[aguahombre]

lalldonn, on 2012-September-25, 11:14, said:

I like 5♣. If we give partner the same shape but AK of clubs and out, in other words closer to what a 4♣ bid should look like vul, then the opponents easily make 4 of either major but will often be down in 5, and we are down 2 in 5♣X but maybe down 1 or even making if they misdefend, such as 2 rounds of spades on the go, or ace of diamonds opening lead.

Finally a voice of reason about the 5C bid. IMO, that QTX of hearts was the key, disabling partner's ability to make a reasonable judgement.

[jogs]

I like undisciplined preempts. 4♣ is my call. Only aces count toward raises. Partner should pass.

[gszes]

i am not that happy with the 4c bid but my main dislike is the 5c bid.
There is little overall concern with the opps bidding a slam so the concept
would appear to be is 5c always going to be a good sac. We just dont know
and there is little sense in risking -800 when it is possible the opps will let
us play in 4c.

[lalldonn]

gszes, on 2012-September-25, 14:26, said:

i am not that happy with the 4c bid but my main dislike is the 5c bid.
There is little overall concern with the opps bidding a slam so the concept
would appear to be is 5c always going to be a good sac. We just dont know
and there is little sense in risking -800 when it is possible the opps will let
us play in 4c.

The concept would be 5♣ is a good sac, or the opponents bid 5 of a major and go down when 4 was making, or 5♣ is allowed to make. I'm not sure what hand partner would have where we are likely to go for 800 but maybe my idea of a 4 minor opening vul is old fashioned for this crowd.

[Zelandakh]

If you want to open this kind of hand 4♣ then a useful convention might be using a 3NT opening as a good 4m preempt. That makes the weaker (direct) 4m preempt more defined and thereby easier to handle.

[aguahombre]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-28, 07:33, said:

If you want to open this kind of hand 4♣ then a useful convention might be using a 3NT opening as a good 4m preempt. That makes the weaker (direct) 4m preempt more defined and thereby easier to handle.

With all due respect, I don't understand your terms, here.

Would a "good" 4m preempt mean pure in terms of ODR, or just more strength?

If "Weaker", could include the given hand, it would be less defined and harder for partner to figure out what to do. Even if it were guaranteed to contain some Law-subtracting feature as this one does, I don't see that as helpful to CHO.

[Zelandakh]

Good can be whatever you and partner want it to be depending on the types of hands you want to be able to preempt to the 4 level with. I think logical to take best advantage might be for the good preempts to be good in terms of suitability for 3NT, say those hands with a good 7 card suit and those for weak to be a weaker 8 card suit. Key is for partner with a decent hand to be able to make a good decision between stopping in 3NT, converting to 4m, or raising to 5m. Essentially this method is designed to take the hands that are good enough for a 4m preempt but get opened 3m to avoid missing 3NT out of the 3m opening in order to add more definition generally (at the cost of losing Gambling 3NT). However, for a pair that feels the need for extra-wide-ranging 4m openings it offers a way of getting back to a somewhat more manageable method. They would just be able to sit for 3NT less often when it is right than the method as originally designed.

[aguahombre]

Thank you. That clears up your intent for me. The concern about playing in 3NT is food for thought. We consider it to be more of an accidental byproduct, and define "good" as a preempt which is designed to give only two of the others at the table problems.

Granted, good and bad preempts can work well or badly on occasion regardless of whether we fool partner or the opponents or everyone (including ourself).

[JLOGIC]

I would only open 3