[phoenix214]

Playing transfer preempts what would be your use of a 3♠ opening bid.
And as a side question, is playing 3♠ as a clasical gambling legal, if you look at brown sticker regulations

[kgr]

phoenix214, on 2013-December-14, 20:56, said:

Playing transfer preempts what would be your use of a 3♠ opening bid.
And as a side question, is playing 3♠ as a clasical gambling legal, if you look at brown sticker regulations

3S gambling.
If brown sticker not allowed then gambling with an opening if that is allowed (a Q next to minor suit).

[Free]

I've never understood why a pure gambling isn't considered strong enough as an opening (which is why 3♠ gambling is brown sticker). You have a solid 7 card suit with 9HCP and lots of distribution, so why is it considered weak? If you have a AKQxxxx in a Major and open 1M nobody cares either...

[inquiry]

phoenix214, on 2013-December-14, 20:56, said:

Playing transfer preempts what would be your use of a 3♠ opening bid.
And as a side question, is playing 3♠ as a clasical gambling legal, if you look at brown sticker regulations

If it is legal where you play, you can use 3♠ as any 7 card solid suit. Responses that I use when playing this are:

• Pass - very rare, but sometimes you can know partners suit is spades based upon cards in the other suits
• 3NT to play. Note, we "right side" the 3NT contract compared to normal gambling 3NT
• 4♣ ask for opener to signoff in his solid seven card suit.
• 4♦ ask opener to show singleton or void, presumably responder knows openers suit
• 4NT ask opener to bid small slam with eight card suit.

[the hog]

Transfer pre empts are an abomination. I love it whan the opponents play these as I have so many more options over their openings.
If I played with Garozzo and he forced me to play these, he could suggest the 3S bid to mean anything - a pre empt in Cs perhaps.

[mikestar13]

Free, on 2013-December-15, 06:32, said:

I've never understood why a pure gambling isn't considered strong enough as an opening (which is why 3♠ gambling is brown sticker). You have a solid 7 card suit with 9HCP and lots of distribution, so why is it considered weak? If you have a AKQxxxx in a Major and open 1M nobody cares either...

I can't understand it either. The WBF makes no exception to its definition of a weak hand (<10 HCP, regardless of distribution). Sensibly, the English Bridge Union's Blue Book contains the definition that a hand with a suit of AKQxxx or longer is not a weak hand (therefor not subject to Brown Sticker). I don't know how may other bridge organizations follow their lead. I would think that most of Europe would do so; but since I live in bat-**** crazy ACBL land, I may ascribe more rationality to European NBO's than is in point of fact the case.

[Kungsgeten]

I had an idea of 3S being two-way:

a) Gambling (solid minor)
b) Specific ace ask

3S--
..3NT = To play vs Gambling
....4C = Specific ace ask
......4D = Ace of diamonds or no ace, 4H then asks and 4S denies ace
......4HS = Ace of the major
......4N = Ace of clubs
......5C = Two aces, same color
......5D = Two aces, same rank
......5H = Two aces, same shape
......5S = Three aces
..4C = Pass/Correct vs Gambling
....4D = Diamonds
....4H = Specific ace ask
......4S = Ace of spades or no ace, 4N then asks and 5C denies
......4N = Ace of hearts
......5CD = Ace of the minor
......5H = Two aces, same color
......5S = Two aces, same rank
......5N = Two aces, same shape
......6C = Three aces
..4D = Asking for SPL vs Gambling
....4HS = SPL
....4NT = No SPL (7222)
....5m = Natural, SPL in other minor
....Higher = Natural, strong
..4HS = Own suit, suggestion to play

[FrancesHinden]

mikestar13, on 2013-December-15, 22:31, said:

I can't understand it either. The WBF makes no exception to its definition of a weak hand (<10 HCP, regardless of distribution). Sensibly, the English Bridge Union's Blue Book contains the definition that a hand with a suit of AKQxxx or longer is not a weak hand (therefor not subject to Brown Sticker). I don't know how may other bridge organizations follow their lead. I would think that most of Europe would do so; but since I live in bat-**** crazy ACBL land, I may ascribe more rationality to European NBO's than is in point of fact the case.

Oddly enough, that bit in the EBU Blue Book used to be in the WBF system policy, that's where we copied it from. I wonder when it was changed - definitely very recently (I see the system policy was altered this October)
The Blue Book will probably change next August in line with this; it is supposed to be aligned with the WBF policy