[Shugart23]

 mikestar13, on 2015-April-07, 16:38, said:

I don't believe the ACBL has an official definition (the "I know it when I see it" test). The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, by the ACBL, does not have status of regulation, but does have a definition: a suit which can be expected to lose no tricks opposite a stiff in partner's hand and might not lose any tricks opposite a void. The Encyclopedia does not define how much better than 50% probability constitutes "expected", but it is surely more than 51% and less than 100%. ACBL is deliciously vague. (Not so delicious when you have to play under their regs.)

Interesting ...if we use the 51 percent threshold as the test, does anyone know probability of losing 1 or more tricks holding AQJxxx or AQxxxxx ?

[Vampyr]

 Shugart23, on 2015-April-07, 16:50, said:

Interesting ...if we use the 51 percent threshold as the test, does anyone know probability of losing 1 or more tricks holding AQJxxx or AQxxxxx ?

It doesn't matter, because these suits are, by any definition, not solid.

The Bridge Guys' definition is at the top of page 3.

EDIT: I believe that both of your suits will lose a trick 100% of the time opposite singleton.

[Shugart23]

I think you are right, opposite a singleton, but on the other hand, I think I get 100% of the tricks if my partner has 6 cards in the trump suit opposite either holding :}

If Partner's singleton is a K, I dont lose a trick 100 percent of the time

This post has been edited by Shugart23: 2015-April-07, 17:35

[Shugart23]

or perhaps even a singleton 10

[Vampyr]

 Shugart23, on 2015-April-07, 17:36, said:

or perhaps even a singleton 10

Whatever. Why are you pretending not to understand what is meant by a solid suit?

And did you also not notice that this "expected" thing refers to opposite a void?

Edit: oops opposite a void it is only maybe.

[Shugart23]

In all seriousness, if I am going to use AWM's method, I want to have a clear conscious that it is GCC compliant. Seems like the Encyclopedia of Bridge is a reasonable authority......not really meaning to get into a pissing match with you

[nullve]

Probably not a new idea:

4♣ = preempt in either clubs or diamonds

(4♣ > 3♠, so not a brown sticker! )

[Zelandakh]

Nice necro! My choice is 3NT as a good 4m opening and 4m as a bad 4m opening. This keep the power of the natural preempt while offsetting its biggest drawback somewhat. For your next necro, we had a spate of threads on high level openings back in 2011-12 so just dig into those archives and have a ball!

[johnworf]

 Shugart23, on 2015-April-05, 06:42, said:

Playing Match points and Precision, we open at the 4 level using trick counts (which vary by who is red and who is white) Our 4 level opening bids (or immediate overcalls) tend to have no defensive values, no 4 card Major and generally be short of an opening 1 level bid...This sometimes causes a problem when opening 4H or 4S because partner can't get an accurate assessment as to high of a sacrifice might be in order (eg. why pre-empt 5 Hearts). Looking to improve our simple methods. I did find the following scheme, but I would like some advice on what might be best way to describe 4 level opening bids and partner responses. :


4C shows a hand with a long semi-solid Major with 3.5-4 Honor tricks OR a Minor suit with 2.5 -3 Honor tricks; no void
4D says to go ahead and bid your suit
4H is a slam try
4S is a slam try
5C is to Play
6C shows first round control in 3 suits
5D is to Play
6D shows first round control in 3 suits
4D shows a hand with a long strong Major with 2.5-3 Honor tricks
4H shows no slam interest
Pass
4S is a correction to Spades
4S shows slam interest in Hearts
4NT is BETA (Control Asking)
5C is a cue bid
5D is a cue bid
4H is natural and weak
4S is natural and weak
4NT shows long Clubs or Diamonds, strong, with at least one void
5C shows no slam interest
Pass
5D is a correction to Diamonds

As an aside, I don't think I want to use all the 4 level opening suit bids to strictly show Majors, although I have thought that maybe opening 3NT could show a Minor ( Our 3NT opening currently is undefined), which would then take care of that concern.

I also need to be GCC compliant

Thank you in advance for any suggestions.

I play namyats: https://www.stellar-....co.uk/namyats/
I hate going passed 3NT with a long minor so I like the idea of using 4C and 4D as showing better hearts and spades than if I bid 4H or 4S directly.

[Zelandakh]

 johnworf, on 2020-December-05, 18:52, said:

I play namyats: https://www.stellar-....co.uk/namyats/
I hate going passed 3NT with a long minor so I like the idea of using 4C and 4D as showing better hearts and spades than if I bid 4H or 4S directly.

Namyats is often combined with a 3NT opening showing a 4 level preempt in a minor (as opposed to only a solid minor). One idea that has gained ground over the last 20ish years is to reverse these two so that 4m is natural and 3NT is the Namyats hand showing either major.

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-December-18, 14:42, said:

Namyats is often combined with a 3NT opening showing a 4 level preempt in a minor (as opposed to only a solid minor). One idea that has gained ground over the last 20ish years is to reverse these two so that 4m is natural and 3NT is the Namyats hand showing either major.

Hm. How is that different to Kantar 3NT?

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2020-December-18, 14:49, said:

Hm. How is that different to Kantar 3NT?

I have to admit not knowing Kantar 3NT by that name - it's probably a US/Euro sort of thing. Looking it up online though, K3NT appears to deny an outside ace, which Namyats does not, so that would appear to be at least one difference.

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2020-December-18, 14:42, said:

Namyats is often combined with a 3NT opening showing a 4 level preempt in a minor (as opposed to only a solid minor). One idea that has gained ground over the last 20ish years is to reverse these two so that 4m is natural and 3NT is the Namyats hand showing either major.

I missed this interesting comment.
What are the usual developments after 3NT?

[DavidKok]

A double by LHO showing both majors, followed by 4♣ 'pass or correct'.

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2021-February-10, 17:56, said:

A double by LHO showing both majors, followed by 4♣ 'pass or correct'.

Sorry, I should have been clearer: I was referring to the second possibility, 3NT as Namyats.

[DavidKok]

I've never been a fan of Namyats, but I imagine that if your opponents are made of cardboard and/or spilled something sticky all over their bidding boxes you can play something like 4♣ positive, 4♦ 'bid your suit', maybe even ParadoX responses (4♥ says 'pass with hearts, forward-going with spades' and 4♠ the other way around). In practice the (two) free round(s) of bidding allow prepared opponents to enter with shapely weak-to-intermediate hands most of the time, and you should probably just play something like "pass over their overcall asks opener to bid the suit, double means we sit, anything else is forward-going".

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2021-February-11, 04:22, said:

I've never been a fan of Namyats, but I imagine that if your opponents are made of cardboard and/or spilled something sticky all over their bidding boxes you can play something like 4♣ positive, 4♦ 'bid your suit', maybe even ParadoX responses (4♥ says 'pass with hearts, forward-going with spades' and 4♠ the other way around). In practice the (two) free round(s) of bidding allow prepared opponents to enter with shapely weak-to-intermediate hands most of the time, and you should probably just play something like "pass over their overcall asks opener to bid the suit, double means we sit, anything else is forward-going".

I was imagining something like:
4♣ = bid your suit in transfer
4♦ = bid your suit
4♥ = pass or correct
4♠ = pass with spades, forward going with hearts.

I agree that opponents might well not collaborate. I haven't noticed that problem with normal Namyats, but at my non-expert level of competition not many opponents have anything particular prepared against it and of course it comes up so rarely that it's hard to spot a pattern anyway. That doesn't mean it's pointless, the goal is to take pressure off 4M.

[DavidKok]

 pescetom, on 2021-February-11, 05:02, said:

I was imagining something like:
4♣ = bid your suit in transfer
4♦ = bid your suit
4♥ = pass or correct
4♠ = pass with spades, forward going with hearts.

I agree that opponents might well not collaborate. I haven't noticed that problem with normal Namyats, but at my non-expert level of competition not many opponents have anything particular prepared against it and of course it comes up so rarely that it's hard to spot a pattern anyway. That doesn't mean it's pointless, the goal is to take pressure off 4M.

My favourite defence against regular Namyats is

• (direct position) X = 13-15 (semi)balanced, after that we have penalty doubles
  
• Bid = not strong (9-13), real suit
  
• Their suit = three-suited hand
  
• Pass, then double = takeout but not 3-suited, usually a flaw in one of the minors
  
• Pass, then bid = as over a normal preempt

It's far from perfect but it's easy to remember. I think a defence like this already negates most of the potential advantages of the Namyats.

As for your suggested continuation, I think we pretty much agree. Personally I don't worry too much about right-siding the contract (keep in mind responder has a choice between 4M and 4♦ already), so I would use 4♣ as some asking bid instead of forcing a transfer into the suit. Since the Namyats promises a solid suit responder will, with a strong hand, usually be able to tell which suit opener has.

[Zelandakh]

 pescetom, on 2021-February-10, 17:35, said:

I missed this interesting comment.
What are the usual developments after 3NT?

I would need to look at some top-level CCs to get the details but iirc it is something like

4♣ = ask (with SI)
4♦ = bid your M
4♥ = pass/correct

Over the 4♣ ask, there are a few structures. Meckwell (who play it as good 4M rather than strict Namyats) bid 4M-1 with 2 keycards and 4M+1 with 3 keycards. The Namyats-specific one I remember is 4♦ with spades (after which 4♥ is a re-ask) and others are the same as if you had the Namyats auction 4♣ - 4♦. There is at least one CC with extremely detailed (and complicated) follow-ups. I might be able to find it at ecats if it would be important for you but it would take some time. Generally though, I think one of the two above structures should be expected and if you already play Namyats, the second is just extremely easy to switch over to.

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-February-11, 16:34, said:

I would need to look at some top-level CCs to get the details but iirc it is something like

4♣ = ask (with SI)
4♦ = bid your M
4♥ = pass/correct

Over the 4♣ ask, there are a few structures. Meckwell (who play it as good 4M rather than strict Namyats) bid 4M-1 with 2 keycards and 4M+1 with 3 keycards. The Namyats-specific one I remember is 4♦ with spades (after which 4♥ is a re-ask) and others are the same as if you had the Namyats auction 4♣ - 4♦. There is at least one CC with extremely detailed (and complicated) follow-ups. I might be able to find it at ecats if it would be important for you but it would take some time. Generally though, I think one of the two above structures should be expected and if you already play Namyats, the second is just extremely easy to switch over to.

Thanks. I guess that begs the question of what is the "standard" meaning of bids after 4♣ - 4♦. We play 4♦ as a puppet to 4♥, but if after that responder continues with a control-bid then 4♦ promised control in diamonds.