[Giangibar]

I'd open both hands, even though I feel like the system used by OP makes me lean towards passing.

Playing 2/1 with a strong NT, I would definitely open in both cases and I don't think I would encounter many rebid problems: the second hand is an easy 1♦ opener and I can support partner's Hearts or simply rebid 1NT. The first one is trickier, but I think I would open 1♣ and be happy to raise a red suit by partner; if he bids 1♠, as expected, then I'd bid 1NT because it allows me to still find a fit at the 2 level if he rebids 2♦/♥ with a weakish hand... If he is 5-4 in the Majors and I open 1♦ intending to rebid 2♣, I'm probably burying the 4-4 Heart fit. 1♣ also has a lead directing value.

However, things are quite different with the OP's system: I would feel uncomfortable opening the first hand, because after the expected 1♠ response I would be stuck. Rebidding a 12-16 NT just makes me sick, while opening 1♦ and rebidding 2♣ might well lead me into playing 2♦ in a 4-2 fit. I really think the system needs some adjustments in this area. I'd still open a weak NT the second one, though I wouldn't be happy about it because I might be losing a ♥ fit.

[nige1]

 wank, on 2014-October-30, 19:08, said:

crowhurst was bad 30 years ago. nowadays it's so bad i doubt half of the forum have heard of it.

40 years ago, in Precision Bidding in Acol, Eric Crowhurst described his eponymous Check-back convention that spawned the modern variants. He invented many other conventions, still popular today e.g. 5-card Stayman and Woolsey/Multi-Landy/Reverse-Pottage. He was a modest gentleman and a brilliant bridge-theorist.

[SteelWheel]

 gszes, on 2014-October-29, 09:53, said:

pass with both

Both of these hands can lead to some very poor low level contracts using a weak NT
structure no matter the basic system (except maybe EHA). Sometimes succeeding at
getting to a good low level contract is not worth the overall risk associated with
landing in poor ones. The 3 quick tricks make it much less likely the opps have a
game so the reward part is dramatically reduced while the risk remains.

In EHAA, the hand with the stiff spade is a clear pass. Any 4441 in the 10-12 range is a pass in 1st or 2nd seat. If pard opens in one of your four-baggers, you jump in your short suit to show your mini-splinter.

If pard opens in your stiff, you jump to 2NT (sort of an "impossible 2NT" type hand).

[mikestar13]

Legend has it that Edgar Kaplan would assassinate a partner who wouldn't open hand 2 with a weak NT.

Hand #1 is more debatable, but I'd given it a try with 1♦ in ACOL, and even more so in 2 over 1/SAYC where I and to raise a red suit response might rebid 1NT after a 1♠ response.

In the 2 over 1 case, I'll usually open 1♣, intending to rebid 1NT over 1♠ and raise a red suit response.

In ACOL, the opening needs to be 1♦, since 1♣-1♠-1NT would show 15-17. 1♥ is also possible, depending on partner's attitude towards 3-card raises of 1M.

[the hog]

The first one has an easy rebid, so I would open. I pass the second as it is too flat.

[mcphee]

While I think a lot of players will open hand 1 my feelings do not fall into that group. When I do not hold spades opening this particular hand may well become a problem. If you open it looks like you might open the door for the opponents to bid some number of S. If partner bids them it does not exactly light up the campfire. 4/4/4/1 hands also often do not play so well facing minimum competition. Yeah you have some stuff, I just think these sort of hands are better to wait and compete later if possible.

Hand 2 playing weak NT I'm in (maybe I can groan before opening:))We may even be fortunate enough to have tremendous run out methods if the axe falls.