Specific Ace Ask

[Cascade]

I agree that calling this hand perfect for a Namyats 4♦ opening is an overbid - Partner has a right to expect that his ♣A is a useful card opposite a Namyats opening, and he will have trouble figuring out that his ♥A and ♦QJ is good enough for slam.

 

That is not to say that I wouldn't open Namyats 4♦ on these cards. It is a reasonable, if flawed, opening, but not clearly worse than opening 1♠. It may serve to preempt the opponents out of a reasonable game or sacrifice.

 

As for a specific ace ask, this is not the hand you were looking for when you decided to play that convention. You could find partner with both the ♥A and the ♦A and still not know how high to bid.

There is still room to consult.

 

You could find the same information after opening 1♠ and still not know about what to do with the deep diamond losers.

 

My simulations suggest that even without consultation you have 13 double dummy tricks nearly 70% of the time opposite those two aces. Single dummy is probably a little less although you also have the opportunity single dummy of an inferior defense (opening lead).

[TimG]

I doubt I'm going to be able to get the information I need through a scientific approach, so I'd be very tempted to muddy the waters with something mis-descriptive. Of course, if there is a novice at the table...

[cherdanno]

I don't understand why 1S-3D-4S isn't good enough with this hand. In fact, I don't see how anything else does better.

[ArtK78]

If you can guarantee that your opponents will not be in the bidding, then by all means take the slower route.

 

I think it is probably an impractical approach.