[dake50]

Your NT ladder is constraining you.
Put the hands that have one message:
bal 10-13 into 1NT opener.
Put your second NT: 15-17 into one minor.
Put your third into the other minor.
These strong NT's are expectably our hand.
Save space.
Whichever is the second NT, put some strong
hand types otherwise opener's rebid is wasted.

[blackshoe]

OP made the comment that there was one vote for "other", but no post explaining what. I note there are now nine votes for "other". I haven't read the thread though, so I don't know how many were explained. IAC, here's mine:

Balanced hands ('natural' context):

12-16: open 1X (usually 1m) and rebid 1NT (two way check back may follow)
17-18: open 1X, rebid 2NT
19+: various artificial openings, followed by 2NT or 3NT or Kokish relay.

Alternate (forcing club context):

10-12: open 1NT
13-16: open 1♦, rebid 1NT (two way check back may follow)
17-20: open 1♣, rebid 1NT
higher: open 1♣ or 2♦, followed by 2NT or 3NT or Kokish relay.

2nd alternate ('natural' context):

10-12: open 1NT
13-16: open 1X, rebid 1NT
17-18: open 1X, rebid 2NT
19-20: open 2NT
higher: as in the first option above.

I like option 1 when vul, option 2 when not vul (MPs) or (at IMPs) option two only at favorable vulnerability.

[glen]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-04, 09:30, said:

OP made the comment that there was one vote for "other", but no post explaining what. I note there are now nine votes for "other". I haven't read the thread ...

Part of the problem is that I stated "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ..."

Some posters who voted "other" took that to mean they are going to ignore that requirement, or in other terms ignore the question. While I do appreciate the alternatives suggested, it would be best to answer the question as given first.

[blackshoe]

glen, on 2012-March-04, 20:37, said:

Part of the problem is that I stated "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ..."

Then you play either a strong club system or a strong diamond system, and a mini NT or an artificial NT. Or, I suppose, a Polish type system. If those are the choices, I'd opt for strong club and mini-NT, but I don't have much experience of Polish-style systems, so I might be missing something.

[dake50]

Part of the problem is that I stated "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ..."

Some posters who voted "other" took that to mean they are going to ignore that requirement, or in other terms ignore the question. While I do appreciate the alternatives suggested, it would be best to answer the question as given first.

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

[glen]

dake50, on 2012-March-05, 01:32, said:

*** 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:

mgoetze, on 2012-February-15, 04:20, said:

I don't really like the question 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 .