glen Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 I'm having trouble with the Kantar 3NT opening, as described in the ACBL July 2011 Bulletin (the one where the cover model is JLogic). 3NT ... a seven- or eight-card major headed by the AKQ ... a seven-card suit may have an outside king, and a seven- or eight-card suit may have as much as two outside queensAn example given was: ♠ 76♥ AKQ9543♦ 5♣ 876 ♠ 8542♥ 8♦ A976♣ A954 and the bidding given was 3NT-Pass! As it turns out, I had the exact same responding hand on these: ♠ AKQ9763♥ 76♦ 5♣ 876 ♠ 8542♥ 8♦ A976♣ A954 3NT was not a success ♠ ---♥ AKQ9543♦ K4♣ T876 ♠ 8542♥ 8♦ A976♣ A954 again 3NT was not a success ♠ --♥ AKQ97543♦ 4♣ QJT8 ♠ 8542♥ 8♦ A976♣ A954 3NT would not be 3NT! but 3NT??????? Now Kantar tell us he has been playing this for nearly 40 years, so should I just discard these results? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegmund Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Opting for 3NT on those hands rather than retreating to 4M is a bit unusual - though if partner has 7 solid and nothing outside, there will be only 9 tricks in the major so 3NT-1 will tie 4M-1 and may make on a bad lead or a 4-4 break the wide open suit. I think bidding 4M and hoping for a working king or queen is the more usual approach. (You may even deliberately make partner declarer so the lead comes toward his hypothetical Qxx or Kx rather than through it.) It's a convention I am fond of, though I admit I'm still waiting to reach one of those miracle slams the asking bid responses enable you to find. It does take some pressure off the 4M openings, though, and adds only one artificial opening to the system rather than Namyats's 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 why do people mak up things and expect a response?, I dont like these made up stories pretending top be true. Perhaps this has something to do with language, but posts like these make no sense to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted November 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 why do people lie on posts and expect a response?, I dont like to talk to liarsJLogic really was on the cover, in fact "Kantar 3NT" is just about at his knee level. Perhaps this has something to do with language, but calling people "liars" without understanding a post makes no sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 I believe Fluffy was probably referring to As it turns out, I had the exact same responding hand on these: Did you really hold all these hands or were you just making this up for effect? "Making up" is a polite word for "lying", although on BBF one might also use a term such as "a lamford story". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted November 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 .. Did you really hold all these hands or were you just making this up for effect? ... You don't actually physically hold the hands when using deal software, but you do have them, although spot cards in the long major hand were not exact since I was copying the previous hand to save time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semeai Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Can we really not tell the difference between lying and a rhetorical device? On topic: There's some trade-off between preemption and accuracy here certainly. For the 3NT vs 4M decision, though, Kantar 3NT is better off than Namyats, which can't go back to 3NT. Is your objection that pass seems worse than getting to 4M on xxxx-x-Axxx-Axxx opposite a Kantar 3NT opener, in which case we should do a simulation? Or are your examples supposed to be an indictment of Kantar 3NT itself as a convention, in which case it must also be an indictment of Namyats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted November 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 .. Is your objection that pass seems worse than getting to 4M on xxxx-x-Axxx-Axxx opposite a Kantar 3NT opener, in which case we should do a simulation? Or are your examples supposed to be an indictment of Kantar 3NT itself as a convention, in which case it must also be an indictment of Namyats?Indictment of just 3NT-Pass, not the complete convention - it seemed to me that it was a "gambling pass", and should not have been in the article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semeai Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Indictment of just 3NT-Pass, not the complete convention - it seemed to me that it was a "gambling pass", and should not have been in the article. Fair enough. This seems very well suited to a simulation. I imagine it was included in the article because it looks flashy and is something Namyats just can't do. Without doing a simulation, I was about to go impress you with just how overwhelmingly likely it is partner has hearts, but by my rough calculations, it's 80% or so, which is sizable but not quite overwhelming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 He should really have given dummy a 5th spade, but then I guess that looks a bit contrived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted November 6, 2011 Report Share Posted November 6, 2011 Thx Zelan, I just realised Lamford is partially at fault for my rudeness, I will edit my post so it looks less harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbforster Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 DId they forget to teach the "stop 3N" showing hearts and direct 3N showing spades in the article? Sheesh, that's BB for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted November 7, 2011 Report Share Posted November 7, 2011 Indictment of just 3NT-Pass, not the complete convention - it seemed to me that it was a "gambling pass", and should not have been in the article. Yes, my regular partner and I play a similar convention, and have never passed 3NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.