Opening bid?

[Walddk]

So I will disagree with Roland and Foo. Talking about naymats in the context of a problem like this is fine

Excuse me, but what's the point of mentioning Namyats if you don't explain what it shows?

 

>>I would open 4♣ (namyats) and take my chances of missing a slam vs them not finding the spades<<, Luis says. Does he explain what Namyats implies, or should one expect that beginners and/or intermediates know? I don't think so.

 

 

Roland

[foo]

I'm with Roland all the way on this, and I help teach enough lower level players that I think I have a reasonably decent idea as to how most of their minds work.

 

Beginners and Intermediates are still learning what the DEFAULT language of bidding is for their area. The vast majority are just developing and learning how to apply logic and visualization to a bridge context. etc. etc.

 

Conventions and pet treatments are more effort for them to learn that, if done right, require a lot of attention that in most cases would be better spent on other more fundamental things that are going to occur or be stressed more often.

 

Then there is the memory and judgement overhead required to play whatever convention or pet treatment we are talking about correctly.

 

Take Roland's challenge:

=W/O= prior discusion except the agreement to play Namyats, how many of you are =sure= that you and a random advanced+ partner will get =all= of the possible Namyats auctions right and that you will be on the same wavelength with partner as to what hands open Namyats and what hands open 4M?

 

If you are honest, it requires a substantial partnership effort to play most conventions or pet treatments correctly. Even the common ones. Let alone the more esoteric ones like Namyats or the "Steve Burgess 74 Opening" or ...

 

Beginners and Intermediates will improve their game and their enjoyment of the game more by spending that same amount of effort on other things.

 

IMNSHO a forum where I see people not sure how to bid 54 in the majors opposite a NT opening when playing Stayman and Jacoby Transfers is =NOT= the place to be adding esoteric conventions and treatments to the discussion.

 

Especially if all you are going to do is mention them w/o really explaining them.

Look at what I had to post to =really= explain NMF in another thread.

Then reconsider whether you are doing B/I's any favors by telling them to use a convention or treatment you don't fully explain rather than how to bid something using Standard.

[Gerben42]

Void....AK8xxxx...T...AKJ9x

 

I prefer 1♥ on this hand. Big 2-suiters are best started on the 1-level. The chance that if you open 2♣ and opps shoot high before you can show your suit is higher than that all pass if you bid your longest suit.

[pclayton]

I'm not sure I get the point of discussing a freak 7-5 in a B/I forum. If its to demonstrate to them that a 2♣ opening is senseless, then fine.

 

I don't think NAMYATS is that far out, but I understand keeping it locked up from the kiddies, lest they cut themselves on such a sharp power tool B)

[luis]

So I will disagree with Roland and Foo. Talking about naymats in the context of a problem like this is fine

Excuse me, but what's the point of mentioning Namyats if you don't explain what it shows?

 

>>I would open 4♣ (namyats) and take my chances of missing a slam vs them not finding the spades<<, Luis says. Does he explain what Namyats implies, or should one expect that beginners and/or intermediates know? I don't think so.

 

 

Roland

Yes I might have dropped a line or two about what Namyats are.

In a short form a strong version of the 4♥/4♠ openings in 4♣/4♦.

The exact requirements and continuations vary per partnership agreements the idea is to be able to open at the 4 level with either weak hands (preempts) or not so weak hands, this makes interference harder. We may open a thread in this forums to discuss Namyats and the different styles we play, can be an instructive thread I think.

 

Luis