We're a little high

[aguahombre]

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