Namyats 3NT

[kgr]

I play now 3NT gambing, but I'm interested in 3NT Namyats: Opening 3NT is a good preempt in H or S.

Can you give me more info about that:

- What is range fo 3NT. What is minimum and maximum hand to bid 3NT (examples of min and max would be great)?

- what are the follow-ups?

- When is this not a brown convention. I would say when it promises at least 11 pts? (anybody knows what is mimimum to play this in Liga 1 in Belgium)?

[lowerline]

I've never heard of "3NT Namyats" before... If the loss of the 4♣/♦ preempts bother you that much, why don't you play 3NT as an unspecified minor preempt and keep 4♣/♦ as Namyats?

 

You don't have to worry about it being a brown sticker convention. An opening bid below 2♣ or above 3♠ falls outside the definition of brown sticker conventions.

 

[DUTCH]

Aangezien ik zelf ook in de ligacompetitie speel, ben ik nieuwsgierig naar wie je bent en voor welke club je speelt...

[/DUTCH]

[Free]

Lol, all Belgians here :D

 

3NT is NEVER brown, since BSC's are bids between 2♣ and 3♠. That's why a gambling 3♠ is BSC, but a gambling 3NT is not. So you can give any meaning to 3NT or higher bids.

 

Regulations about liga are somewhat 'special'. There are several conventions allowed (depending if you're playing liga 1 or 2), you can find the list on the VBL website. I think at this moment it's not allowed to play 3NT namyats, but you can always send in a request to allow this. I don't think they'll be a pain in the ass about it, but you never know... :)

[jdonn]

I play now 3NT gambing, but I'm interested in 3NT Namyats: Opening 3NT is a good preempt in H or S.

Can you give me more info about that:

- What is range fo 3NT. What is minimum and maximum hand to bid 3NT (examples of min and max would be great)?

- what are the follow-ups?

- When is this not a brown convention. I would say when it promises at least 11 pts? (anybody knows what is mimimum to play this in Liga 1 in Belgium)?

As I've posted before, this way is INFINITELY better (I am hardly exagerating) than the common way of 3NT minor suit preempt and regular Namyats. The 3NT opening showing a minor suit preempt is completely ineffective when compared with a natural 4 minor opening. Opponents can double that to show values, bid 4♣ to show majors, pass then bid on lighter hands, etc. etc. etc.

 

Here is part of a set of system notes that a few excellent players I know share, regarding the 3NT opening bid:

 

"Our 3NT opener is a 'Namyats' type hand, showing a strong playing hand (8-9 tricks) in a major with a self sufficient suit. By definition, this should be a suit which should on average play for no more than one loser opposite a small singleton. Opener should avoid opening this bid with high card controls in 2 side suits. We would tend to find a different opening for a hand like AQJT987 Ax Axx x.

 

Responder has a choice of slam investigation options available. If they wish to take a natural approach (or sign off in game), they bid 4m to get partner to show their suit (as per multi, 4♣ = transfer, 4♦ = bid). Over the response, they can begin normal cuebidding or RKC.

 

In addition, 4♥-5♦ are asking bids:

 

4♥: Asks for a control in the off major. Opener passes or bids 4♠ without a control, bids 4NT/5♣ with a shortness control (holding hearts/spades), or bids 5♦/5♥ with a high card control (h/s).

 

4♠: Asks for a club control, either shortness or high card. Responses are no ♥, no ♠, yes ♥, yes ♠.

 

4NT: Asks for a diamond control, as per 4♠.

 

5m: Asks for a high card control in m. Same response structure."

[hrothgar]

I think that the core concept (4m is natural, 3N shows a good preempt in either major) is quite reasonable. However, I'm not sure that I like the response structure that you've proposed. As far as I can tell, the fastest possible auction to 4♥ would be

 

3N - (P) - 4♦ - (P)

4♥

 

You're giving the opposing side a lot of different options to describe their hand, which is never desirable in when your preempting

 

It might be possible to design some kind of paradox structure in which responder will frequently bid his weaker major at the 4 level.

 

4♣ = Some king of asking bid

4♦ = Bid your major

4♥ = Pass with Hearts, (May have slam interest opposite Spades)

4♠ = Pass with Spades, (May have Slam interest opposite Hearts)

4NT+ = Specialized asks

 

This structure provides a much faster path to a 4M contract. I suspect that there is still plenty of room for some hideously complex series of asking bids.

[jdonn]

I was advocating the followups purely due to their source from someone I trust. Perhaps they are based on the premise that there isn't much concern of the opponents finding 5 of a minor when you are bidding to 4 of a major.

 

But that being said, your objection seems valid and I have no qualms with your suggestion, if someone worked it out all the way.

[joshs]

Here is the core of the notes I wrote up for this bid last year (along the lines of what richard suggested), I need to find the e-mail where I put the complete structure together:

 

 

Opening bids:

3N = Good 4M bid

4m=Natural and pre-emptive

 

 

Over 3N:

 

4C: How good are you? (Slam Invite Hand, slam forces usually start with 4D)

4D: Min (Then 4M is p/c)

4M:Natural, Extras, forcing

4N: Extras, void in Other Major,Solid Suit (then 5M,6M is P/C),

5m=Extras, void, Solid Suit (5M.6M=P/C)

5M: 9 solid, no outside A, K or void

6M: 10 solid, no outside A,K or void

 

 

4D:What is your suit?

4M: My suit. then Normal Q biding, kickback, or whatever.

 

4M P/C (generally a slam try in the other major). Over 4S qbid if you have hearts and extras.

[pclayton]

I play this too and I think its superior to regular NAMYATS. My responses are similar to JDonn's.

 

I always get a little worried, because I don't think its allowed under GCC and its not categorized on Mid-Chart. GCC specifically refers to 3N as possessing a solid suit.

 

It appears that its classified under Superchart, Section #1.

[joshs]

I play this too and I think its superior to regular NAMYATS. My responses are similar to JDonn's.

 

I always get a little worried, because I don't think its allowed under GCC and its not categorized on Mid-Chart. GCC specifically refers to 3N as possessing a solid suit.

 

It appears that its classified under Superchart, Section #1.

Hmm, people play Nayyats all the time where 3N is a bad pre-empt in the minor, so this clearly is allowed even if they forgot to put it in the convention charts...

[jdonn]

I play this too and I think its superior to regular NAMYATS.  My responses are similar to JDonn's.

 

I always get a little worried, because I don't think its allowed under GCC and its not categorized on Mid-Chart. GCC specifically refers to 3N as possessing a solid suit.

 

It appears that its classified under Superchart, Section #1.

Hmm, people play Nayyats all the time where 3N is a bad pre-empt in the minor, so this clearly is allowed even if they forgot to put it in the convention charts...

The better reverse treatment is inferentially (and stupidly) not allowed.

 

GCC states a 3NT opening can either show a solid suit, or either minor, under the section where inferentially any non-natural meaning that they don't specifically allow is disallowed. So showing either major is illegal, unless it promises that the major is a solid suit.

[kfgauss]

Fortunately, they don't define solid.

[JanM]

GCC states a 3NT opening can either show a solid suit, or either minor, under the section where inferentially any non-natural meaning that they don't specifically allow is disallowed. So showing either major is illegal, unless it promises that the major is a solid suit.

I wondered why 3NT showing a minor preempt would be GCC legal and 3NT showing a sound 4 of a Major wouldn't be. My expert told me it's because the former is more common and people are used to defending against it. As for Midchart, it would be trivial to get 3NT showing a sound 4M approved, just submit a reasonable defense. This isn't the sort of method where there are going to be a lot of follow ups to the initial action - you're way too high for that. So all you need is the initial bids and P, then bid. I suspect that my defense for 3NT = solid major (that happens to be all that's come up in events where I've been doing defenses) would be acceptable (although I didn't ask the expert ;) ). It is:

Directly over 3NT

DBL T/O of their suit

P then DBL 15+ BAL

4m, 5m NAT

4M NAT

4NT Minors

(3NT) DBL (4♥) ? DBL RESP (i.e. it is our hand)

 

(3NT) Pass (4♥) ?

DBL T/O of hearts

4NT Minors or very strong Spades + minor

Others NAT, ambiguous as to strength

5♥ Slam drive, 2-suiter, usually with 5+ Spades

 

I guess you might want to add specific definitions for (3NT)-DBL-(4M)-bid, but it really wouldn't be difficult.

 

Fortunately, they don't define solid

 

Maybe not, but I don't think KQJxxxxx or AQJTxxx is "solid" :D

[jdonn]

GCC states a 3NT opening can either show a solid suit, or either minor, under the section where inferentially any non-natural meaning that they don't specifically allow is disallowed. So showing either major is illegal, unless it promises that the major is a solid suit.

I wondered why 3NT showing a minor preempt would be GCC legal and 3NT showing a sound 4 of a Major wouldn't be. My expert told me it's because the former is more common and people are used to defending against it. As for Midchart, it would be trivial to get 3NT showing a sound 4M approved, just submit a reasonable defense. This isn't the sort of method where there are going to be a lot of follow ups to the initial action - you're way too high for that. So all you need is the initial bids and P, then bid. I suspect that my defense for 3NT = solid major (that happens to be all that's come up in events where I've been doing defenses) would be acceptable (although I didn't ask the expert ;) ). It is:

Directly over 3NT

DBL T/O of their suit

P then DBL 15+ BAL

4m, 5m NAT

4M NAT

4NT Minors

(3NT) DBL (4♥) ? DBL RESP (i.e. it is our hand)

 

(3NT) Pass (4♥) ?

DBL T/O of hearts

4NT Minors or very strong Spades + minor

Others NAT, ambiguous as to strength

5♥ Slam drive, 2-suiter, usually with 5+ Spades

 

I guess you might want to add specific definitions for (3NT)-DBL-(4M)-bid, but it really wouldn't be difficult.

 

Fortunately, they don't define solid

 

Maybe not, but I don't think KQJxxxxx or AQJTxxx is "solid" :D

I think you are sort of missing the point of my complaint. There is no reason this shouldn't even be GCC legal. How is it any more difficult to defend against then 3NT being either minor? It's easier in fact, for several reasons. You're less likely to want to bid to begin with (in fact, much less likely I'd say), and you don't need a bid to show both majors. What are direct doubles, and what is passing first then doubling? Irrelevent as far as I'm concerned, since the same question exists over the GCC legal 3NT bids. You shouldn't need any defense at all, nothing but 4NT (or 5NT) need even be artificial.

[hrothgar]

I think you are sort of missing the point of my complaint. There is no reason this shouldn't even be GCC legal. How is it any more difficult to defend against then 3NT being either minor? It's easier in fact, for several reasons. You're less likely to want to bid to begin with (in fact, much less likely I'd say), and you don't need a bid to show both majors. What are direct doubles, and what is passing first then doubling? Irrelevent as far as I'm concerned, since the same question exists over the GCC legal 3NT bids. You shouldn't need any defense at all, nothing but 4NT (or 5NT) need even be artificial.

Welcome to my world....

[JanM]

I think you are sort of missing the point of my complaint. There is no reason this shouldn't even be GCC legal. How is it any more difficult to defend against then 3NT being either minor? It's easier in fact, for several reasons. You're less likely to want to bid to begin with (in fact, much less likely I'd say), and you don't need a bid to show both majors. What are direct doubles, and what is passing first then doubling? Irrelevent as far as I'm concerned, since the same question exists over the GCC legal 3NT bids. You shouldn't need any defense at all, nothing but 4NT (or 5NT) need even be artificial.

GCC bids are supposed to be things that Mom & Pop club game players are familiar with. The issue isn't whether it's difficult to defend against, but whether people are used to it. People are used to gambling 3NT; they aren't used to 3NT showing a sound 4M bid. Maybe you think that reflects foolish decisions by the people who choose how to play 3NT, and probably you're right, but it's mainstream.

 

As for the Midchart. If you want to play something, you have to submit a recommended defense and that defense has to be approved. It's easier for the proponent of a method to know what defense is sensible than it is for opponents to figure out a defense on the fly. Particularly in events with short rounds, people shouldn't have to waste time figuring out what they want to do against a bid that is extremely unlikely to arise, so the proponents submit a defense, it's approved, and then your opponents can just use it if the bid comes up. If you don't want to bother to submit a defense, then play in Super Chart events, where you don't have to.

[foo]

Call me old fashioned, but I like Acol style 3N openings that show a hand good for 7-8 tricks and =any= good suit as a source of tricks. Major or minor doesn't matter to me. I'm bidding the likely limit of my hand in one bid.

[jdonn]

GCC bids are supposed to be things that Mom & Pop club game players are familiar with. The issue isn't whether it's difficult to defend against, but whether people are used to it. People are used to gambling 3NT; they aren't used to 3NT showing a sound 4M bid. Maybe you think that reflects foolish decisions by the people who choose how to play 3NT, and probably you're right, but it's mainstream.

"Gambling" is common yes, but regarding the other allowable meaning I would bet not 1 in 10 mom and pop club players have ever even heard of a 3NT opening bid showing a four level preempt in either minor. Probably not 1 in 4 acbl members overall have ever had it bid against them.

 

I don't know if that's the intent or not, but read through the general convention chart, and most of the conventions it specifically allows might as well be written in gibberish as far as most occasional and less-than-advanced club players are concerned. I like the Cavendish general subjective rule. You can play anything that can be easily explained in no more than 5 to maybe 10 seconds. If you want to say nothing that is complicated to play against either (multi) then fine, but that's it. The problem is they wanted to cover everything, which is a hopeless task, and in that effort have set arbitrary and often ridiculous limits, like for this 3NT bid which allows only the more complicated of two related similar meanings simply because it isn't as uncommon as the disallowed one.

 

Isn't it a catch 22 anyway? Something is disallowed because (supposedly) people aren't used to playing against it, thus it never gets to catch on and let people get used to playing against it, even though as in this case it's simple to explain, simple to understand, not destructive, and requires no special defense?

[kgr]

Thanks for the answers.

Would following hand qualify as a min and max for this opening?:

AQJT987 xx Ax xx

AKQJxxxx - AQTx x

[whereagles]

kgr:

 

I've stopped playing namyats, but when I used to play it, it was like this: 7+ card suit with 0-1 loser opposite singleton and 1 ace or king on the side. Playing strength about 8-9 tricks. With less, open 4M; with more, open 1M or use the system's bid for strong hands.

 

Under these requirements, min would be:

 

KQJxxxxx

x

Kx

xx

 

whereas max would be

 

AKQJxxx

x

Axx

xx

 

An extra queen would be allowed as well. Of your hands, the 1st would qualify. The second one has too much playing strength.

[hrothgar]

GCC bids are supposed to be things that Mom & Pop club game players are familiar with. The issue isn't whether it's difficult to defend against, but whether people are used to it. People are used to gambling 3NT; they aren't used to 3NT showing a sound 4M bid. Maybe you think that reflects foolish decisions by the people who choose how to play 3NT, and probably you're right, but it's mainstream.

I think that this attitude towards convention licensing is badly flawed.

 

First and foremost this standard isn't actually used. How many Mom and Pop club players are "familiar" with the basic principles behind Precision, Polish Club, Canape, or even Acol. And yet (somehow) all these methods are legal at the GCC level. Whatever licensing system is being used, it sure isn't based on familiarity.

 

Second: Creating a standard based on familiarity ossifies the game. This standard outlaws progress. New methods never have a chance of establishing themselves because they can never get the critical mass necessary to make their way past the conventions committee. Note: I recognize that things aren't nearly this dire because virtually no clubs actually use the GCC. The convention chart for local clubs (such that it exists) is whatever the local club owner feels like allowing. In the local Boston area, I know several clubs that use an "anything goes" principle. I can point to others than require players to play 5 card majors. (The same holds true for local clubs that I used to play at in California, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois) The ACBL has created a system that functions through the exception. People ignore the regulations and do whatever they damn well please.

 

Of course this creates all sorts of problems because when club players actually travel to "real" tournaments, the rules bears no relation to what they play in the local club. If the ACBL actually cared about "familiarity" they would enforce a consistent rules set on local clubs.

 

Last and not least: Familiarity does not necessarily equate to comfort. The ACBL has created a community of hothouse flowers that thrive in their protected little niche but is incapable surviving in the outside world. If a NAMYATS type 3NT opening to too uncomfortable for ACBL members to cope than the organization has done a grave disservice to its members. It would be much better if the organization had focused less on hectoring people about the one true way to bid and spent more time trying to create an adaptable and resilent player base.

[jdonn]

Thanks for the answers.

Would following hand qualify as a min and max for this opening?:

AQJT987 xx Ax xx

AKQJxxxx - AQTx x

First hand, not good enough (7 tricks).

Second hand, too good (About 10 tricks).

You are looking for 8-9 tricks.

 

Edit: I saw first hand wrong and later changed answer.

[joshs]

Mom and Pop are not used to defending against:

1N for takeout

Roman Jump Overcalls

2N opening for the minors

 

And quite frankly they are poorly prepared for handling:

1m Could be short (frequent accidents about if 2m is natural or not) [the precision nebulous diamond is in fact a much more insideous bid than most anything else we have been discussing on the forum)

Flannary, Mini-Roman, Etc (what does the x show)

 

Quite frankly they are not even used to a strong club (mom and pop play x for takeout of clubs).. Actually mom and pop think x of a 1N opening is also a takeout x....

 

Somehow, I don't think what "mom and pop" are prepared for is the criteria here.

[pclayton]

I've always felt that the convention charts have been based on "who" wants to play "what" and making it legal. As a result, there seems to be a lot of inconsistency on what makes the list and what doesn't.

 

The argument about 'familarity' is circular. Nothing, no matter how simple it is on paper, can become familar if one never gets a chance to play against it. But somehow, strange treatments have made the list.

 

Transfer preempts are some of the simplest bids to defend against, yet they are relegated to mid-chart. But a 3N opener showing EITHER minor (akin to a multi 2♦) opening is GCC?

 

I'm glad that Overcall Structure (1N overcall and Roman jumps) is legal under the GCC. Someone did a nice job lobbying for that at one time, and I like to play it.

 

While I get a dark pleasure out of making a 1N overcall of 1♠ on: x, Axxx, Axxx, Qxxx and watching the client getting a befuddled look on his face and the pro across the table silently cursing me, I still pre-alert my OS bids, even though I don't have to.

 

The most egregious is a 1N opening showing an unbalanced hand of 16+ HCP. It amazes me how the ROMEX bids received GCC approval. I'd love to know the history on this one and how it got approved. Yet for some reason opening with 1♥ or 1♠ as a strong artificial opening is disallowed.

 

Doubles aren't regulated! Yep, your RHO can open ANYTHING, and an immediate double can mean ANYTHING. B) I know a couple of loonies from L.A. that play an immediate double of a one bid is: a) any hand of 15 or more HCP, or b ) a 3 level preempt. :unsure: Yes its legal!

 

I hate to sound paranoid, but it appears treatments make the list because an elite group wants them legal. OTOH, certain treatments aren't legal for the same reason.

 

Its time to pull this whole process out of the smoke-filled back rooms. I would suggest that:

 

1. All proposed treatments are published on the league's web-site along with the date when C and C is going to consider such a treatment;

 

2. Proponents and opponents can provide written testimony supporting their views;

 

3. Written minutes of the meetings are made public after the fact.

 

I think #3 may already be in place, but I'd personally like it more conspicuously posted at acbl.org.

[jdonn]

Excellent suggestion, I like your ideas.

 

Maybe some of us can meet with the current ACBL president in Chicago at some point and discuss this. Or even get a petition going to change the way things are done. I understand no one will agree on what should or shouldn't be allowed, or even the general approach of how to allow and disallow things, but at least we could make the whole process more open and transparent to the bridge playing masses.

 

(I just emailed the CCE and proposed allowing this 3NT bid onto the GCC. If there is interest I will post the email here, but I think that otherwise I would just as soon not do that)

[hrothgar]

Needless to say, I wish you luck with your efforts. Couple suggestions:

 

Its unclear to me whether the ACBL President is the right spot to apply leverage. My understanding is that the ACBL President is largely ceremonial position with very little real clout. Equally significant, the President's tenure only lasts a year. Even if you were able to convince the President that your position is correct he/she won't be able to do anything. Folks will just humor him for the next six months or so. Things will be right back to normal once the President steps down. In order to get anything accomplished in a large bureaucracy you need to identify those individuals who have real power. In general power is related to control over either spending or hire/fire decisions.

 

I would focus your proposal on two key elements: Transparency and process.

 

Personally, I would like to see the following type of system adopted:

 

1. The Conventions Committee create a set of Convention Charts. Associated with this, the Convention's committee has the right to dictate that players need to provide the opponent's with suggested defense to method's associated with a given Convention Chart. Event organizers are granted the authority to chose whatever Convention Chart they want for a given event. (If the Chief Director wants to use the Superchart for the Beginner's game and the Limited Convention Chart for the Flight A Swiss that's his choice. I'm not sure whether he would ever be invited back, but thats another story)

 

2. Associated with this, the Convention's Committee will maintain a database containing recommended defense to different bidding conventions. Players are not permitted to conventions that do not have an approved defense listed in the defensive database.

 

3. Players who wish to use a method that is permitted by a given convention chart but does not have a suggested defense will follow a formal submission process. Players will submit a detailed description of the method to the Conventions Committee. The Conventions Committee is required to provide a rough draft of a suggested defense for public comment within 6 weeks of the initial submission. The Conventions Committee is required to provide a formal suggested defense within three months of the initial submission. (I recommend that this entire process take place using a web based forum like the one we're using right now)