[crdshrk]

Sorry for the repeats. Didn't think it was sending. Guess I'm getting my point across though

[crdshrk]

Sorry for the repeats. Didn't look like it was sending.

[ahydra]

Well, you may have said it 4 times then apologised twice , but I'm still confused - 2NT is 18-19, not 15-19.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

You are slightly hamstrung by system, there are any number of better ways to handle this hand that get nothing like so high so fast/awkwardly.

I presume you don't have a non GF may contain 4M inverted raise for example.

At the table I don't like 4♣ undiscussed particularly if I happen to play gerber over a 1N/2N opener.

My choice would be between 3♣ then 4♣, 6♣ or 4N.

[Cyberyeti]

crdshrk, on 2016-February-21, 14:28, said:

The real problem is your system's NT range. It is counterproductive. NT ranges should be no more than 3 points in range. I could design hands with your range where game is pretty much hopeless (KQJx QJ Qxx KJxx) and hands where 7C is cold (AKxx xxx Axx AKJx) with this same range. Systems that allow for that kind of ambiguity just don't work. Fix your NT range and you won't have these issues.

A) as the OP makes clear he plays 18-19 for the 2N rebid, it was 15-19 when he opened 1♣ if balanced, but I presume he rebid 1N with 15-17.
B) you can play a notrump rebid that wide as long as it's 1N not 2N, we have for years.

[fromageGB]

I think the system is the problem here. It seems that you have to bid 3♣ to discover what sort of hand opener has, and then if you bid clubs you are already over 3NT, which is likely the common contract. This means that after 3♠ you would need to decide whether to go for slam or not, so it is simply a question of probability.

While you could construct slam hands, I would construct more non-slam hands. Having thought that through, I make the decision right now, at 2NT, and simply bid 3NT. Let them think opener may be a singleton and make a club lead! Whatever, give them no more free info.

System-wise, my view is that there is too much being crammed into the 1♣ open, but that's by the by. Another problem seems to be that there is no way to suggest clubs as a slam contract or even ace ask in clubs once partner has bid 3♠. At this point, opener doesn't know you have a club suit, and you are only one bid beneath 3NT.

[kenberg]

As noted above, the system creates some issues. Here are my (somewhat) revised thoughts:

After 2NT I bid 3C. If partner then says 3S I give up and bid 3NT.

Contrast this with a simple system. 1C-1H-2NT-3C. Now partner, holding four spades and two hearts, will still bid 3S. The difference is that unless he is being cute, his shape is 4=2=3=4. With 2=2=4=3 he would have opened 1D. With this hand, it's important. Ordinarilt a strong 9 card fit is plenty, but here I plan on ruffing two hearts in dummy. If the dummy has AKx of clubs this might work, but it very well may not.

I am definitely not making a case against the general system. Every system has features good and bad. But here, if I cannot tell whether opener has four clubs or four diamonds, I think I let caution be my guide. Holding six clubs and one diamond, and playing in a manner that partner would bid this way holding 4-3 in the minors either direction, I place my bet with him holding four diamonds and three clubs, and then give it up.