[ulven]

helene_t, on 2020-February-13, 04:57, said:

Yeah, 2M is a solution to the major hole in the system. Maybe a price worth to pay?

I've played the 2M-opening (10-14, 4M & 5+m) on-off for 20 years or so. In NABC's for the past 5 years.
It's not a price to pay - it's fun and a clear winner.
Does take a little bit of experience and continuations to get the most mileage out of it.

[helene_t]

OK, what about something like

1♣=balanced or 16-18 with clubs - if only balanced, lots of bids in contested auctions would have little utility anyway, such as 1♣-(p)-1♥-(2♦)-3♣, so including some strong hands with clubs may not cost so much
1♦/♥: 5+ hearts/spades
1♠: diamonds, as suggested by Adam
1NT=clubs, 12-15 or 19+.
2♥/♠: 4M, 5+m

So after 1NT-2♣, you pass with 12-15 and bid on with 19+.

This leaves us with a hole for both minors, and for 4441. But we still have the 2m openings idle, and we could maybe put the both minor hands into the 1♠ opening.

[awm]

Here's another possibility:

1♣ = any balanced or (4441)
1♦ = 5+ hearts
1♥ = 5+ spades
1♠ = 4M with a longer minor
1NT = strong unbalanced with no 4M (responder's 2♣ negative can be passed with clubs and a minimum)
2m = natural unbalanced with no 4M

After 1♠ something like:

1NT = hearts or strong
... 2m = 5+m with spades and not very strong
... 2♥ = 4♥ and not very strong
... 2♠ = 4♠ and extras
... 2N+ = 4♥ and extras
2♣ = spades and not very strong (pass/correct basically)
2♦ = no 4M

[helene_t]

This looks quite good, Adam. Anyone wants to try this on Bid72? Obviously it would be nice not to sell the 4441 as balanced, but the Roman 2♣ opening is probably worse.

[rbforster]

helene_t, on 2020-February-14, 01:22, said:

This looks quite good, Adam. Anyone wants to try this on Bid72? Obviously it would be nice not to sell the 4441 as balanced, but the Roman 2♣ opening is probably worse.

a slight tweak to that might be

1♠ 4♠ and longer minor
1N 4♥ and longer minor
2N strong unbalanced no 4M

You could probably put the (41)44 hands into the 4M unbalanced openings instead of 1♣ if you wanted.

[nullve]

awm, on 2020-February-13, 22:55, said:

1NT = strong unbalanced with no 4M (responder's 2♣ negative can be passed with clubs and a minimum)
2m = natural unbalanced with no 4M

I'd prefer to separate 5m4Om from 6+ m before it's too late, so maybe

1N = 10-15, (31)54* / "10-15", 6+ D, no M / "10-15", 5D5C / "16+", unBAL, no M
...2♣ = to play opposite 10-15, 5D4C
......P = "10-15, 4+ C"
......2♦ = "10-15", 6+D4-C
......2♥+ = "16+"
...2♦ = to play opposite "10-15"
......P = "10-15"
......2♥+ = "16+"
...(...)
2♣ = "10-15", 6+ C, no M
2♦ = 10-15, (31)45.

?

A slight variation that enables Responder to pass 2♦ more often, but at the cost of having the 1N opening only promise 4 D:

1N = 10-15, (31)45* / "10-15", 6+ D, no M / "10-15", 5D5C / "16+", unBAL, no M
...2♣ = to play opposite 10-15, 4D5C
......P = "10-15", 5+ C
......2♦ = "10-15", 6+D4-C
......2♥+ = "16+"
...2♦ = to play opposite "10-15"
......P = "10-15"
......2♥+ = "16+"
...(...)
2♣ = "10-15", 6+ C, no M
2♦ = 10-15, (31)54.

* treating instead 22(54) as BAL