4cM poll :)

[gnasher]

Since 1m now promises at least a four-card suit (and if only four, will not have a decent 4cM so usually a good four-card suit) it also suggests raising to 2m often and avoiding inverted raises.

You lost me here, liked the rest!

If you had Kxx Kxx Qxxx xxx facing a "Standard" 1♦ opener, you'd be content to bid 1NT.

 

Playing 4-card majors, 1♦ will always be four and often five, so you don't expect to be allowed to play 1NT very often, and it's less likely to be the right contract anyway. Given that, it's better to mention your diamond support while you can.

 

If there are more weakish hands that want to support diamonds, there is more need for space for exploring opposite hands in that range. Hence the value of a non-strong 2♦ raise is greater.

 

I don't know whether this is enough to justify not playing Inverted Minors. For what it's worth (not much, probably), in England most 4-card major players don't play them, and most 5-card major players do.

[JLOGIC]

Yes but playing 4 card majors you much more frequently have a hand that can bid 1D-3D to begin with, and less hands that want to just bid 2D. Any hand with 5 diamonds and a lot of hands with 4 diamonds can comfortably bid 3D over 1D in 4 card majors where 1D is usually 5 and sometimes 4.

 

I mean really how many 4 card diamonds raises with no 4 card major do we have? xx45 can just bid 3D comfortably since they have the majors, so that leaves (23)44 and 3343. Yes we'd rather bid 2D natural than 3D with that, but that is very few combinations, and when I have 5 diamonds I would be happy to force to the 3 level.

[JLOGIC]

Of course if you have (4x)4x and 1D-2D is natural you can raise with that sometimes, forgot about that.

[NickRW]

If you think inverted minors are worthwhile (and there are pros and cons as with everything else), then surely they are more use to a 4cM system where 1m guarantees 4.

[helene_t]

Agree with AWM's reasoning. But I have thought of something in-between Polish Club and Scanian 4cM with strong NT:

 

1♣: 10+ one-suited w/ clubs, or

13+ unbal w/ clubs and 4cM, or

16+ bal, or

18+ w/ 5+ M and 4+ clubs

1♦: 10+ one-suited w/ diamonds, or

10+ minor 2-suiter (4/5 either way or better), or

13+ w/ diamonds and 4cM, or

18+ w/ 5+ M and 4+ diamonds

1M: 10-13 w/ 4cM, or

10-17 w/ 5+ M

1NT: 13-15

2♣: both majors (4/5 or better), 5-9 or 18+

2♦: one major, 5-9 or 18+

[hrothgar]

Yes but playing 4 card majors you much more frequently have a hand that can bid 1D-3D to begin with, and less hands that want to just bid 2D. Any hand with 5 diamonds and a lot of hands with 4 diamonds can comfortably bid 3D over 1D in 4 card majors where 1D is usually 5 and sometimes 4.

 

I mean really how many 4 card diamonds raises with no 4 card major do we have? xx45 can just bid 3D comfortably since they have the majors, so that leaves (23)44 and 3343. Yes we'd rather bid 2D natural than 3D with that, but that is very few combinations, and when I have 5 diamonds I would be happy to force to the 3 level.

On a related note:

 

In MOSCITO, a 1♠ opening shows an unbalanced hand with 4+ Diamonds and (typically) denies a 4 card major.

 

Opener normally has either single suited hand with 6+ Diamonds or a 2 suited hand with both minors.

 

A 3♣ response shows a hand that is willing to play at the three level opposite either minor.

 

I wonder whether something similar could be adopted in a more standard system...

[Zelandakh]

If you play 4 card majors and a weak NT then 1M shows eitehr extra langth or extra strength. That makes raising on 3 card support very attractive and if you are not doing so then you are probably missing one of the key advantages of this system. If you play a strong NT then you have to be much more careful about 3 card raises. But you have gained elsewhere from opening 1M more often. To my mind the strong NT, 4 card major structure makes most sense combined with strong club and canape but that system was specifically rules out by the conditions.

 

I can see the logic of not playing inverted minors with 4 card majors but I cannot subscribe to it. The value of a preemptive 3m is even better when the suit opposite is known to be real and meanwhile you solve alot of difficulties on stronger hands. My experience is quite different from the previous commentator on the position in England - I am seeing inverted minors becoming increasingly popular with 4 card majors.

 

Finally on opening major or minor I agree with awm. If you are going to play under the system contraints laid out in the OP then it make sense to maximise the 1M opening. That means opening any balanced 15+ hand with a 4 card major 1M. Tweaking the conditions however might lead to a different conclusion. For example Swiss Acol also makes alot of sense but this has been ruled out by disallowing 5 card spades.

 

Thus I voted 101 but primarily because of the initial constraints, not because it is a system I think is particularly great!

[NickRW]

So, with 46 votes in, the split between weak and strong NT is exactly even. 29 like inverted minors and 30 like major first - a fair majority in both cases, but hardly overwhelming.

[Finch]

I voted 001 but I really wanted to vote 0 - don't care - 1.

I agree with all the posters that say if you play a strong NT you definitely want to play majors first. If you make me play weak NT, I am not particularly bothered which way we play.