Broken minor

[peachy]

With one partner, I play 2/1 with 12-14 NT and Namyats, among other usual stuff.

For a hand that would like to open 4m, we open 3NT which is a 4m preempt but with a broken suit.

Do you think the 3NT is worthwhile having as such? If yes, what would be the best continuations? We currently have only 4M is to play, 4C is p/c to play on four-level, 5C is p/c to opener's minor. This structure is inadequate when responder wants to investigate for slam, or even for game. I am beginning to think the whole 3NT opening is no good. Would like to hear any suggestions.

[dicklont]

You could use 4♦ as a slam try.

[EricK]

The structure can't be much worse than if you had opened 4m though! Opening at that level makes it impossible to scientifically investigate game.

 

One possible structure is:

4♣/5♣/6♣ as pass/correct

4♦ as p/c but partner can cue-bid if he has ♣

4NT as RKCB for partner's suit

Other games or slams to play.

[bluecalm]

Do you think the 3NT is worthwhile having as such?

 

I think no because good opponents will have more space available.

Agreement I like against all transfer like preempts is that double is t/o to real suit (or in that case to one of the minors) and pass and then dbl is heavy NT like double. This really makes it simpler for opponents.

 

For this reason I refuse to play the following:

 

-namyats

-convention you described

-transfer preempts

 

Gambling 3NT has some merirts because at least you will often get to play there.

The more bids you have for transfer preempts the worse it is so if you insist on namyats I still wouldn't play 3NT as broken minor.

[peachy]

Do you think the 3NT is worthwhile having as such?

 

I think no because good opponents will have more space available.

Agreement I like against all transfer like preempts is that double is t/o to real suit (or in that case to one of the minors) and pass and then dbl is heavy NT like double. This really makes it simpler for opponents.

 

For this reason I refuse to play the following:

 

-namyats

-convention you described

-transfer preempts

 

Gambling 3NT has some merirts because at least you will often get to play there.

The more bids you have for transfer preempts the worse it is so if you insist on namyats I still wouldn't play 3NT as broken minor.

We don't have transfer preempts. Thought I'd mention this in case I get somebody else's opinion on the followups to 3NT.

 

Most folks are busy in New Orleans playing brige these days so the traffic on forums is a little slower. Hope y'all do great there!

[nigel_k]

I would do the opposite if that is legal where you are, i.e. 4♣ and 4♦ are preempts and 3NT is a good four of a major opening.

[OleBerg]

I would do the opposite if that is legal where you are, i.e. 4♣ and 4♦ are preempts and 3NT is a good four of a major opening.

+1

 

Incredible I have never heard of that before. (Credible that I haven't thought of it.)

[jdonn]

I would do the opposite if that is legal where you are, i.e. 4♣ and 4♦ are preempts and 3NT is a good four of a major opening.

+1

 

Incredible I have never heard of that before. (Credible that I haven't thought of it.)

I have long wanted to play that but it's (stupidly) not GCC legal, ergo not allowed in most ACBL events. I have twice emailed the C&C committee about it and never gotten a reply.

[Free]

I would do the opposite if that is legal where you are, i.e. 4♣ and 4♦ are preempts and 3NT is a good four of a major opening.

I play this already a few years and I'm very happy with it.

[mich-b]

I would do the opposite if that is legal where you are, i.e. 4♣ and 4♦ are preempts and 3NT is a good four of a major opening.

One obvious disadvantage of that is that you can not play 3NT after opening 4m..

Another one is that when the opening side gets to play 5m , it will usually be played from the weak hand (it is likely to be played from the strong and unknown hand after a 3NT opening).

 

On the other hand opener's LHO gets only one chance to bid instead of two, which is good.

 

What are the pros and cons of using 3NT for the "good major" hand?

How do you arrange the responses? is 4♥ P/C ?

Do you ever (often ?) guess to pass 3NT?

[Free]

What are the pros and cons of using 3NT for the "good major" hand?

How do you arrange the responses? is 4♥ P/C ?

Do you ever (often ?) guess to pass 3NT?

Pros:

- you can rightside the 4M contract

- you have more space to investigate

- 4m is natural, which puts up the pressure

- opps don't have an easy Dbl

 

Cons:

- opps can intervene 4m or a psych 4M

 

I never passed a 3NT opening, and I'll probably won't do it ever. It's a good M preempt, so you can't take the risk of never reaching partner's hand. On the other hand, if you have a good hand with stoppers, slam might be possible so passing is wrong again.

 

I use the following responses:

4♣ = transfer your M (followed by signoff or RKC/kickback/voidwood)

4♦ = bid your M (followed by pass or RKC/kickback/voidwood)

4♥ = asks about shortness or A/K in the other Major

4♠ = asks about shortness ♣

4NT = asks about shortness ♦

5♣ = ♣A/K

5♦ = ♦A/K

 

Continuations:

step 1 = ♥, no

step 2 = ♠, no

step 3 = ♥, yes (after 4♥ this shows shortness ♠)

step 4 = ♠, yes (after 4♥ this shows shortness ♥)

(step 5 = ♥, yes - A/K)

(step 6 = ♠, yes - A/K)

[bluecalm]

would do the opposite if that is legal where you are, i.e. 4♣ and 4♦ are preempts and 3NT is a good four of a major opening.

 

Yeah, this is much better.

I saw this somewhere. I can't recall where now unfortunately. Gotta browse my cc's archives.

 

EDIT: Greco - Hampson cc from Bermuda Bowl 2005.

 

I have long wanted to play that but it's (stupidly) not GCC legal, ergo not allowed in most ACBL events.

 

LOL !

I mean this is truly retarded... How the hell gambling is allowed and this one not ?

[paulg]

3NT as a major suit pre-empt is known in Scotland as one of our top players, John Matheson, keeps on writing about it :)

 

I also play it but interestingly we use it on different hands. John uses it primarily as a transfer, that is a hand that wants partner to play the contract. I use it to distinguish between a pure pre-empt with a good suit (3NT) and a more distributional 4M opener.

 

My response structure to 3NT is:

4♣ - transfer to your major (then 4M, 4OM is to play, 4N keycard, etc.)

4♦ - shortage ask

4♥/4♠ - pass or correct (with keycard responses over 4♠)

4NT - key card in spades

5♣, 5♦ - natural, to play

[dake50]

Try

3NT = solid spades. m-void, H-void to be shown if asked.

4m = solid hearts, m-void.

4H = H-preempt, but all A are in play. 4S similar.

 

In general, lower suit(hearts here) shows immediately as in zoom;

higher (spades here) waits to be asked/allowed.

[Siegmund]

I would do the opposite if that is legal where you are, i.e. 4♣ and 4♦ are preempts and 3NT is a good four of a major opening.

 

I have long wanted to play that but it's (stupidly) not GCC legal, ergo not allowed in most ACBL events. I have twice emailed the C&C committee about it and never gotten a reply.

 

Depends how good of an opening you want it to be. "3NT showing... a solid suit" has always been GCC legal. It goes by the name of Kantar 3NT in the conventions books - AKQ-7 or better in either major, no outside ace, responder can ask for outside kings. I've been playing it quite happily since about 1995, though to be honest I can't remember many spectacular gains from it. Still, it removes the top end of 4H hands and some of the difficult "1 or 4?" problem hands, and lets you keep a little bit more slam accuracy.

 

I daresay you can bend the definition of "solid suit" a lot farther than you can bend the minds of conventions committee.

[peachy]

I would do the opposite if that is legal where you are, i.e. 4♣ and 4♦ are preempts and 3NT is a good four of a major opening.

 

I have long wanted to play that but it's (stupidly) not GCC legal, ergo not allowed in most ACBL events. I have twice emailed the C&C committee about it and never gotten a reply.

 

Depends how good of an opening you want it to be. "3NT showing... a solid suit" has always been GCC legal. It goes by the name of Kantar 3NT in the conventions books - AKQ-7 or better in either major, no outside ace, responder can ask for outside kings. I've been playing it quite happily since about 1995, though to be honest I can't remember many spectacular gains from it. Still, it removes the top end of 4H hands and some of the difficult "1 or 4?" problem hands, and lets you keep a little bit more slam accuracy.

 

I daresay you can bend the definition of "solid suit" a lot farther than you can bend the minds of conventions committee.

You don't need a solid suit to bid Namyats, but you need a solid suit to bid 3NT with a onesuited MAJOR suit. Bending the definition of solid to include suits that generally are not considered solid, in order to be able to play that convention - it just is not right IMO.