[jugarul]

All vurnerable,I open 1NT - x - 3♥...I never met it before...barage ?

[jtfanclub]

Looks natural and pre-emptive to me....

xxx
JTxxxxx
x
Qx

or suchlike.

[ArtK78]

Clearly preemptive.

This kind of bid is more common when the opening 1NT bid is a weak NT.

[TheoKole]

I like to use 1 NT -> 3 ♥ to describe a hand with singleton ♠, 3 hearts and 5-4 in the minors (with 5 - 5 I would have used minor suit stayman), and points fot game.

1NT -> 3 ♠ would describe a similar hand with a singleton heart.

In 1 NT -> (X) -> 3 ♥ or 3 ♠ it would make sense with this agreement to either play it the same way but with a lighter hand (ie. barrage)

Theo

[P_Marlowe]

What ever you have agreed on, but I would take
it as natural and forcing.

To a large degree this may depend on the meaning
of the X.
If the X is artificial, e.g. they play DONT, i.e. the X
would show a weak 1-suiter, than 3H simply says,
partner i have no interest in a penalty, I want to play
game. If we are red and they are green, it is a tough
job to get them -4.
If the X was penalty, playing 3H as preemptive does
not make sense either (at least from a frequency point),
we are red, and one of the oppoents guys told us he wants
to go for blood, why risk going down -2 / -3 Xed, when we
are red.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: I play a strong NT, so take the above in the context of
a strong NT opener.

[jtfanclub]

P_Marlowe, on Jan 24 2008, 05:08 AM, said:

If the X was penalty, playing 3H as preemptive does
not make sense either (at least from a frequency point),
we are red, and one of the oppoents guys told us he wants
to go for blood, why risk going down -2 / -3 Xed, when we
are red.

For the same reason that people open 3♥. For the same reason that most people play weak jump responses over a double.

An awful lot of people are 'willing to risk going down -2 / -3 Xed, when we are red' even when their partner doesn't have a good hand. Why is this different? The penalty Xer might just have a 16 count with a good suit. Why let him show it at the 3 level?

Besides, what else are you going to use it for? Partner opened a strong NT, next player doubles for penalty, the odds of you having a pre-emptive hand have to be a lot higher than a hand that wants to consider more than one place to play game, and what else could it be?

Example:

---

Makes 3 hearts N-S, 4 diamonds EW. No voids, nothing freakish. Total trumps 19, total tricks 19. Not shocking when you have a 7 card suit across a 1NT opener.

But if you don't pre-empt, you won't get a good result.

[FrancesHinden]

Yes, it's pre-emptive.
Vulnerable opposite a strong NT, partner is allowed to raise on a suitable hand (one with aces).

NV opposite a mini NT, it could be anything..

If the double was not for penalties you might agree to play it with the same meaning as after 1NT P.

[mikeh]

TheoKole, on Jan 24 2008, 04:58 AM, said:

I like to use 1 NT -> 3 ♥ to describe a hand with singleton ♠, 3 hearts and 5-4 in the minors (with 5 - 5 I would have used minor suit stayman), and points fot game.

1NT -> 3 ♠ would describe a similar hand with a singleton heart.

In 1 NT -> (X) -> 3 ♥ or 3 ♠ it would make sense with this agreement to either play it the same way but with a lighter hand (ie. barrage)

Theo

No: it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to play that 3M is 31(45)/13(45) weak after a penalty double of 1N.

There are reasons why natural, preemptive with a long suit makes sense.

Our guaranteed fit of at least 8 cards and usually 9 and sometimes 10, opposite a strong balanced hand, makes it relatively safe at the 3-level. At the same time, our long suit, as responder, and weakness makes it highly likely that the opps can make either a good partial or a game, and we want to make it as difficult as possible for them to find their fit. This is especially true when the double may be either merely a strong hand (balanced 16+ or so) or a good hand with a good lead: Ax xx KQJ10xx Ax.... this hand will beat 1N but won't be a good dummy if partner has xx Qxxxx xx KQxx and bids 4♥ over our 3♠. Opener, with Kxx AKJ9 Axx xxx can easily double. Yet if the original doubler held Axx KJx KQxx Axx, leaving opener with KQx Axx AJxx Jxx, passing 3♠ means missing a game, so we can see that the long suit weak meaning is powerful.

Give responder some 13(45) or 3145 weak hand for his 3Major bid, and we have some horrible problems.

We may not have a fit! Picture our wonderful 3♠ call catching 3=4=3=3 shape. And, if we do have a good fit, it will usually be at the 4-level on a weak hand, less than game invitational values, opposite a good balanced defensive hand.

In other words, we will be knowingly opting for a minus score on a hand that probably belongs to us: if the hand belongs to the opps despite our shape and values, they will often be able to double us. And if they do play the hand, they can play virtually double-dummy.