[Shugart23]

How does this look ? Playing Precision, Opening 2NT shows 5-5 in minors, 11-15 HCP; 3NT is gambling, 4NT is undefined, all bids 3c and higher show a weak hand in the next denomination..eg. 3D shows weak hand with Hearts, 3S shows weak hand with long clubs, etc. One consequence would be there is no preemptive 3C bid. These bids would be alerted and not announced as transfers, because when white vs red, Responder may want to pass and go down for 7 for 350...So 3S - alert = please explain - "weak hand with long clubs" - all pass would be a possible sequence. This is in ACBL world

[johnu]

Shugart23, on 2025-September-07, 15:25, said:

How does this look ? Playing Precision, Opening 2NT shows 5-5 in minors, 11-15 HCP; 3NT is gambling, 4NT is undefined, all bids 3c and higher show a weak hand in the next denomination..eg. 3D shows weak hand with Hearts, 3S shows weak hand with long clubs, etc. One consequence would be there is no preemptive 3C bid. These bids would be alerted and not announced as transfers, because when white vs red, Responder may want to pass and go down for 7 for 350...So 3S - alert = please explain - "weak hand with long clubs" - all pass would be a possible sequence. This is in ACBL world

The ACBL alert procedures says under Announcements:

Quote

3. Any Artificial bid that primarily shows Length in one specific suit and any double or redouble that shows Length in one specific suit. Use the name of the suit being shown as the announcement. This does not apply to suits in which you or your Partner have already shown Length.

I disagree with alerting these one under preempts which are specifically addressed in the announcements section of the Alert Procedures. If you want to be proactive, tell the opponents you may psych a pass before the start of the round.

[mike777]

I thought the current trend of very top strong club players is,
2NT as strong
Moving away from the 5-5 convention..

[Shugart23]

Thanks , so upon hearing partner open 3D, you are saying I should say ‘transfer’ ? Aside from the rules, which I want to be on firm ground’, what is wrong with the method of bidding one under the length? Why isn’t it common practice? Seems to make sense to bid preempts this way. .

[johnu]

Shugart23, on 2025-September-07, 16:37, said:

Thanks , so upon hearing partner open 3D, you are saying I should say ‘transfer’ ?

I would say e.g Transfer to hearts, just to clarify since this is unfamiliar compared to Jacoby transfers. Even in Jacoby Transfers, you should mention hearts, to be 100% obvious.

[mycroft]

Please read the charts, at least if you're planning on playing in ACBL sanctioned games. I'm happy to help, but they aren't hard (if you're looking for a specific thing, at least).

Open, Disallowed 7: An Artificial opening Preempt below 3NT; except, 2NT may be used to show two known suits.

Legal Open+ (and bypasses the "6 boards" issue because the suit is known). Open+ events are - uncommon (but not nearly as nonexistent as MidChart of old).

Alert Procedure has this to say on Announcements (my emphasis, and irrelevant last sentence elided):
3. Any Artificial bid that primarily shows Length in one specific suit and any double or redouble that shows Length in the next higher suit. Use the name of the suit being shown as the announcement.

So, if you're playing in an event where the transfer preempts are legal, your Announcement of your partner's 3♦ opener is simply "Hearts". Please avoid the T word; it has been removed from the official announcement for a *very good* reason. Also note that the announcement applies even if the suit shown is not the next suit up: for me for instance, 1NT-4♦ is announced "Spades" (this would also apply to those crazies playing Switch).

[DavidKok]

Your transfer agreement is legal here and considered seriously flawed, nobody plays it. By not using a natural bid your apply way less pressure, giving the opponents room to e.g. pass-then-bid, or pass-then-double.

I've played 2NT as showing both minors and I think it's a winner - not because the bid itself is great but because putting the big balanced hand in 1♣ is profitable. You could consider leaving 2NT idle.

[straube]

4N can be a better prermpt of one minor. In addition to giving you two strengths, the contract can be rightsided sometimes or (rarely) 4N can be passed to make ir as a sacrifice. Like transfer preempts, this also gives the opponents two chances to act.

[Huibertus]

Shugart23, on 2025-September-07, 15:25, said:

...3NT is gambling, ...

So finally after all this time you hold a hand that qualifies again, you open 3NT and when dummy came down you realized you're playing it from the wrong side.

Better use 3♠ for this hand. Or treat is as a natural minor suit opening.

[DavidKok]

 Huibertus, on 2025-September-26, 04:13, said:

So finally after all this time you hold a hand that qualifies again, you open 3NT and when dummy came down you realized you're playing it from the wrong side.

Better use 3♠ for this hand. Or treat is as a natural minor suit opening.

A bid for every hand, not a hand for every bid. I'm surprised people would seriously entertain giving up a natural 3♠ preempt for something like this.

Peeemptive, weak and shape bids are more effective when they are not forcing. This immediately forces the opponents to commit to defending or playing. I've played a lot of artificial preempts over the years, and this drawback outshines all other considerations.

When it comes to a solid 7-card minor, I think the opening choices are 1m > 3NT > 3♠ for this reason, and that's without even considering the opportunity cost of losing 3♠ natural.

[Huibertus]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-26, 05:06, said:

A bid for every hand, not a hand for every bid. I'm surprised people would seriously entertain giving up a natural 3♠ preempt for something like this.

Peeemptive, weak and shape bids are more effective when they are not forcing. This immediately forces the opponents to commit to defending or playing. I've played a lot of artificial preempts over the years, and this drawback outshines all other considerations.

When it comes to a solid 7-card minor, I think the opening choices are 1m > 3NT > 3♠ for this reason, and that's without even considering the opportunity cost of losing 3♠ natural.

Obviously it wouldn't give up a natural 3♠ preempt, that'd be either 3♥ or 3♠ would be either or. Both options have been played including at world championships.

Of course every agreement has advantages and disadvantages. For me wrong-siding a 3NT by definition when you hold a gambling NT is too much to swallow. So I don't play gambling, open 1 of a minor with these hands. The alternative I described I've never played but is genuine.

[DavidKok]

I'm reminded of Sabine Auken's 3♥ showing either a natural preempt in hearts or a Gambling 3NT in clubs. In her book "I Love This Game" she describes on pages 108-109 how lack of discussion on the continuations in competition lost 15 IMPs and set Germany up to lose the Venice Cup semifinals in 1989, after starting with what should have been a decisive lead.

I'm not a fan of artificial preempts like this, especially not for something as low priority as siding. If you do play them though, make sure to discuss the continuations if the opponents aren't silent - after most weak bids this is a likely scenario.

If you insist on allocating some hands to 3NT, 'a good 4-level preempt in either major' is somewhat popular here.

[bluenikki]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-26, 05:06, said:

A bid for every hand, not a hand for every bid.

Marshall Miles: "It's OK to have idle bids. For example, we've never assigned a meaning to the auction 1♦ - 1NT - 7♠."

[pescetom]

 bluenikki, on 2025-September-28, 04:25, said:

Marshall Miles: "It's OK to have idle bids. For example, we've never assigned a meaning to the auction 1♦ - 1NT - 7♠."

Pass or correct to 7NT, what else?