Best way

[glen]

*** So you took your 'other' to mean the 'same'?

No, given the requirement "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ...",

there are three options:

1) Big club style: 1C covers all 15+, 1D is a weak NT

2) Modified Polish style: 1C covers weak NT and all 18+, 1D is any 15-17

3) Other: you have a better solution

 

Other is not a better solution to bidding systems in general, but for the requirement, a better solution than 1 or 2. Other is not the 'same', since there are other ways of handling the requirement. For example here is a poster who would have preferred not to tackle the requirement but did:

 

I don't really like the question :P but how about

 

1♣ 12-14 NT or 15-17 with a major or 18+ any

1♦ 15-17 NT or minor-oriented hand

 

Or even (envisioning a Polish-style response structure to 1♣)

 

1♣ 12-14 NT or 15-17 with spades or 18+ any

1♦ 15-17 without spades

...

Thanks!

[dake50]

No, given the requirement "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ...",

there are three options:

1) Big club style: 1C covers all 15+, 1D is a weak NT

2) Modified Polish style: 1C covers weak NT and all 18+, 1D is any 15-17

3) Other: you have a better solution

 

Other is not a better solution to bidding systems in general, but for the requirement, a better solution than 1 or 2. Other is not the 'same', since there are other ways of handling the requirement. For example here is a poster who would have preferred not to tackle the requirement but did:

 

***

So, I get it. 'Other' way to handle this 'same' problem: weak bal in 1C or 1D.

[marcD]

even though i prefer polish club to precision , i voted 1 since I really think 1♦ to show 15-17 all shapes is flawed. It will require a lot of science and agreements to handle competition .