[Echognome]

hrothgar, on Jul 22 2007, 12:37 PM, said:

Echognome, on Jul 22 2007, 10:09 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 22 2007, 09:35 AM, said:

2.  A NAMYATS style 3N or 4♦ is right out (The Spade suit isn't strong enough)

LOL?

I don't know of anyone that plays the requirement to be completely solid spades.

Where did I say that I require a completely solid suit for a NAYMATS opening?

To me, the critical requirement for a NAMYATs opening is the number of winners that the trump suit can be expected to produce opposite a stiff. I want the hand to produce 7+ trumps tricks.

♠ AKQ5432 is fine, as is
♠ AQJ65432, or, for that matter
♠ KQJT5432

The hand in question will (typically) only produce six trump tricks opposite a stiff. You'll lose a trick any time the King is offside, as well as a number of hands where its onside and you can't pick it up.

I don't think that the treatment that I suggest is far removed from the mainstream

Shrug. I don't think your views are very mainstream at all. Many might bid it on 8 trumps, but do not require additionally that the trump suit is that solid. Hands such as:

AQTxxxxx x xxx x

I'm not against opening this hand 1♠ as it has defensive as well as offensive values. But I cannot fathom not opening it 4♠ on the grounds that the spade suit is too weak!

However, you've explained your reasoning. I don't really see why the only consideration is the trump suit. I mean I'm all for having a good suit as a good suit = tricks. But when AQJT9 is not good enough, I feel like I'm in bizarro world.

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Jul 23 2007, 12:03 AM, said:

Shrug.  I don't think your views are very mainstream at all.  Many might bid it on 8 trumps, but do not require additionally that the trump suit is that solid.  Hands such as:

AQTxxxxx x xxx x

I'm not against opening this hand 1♠ as it has defensive as well as offensive values.  But I cannot fathom not opening it 4♠ on the grounds that the spade suit is too weak!

"Preempts from A to Z" by Zenkel and Anderson provides the following suit quality requirements for a NAMYATS type opening.

"The Trump suit is always self sufficient. It never contains more than one loser. It is at least seven cards in length and frequently eight". They provide the provide the following examples of NAMYATS openings

1. AKJT8754
2. AKQT9654
3. KQJT875
4. AKQT93

I readily admit, the Spade suit is sufficient to qualify for a 4♠ preempt under A+Z's criteria. (The hand itself isn't strong enough. They would require more playing strength. Something like

♠ AQJT965
♥ Void
♦ xx
♣ KQT9

However, they'd never recommend a NAMYATS type preempt with a suit like AQTxxxxx)

I think that the main difference between my style and A+Z is my own idiosyncratic treatment of 7-4 patterns and the like. I prefer to bundle these into the direct 4♠. Accordingly, for me there aren't many hands that would only only produce six trump winners that offer enough playing strength for a NAMYATS opening.

For what its worth, I consider a NAMYATS opening on AQTxxxxx x xxx x complete incomprehensible.

[pbleighton]

Quote

But I cannot fathom not opening it 4♠ on the grounds that the spade suit is too weak!

You wouldn't open 4S in NAMYATS.

FWIW, when I played NAMYATS the requirement was that your suit was good enough to set trump and you had 8-8.5 playing tricks. This hand isn't quite good enough, by that (perhaps non-mainstream ) definition, but the suit is.

Peter

[mike777]

awm, on Jul 21 2007, 11:15 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

---

You're the dealer at IMPs. What's your opening bid? If you open 1♠, partner responds 1NT (forcing): what's your plan from there?

Another wonderful example of the type of hand I hope to see much more theory discussion on.

We have a minimum HCP hand with above average playing strength. We do not have game forcing playing strength.

If we agree, I repeat if we can agree, and we may not, that:

1s and 3s rebid shows this playing strength but more hcp
and
1s and 2s rebid shows this hcp but promises less playing strength

What should we do and why?

I lean towards 1s and 2s rebid buying into the argument that working hcp is just as important as playing strength so we should go more conservative rather than aggressive.

I hope to hear both sides of this discussion and any other important points brought up more fully.

[pbleighton]

Quote

If we agree, I repeat if we can agree, and we may not, that:

1s and 3s rebid shows this playing strength but more hcp
and
1s and 2s rebid shows this hcp but promises less playing strength

Yes, I agree.

Quote

What should we do and why?

Open 4S, because it describes the hand, you don't have a rebid problem, and it shuts out your opponents.

Peter

[TimG]

mike777, on Jul 22 2007, 06:08 PM, said:

I lean towards 1s and 2s rebid buying into the argument that working hcp is just as important as playing strength so we should go more conservative rather than aggressive.

High card points is an attempt at quantifying playing strength, a method to compare two different hands in a common unit of measurement.

If a hand obviously has more playing strength than this evaluation method comes up with, it doesn't seem right to stubbornly follow the evaluation method.

[awm]

I've been playing in the ACBL nationals here in Nashville, and have noticed a couple hands like this. It seems like most players here open 1♠ and rebid 4♠ with these hands, which seems kind of like an overbid to me.

These hands are tough because there are pretty good hands partner could have where game has no play whatsoever, as well as pretty poor hands where game is quite good. Try for example:

x
KQxx
Qxxx
Kxxx

xx
Axx
Kxxx
xxxx

It's a good hand for a precision-style 3♠ rebid (which has to show something like this) or using Gazilli to make the same distinction in a natural system. Without these gadgets I tend to open 1♠ and rebid 2♠ so as not to play partner for perfect cards.

In any case, the actual partner hand for this is not too relevant since all roads should lead to game:

xx
Axxxx
x
Axxxx

[mike777]

awm, on Jul 21 2007, 11:15 PM, said:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> South </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> AQJT965 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> 2 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td> A8 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> 873 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

You're the dealer at IMPs. What's your opening bid? If you open 1♠, partner responds 1NT (forcing): what's your plan from there?

Really great hand to post.

Forum posters are all over the place with this one.

I emailed it around and got responses such as:

1) open 4s
2) open 1s rebid 2s
3) open 1s rebid 3s
4) open 1s rebid 4s

they were all pretty sure their answer was pretty standard.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Jul 23 2007, 09:50 AM, said:

It's a good hand for a precision-style 3♠ rebid (which has to show something like this) or using Gazilli to make the same distinction in a natural system. Without these gadgets I tend to open 1♠ and rebid 2♠ so as not to play partner for perfect cards.

Agree with AWM regarding the Gazilli comment. This hand is a lot easier if you have a gimmick like this available.

Where I disagree is whether this hand is a clear 3♠ rebid in the context of a strong club system. While this hand is clearly a non-minimum, its also far from a maximum. I'd certainly consider a 2♠ rebid even in the context of Precision or MOSCITO. (I'd definitely rebid 2♠ playing 2/1)

[cherdano]

I always bid 1S, then 4S, on these type of hands, which I have always understood as showing roughly a 4S opening plus a side ace, which is exactly what I have.