Is this hand worth a Namyats ?

[Chamaco]

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=s76hakq63djtcaqj9&s=sakq985432hdq943c]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     Pass  4♦!

 Pass  4♥!   Pass  5♣!

 Pass  5♠    Pass  Pass

 Pass  

 

1) Is S's hand too strong for a Namyats (4D = 8.5 tricks in spades) ?

2) 4H is relay asking for 1st round outside controls (and 5C shows 1st round control in clubs); responder's new suit other than 4H or any number of Spades would have been control asking bid (CAB). So N, instead of bidding 4H he could have used 5d.

The debate was: is it better to choose a "scientific" approach asking for diamnods control (giving away the lead to opps) or to ask for generic controls, concealing the dangeroius lead but risking to miss slam (if S's 2 voids include diamonds, slam is laydown) ?

 

N argued for this reason that a hand with 2 voids may not be well suited for a Namyats. (We play limited openings, 1S would be max 15).

 

Comments ?

[Free]

Imo it's too strong, yes. But you're in the right contract no? If you'd play 6♠ you have more chance of losing 2♦s i think.

 

If you read the description of namyats on the bridgeguys-site, you're not allowed any void! Preempting with 2 voids is usually losing bridge.

[Chamaco]

Imo it's too strong, yes. But you're in the right contract no?

Yes, sure :)

It is not a "who's to blame " issue, it's just to fine-tune my judgment and the agreements with my pard :)

[the hog]

A Namyats!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That hand is worth a 6S opening.

 

Bet I make too.

[inquiry]

Not even close, this hand is a mile too big for naymats.

[pclayton]

I would have also thought its too strong for NAMYATS (which shows 8- 8 1/2 tricks), but I'm changing my view about these hands.

 

I'm not opening it a strong 1♣, and I'm not opening it 1♠. I think hands like these are best handled with a NAMYATS opening, and then a further move over pard's signoff.

 

I have no problem with a 5♦ call over 4♦.

 

(added a day later): My view on this hand is that I'm never playing exactly 4♠ on this hand, so it seems pulling my own NAMYATS call isn't unreasonable. I've just never heard of it before.

[Trpltrbl]

You said it yourself, you promise 8.5 tricks.

You have 11.

This is a monster hand.

If I can't open it wisely, system wise aka precision, then I just open it 6♠.

 

Mike :unsure:

[hrothgar]

One other comment on this thread:

 

Most NAMYATS treatments are highly disciplined.

 

The 4m openings promises a good suit, but explictly deny first round controls in more than one side suit. In this case, holding two voids, the hand is far too strong for a NAMYATS 4m opening.

[whereagles]

I don't really know what to bid on this hand... I don't like pass, and I sure ain't gonna open a low-level strong 1C or 1S.

 

The hand has too much playing strenght for a Namyats, so I guess that leaves a 3NT gambling (if it allows solid major), 4S or 5S. The 4S opening is highly obstructive, but will leave me with remorses if opps bid over it, so I guess I'd make a slight overbid and open 5S. I take I'm playing 5S as similar to a 5m preempt. (I say this because some play 5S as solid side suits and two spade losers.) 6S opening also possible, but I'd do that only with passed pard.

[the hog]

"(I say this because some play 5S as solid side suits and two spade losers.) 6S opening also possible, but I'd do that only with passed pard. "

 

Not "some. "Virtually the whole world plays it that way,

[Dwayne]

I'm with Ron, and I'll redouble.

 

Dwayne is still my name.

[Antoine Fourrière]

I don't know if 3N is gambling, but if it is, open 3N, showing a solid minor and out.

If CHO has a top diamond honor, he will understand you have spades, and bid them, but if he bids diamonds, believing you have them, he lacks both the Ace and the King.

If he bids clubs, you probably haven't won or lost anything.

(True, that approach may backfire if he has four spades or six little clubs or diamonds, or if he throws the board at your face when you bid 6♠. )

[Chamaco]

I don't know if 3N is gambling, but if it is, open 3N, showing a solid minor and out.

If CHO has a top diamond honor, he will understand you have spades, and bid them, but if he bids diamonds, believing you have them, he lacks both the Ace and the King.

If he bids clubs, you probably haven't won or lost anything.

(True, that approach may backfire if he has four spades or six little clubs or diamonds, or if he throws the board at your face when you bid 6♠. )

I think that Gambling and Namyats are similar (both semipreemptive with solid suit).

If the hand is too strong for namyats, I do not see why the same does not apply for using Gambling; at least Namyats tells right away to pard what suit I have, if the auction becomes competitive.

[hrothgar]

The great problem with NAMYATS, as most people know is the relative frequency. The bid just doesn't come up all that often, which is why I was so amused to have been dealt the following hand yesterday:

 

[hv=n=sakqjt73h43dk8c76&w=s854hqd96542cqt32&e=s92ht72dqj73cak84&s=s6hakj9865datcj95]399|300|[/hv]

 

First NAMYATS opener in a LONG time...

 

Given the auction that Free and I produced, its probably best to also discuss "standard" response structures over NAMYATS openings.

 

I'm used to the following:

 

4 of partner's major = signoff

 

Step (4♥ over a 4♦ opening, 4♦ over a 4♣ opening) asks partner to show side suit controls. Partner will either bid

 

1. His own suit with no controls

2. 4NT with a King

3. A new suit with either an Ace or a void in that suit

 

New suits are control asking bids. Partner will rebid

 

1. 5 of his major with no control

2. Step with a second round control in the suit

3. Step +1 with a first cound control in the suit

 

4N is a control ask in the Intermediate suit.

 

1. After a 4♣ opening, 4N is a CAB in Diamonds.

2. After a 4♦ opening, 4NT is a CAB in Hearts

 

5NT = Asks partner to bid 7 with 0 trump losers

[Free]

Hehe, history of the hand:

 

Opps quiet, bidding:

4♦ - 5♠

6♠

Since I wasn't sure what other bids meant, I just invited with 5♠...

 

They lead a ♥, I make 6♠+1 :D We were the only table which played 6♠ at my side (some played 6♠ in North), and also (obviously) the only pair making the slam since West doesn't know about his partner's ♣ holding :)

[Chamaco]

Hehe, history of the hand:

 

Opps quiet, bidding:

4♦ - 5♠

6♠

Since I wasn't sure what other bids meant, I just invited with 5♠...

 

They lead a ♥, I make 6♠+1 :D We were the only table which played 6♠ at my side (some played 6♠ in North), and also (obviously) the only pair making the slam since West doesn't know about his partner's ♣ holding :)

Hehe just add this hand to one of the TD threads on psyches LOLL

[Free]

Psych??? :) Now I've heard it all...

[hrothgar]

Hehe, history of the hand:

 

Opps quiet, bidding:

4♦ - 5♠

6♠

Since I wasn't sure what other bids meant, I just invited with 5♠...

 

They lead a ♥, I make 6♠+1  :D  We were the only table which played 6♠ at my side (some played 6♠ in North), and also (obviously) the only pair making the slam since West doesn't know about his partner's ♣ holding  :)

Hehe just add this hand to one of the TD threads on psyches LOLL

Hi Chamaco

 

Any chance that you might be able to clarify a couple points.

 

1. Neither Free's 5♠ invite nor my 6♠ raise can be characterized as a psyche. Free's 5♠ bid is systemically undefined. I assumed that it was a generalized invite, and eventually decided that the Diamond King was an undisclosed value and accepted. We were lucky that this bid worked out well for us.

 

With this said and done, I'm very confused what this hand has to do with a psyche or why it would be added to a thread on this topic. I think that it can only serve to muddy the waters.

 

2. Curious where precisely this hand is being discussed, since I didn't see it anywhere on this forum...

[Chamaco]

Hi Chamaco

 

Any chance that you might be able to clarify a couple points.

It was a joke !!! :D (Probably a bad one, since nobody is laughing... :) )

But since the topic is so delicate I shd have made it clearer, I guess :-)

[inquiry]

Hi Chamaco

 

Any chance that you might be able to clarify a couple points.

It was a joke !!! :)

But since the topic is so delicate I shd have made it clearer, I guess :-)

You prefrenced you remark with hehehe, and you ended it with loll...

 

That shows it was a joke.. A smiley face might have helped.. but some people are very toudhee... now if Ron had put a smiley face after calling people who bid 6C on the other hand liars I would have left that one alone... :D

[Chamaco]

1. His own suit with no controls

2. 4NT with a King

3. A new suit with either an Ace or a void in that suit

 

New suits are control asking bids. Partner will rebid

 

1. 5 of his major with no control

2. Step with a second round control in the suit

3. Step +1 with a first cound control in the suit

 

4N is a control ask in the Intermediate suit.

 

1. After a 4♣ opening, 4N is a CAB in Diamonds.

2. After a 4♦ opening, 4NT is a CAB in Hearts

 

5NT = Asks partner to bid 7 with 0 trump losers

Richard is correct.

However, I think this structure has one small flaw.

 

Suppose pard opens 4C (=Hearts).

We respond 4D = asking for 1st round controls or side K. (If pard bids a suit, he has 1st round control there.)

Pard bids 4NT = no 1st rnd control, but one side K.

 

Now, in the "standard" structure, 5C asks "which King " ?

But what will pard bid if his K is the Spade K ? He does not know whether the SK is useful or not, and bidding 5S may get us too high.

 

Yet, there is a solution.

The solution is that, in the specific sequence of Namyats for H:

 

4C:4D

?

 

The meaning of 4S and 4NT are switched:

instead of the "normal" meaning of:

1) 4S = 1st round cue in S and 4NT = I have an unspecified K

 

we shall use

 

2) 4NT = 1st round cue in S and 4S = I have an unspecified K.

In this second version, after 4S = 1K, we have room to inquiry with 4NT for which of the 3K.

[Free]

Nice, now you mention it, you're right :lol: And the solution was the first one that popped into my mind as well :lol:

[inquiry]

Well when I played Naymats regularly, I played it as described by George Rosenkratnz in his ROMEX system. The requirements were very strick if I remember correctly.

 

1) No void

2) A suit with at most one loser

3) One or two aces in the hand (no aces not allowed)

4) Two of the five key cards

5) A maximum of four controls (two aces) and minimum of 3 (Ace and king)

6) and between four and four and half losers (these are romex losers)

 

Responder knew his partner hand very well after this. Here we used the inbetween bid (4C-4D and 4D-4H) as Roman key card blackwood. Since opener has at most 2 key cards, responder needs two key cards to try for slam. Since opener can not have a void, responder knows all aces he has are working. Since opener has 4 or 4.5 losers, responder needs three potential cover cards to move towards slam.

 

So withouth 2 key cards or 3 potential cover cards, responder signs off. With these, he bid the RKCB.

 

When one of these hands came up (rarely), we certainly always bid them right, but at the cost of giving up on for level preempts. Sincce preempting to the four level before partner has bid turned out to often be a bad idea, we started playing Romex naymats in first/second seat only... but have since given them up.

 

Ben

[Chamaco]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sakj987xxhxdxxxcx]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Is *THIS* hand worth a Namyats ?

 

Assume you play Precision (limited openings).

If not Namyats, do you pass or how many spades do you bid, second seat, in front of an unpassed pd ?

[the hog]

Depends on your agreements as to what Namyats is. A vul 4S for me.

However I am very curious - why would you even suggest "pass" as a possibility?