 14 to be in game, it's safe to respond 1NT).

 

This makes it a little awkward to rebid the 18-19 and 14 hands since you can't rebid a NF 2NT with 14. I suspect that the 15-17 range comes from a time when balanced 12-counts were not opened. It may be better to play a 14-16 1NT nowadays. Of course if you play 5cM it doesn't matter, but as long a 1♦ can be a balanced hand with only four diamonds, a 14-16 1NT range would help here as well.

[NickRW]

If you play a 15-17 1NT, a 2/1 should want to be in game opposite a balance 14 counts (if you need more than a balanced 14 to be in game, it's safe to respond 1NT).

If I understand you right, then you're as good as agreeing with me - 2/1 would be fine with 11, but, without fit, many 10s and nearly all 9s would be too weak to be inviting opposite 14 - so therefore your 2/1 is GI as opposed to Acol's normal style of 9+ which is merely encouraging.

 

Nick