[jillybean]

Scoring: IMP

1♥:1♠
?

---

[rogerclee]

3♣. Let's get our side suit in to help partner evaluate his hand while creating a GF.

This is a hand that should be pretty optimistic about slam.

[andy_h]

3C for sure. Slam or even a grand can easily be on, so let's find our best fit for it may be best to play in clubs.

[P_Marlowe]

3C.

I am pretty sure, I want (and will) play in hearts,
but since the only sensible forcing bid is 3C, 3C
it is.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[han]

3C.

[neilkaz]

rogerclee, on Jun 27 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

3♣. Let's get our side suit in to help partner evaluate his hand while creating a GF.

This is a hand that should be pretty optimistic about slam.

Completely agree...3♣ is my only choice playing typical "American Standard"

[jillybean]

Unanimous !

I was hoping I could "self splinter" in ♦ and I havent been out drinking with Justin.

[ArtK78]

I fully agree that one must bid 3♣ at this point in the auction.

I am somewhat surprised that no one has questioned the opening bid as of yet. The hand has what appears to be 9 stone cold tricks at hearts. If one were playing Namyats, this hand would certainly qualify. If not, one is taking a risk by not opening 2♣.

Yes, with only 16 HCP and 7420 shape it is very unlikely that the hand will be passed out in 1♥. And yes, you do not have game in hand (however, 4♥ is likely to be cold opposite as little as the ♣JT or 4 small clubs).

So, while I am not advocating opening this hand 2♣, I am surprised that it has not yet been mentioned. It certainly would appear to pass the "Oh, S**T!" test (You open the hand one of a suit and it goes all pass - would you yell "Oh, S**T?").

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Jun 27 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

I am somewhat surprised that no one has questioned the opening bid as of yet. The hand has what appears to be 9 stone cold tricks at hearts. If one were playing Namyats, this hand would certainly qualify. If not, one is taking a risk by not opening 2♣.

If you look at the description of a NAMYATS type preempt in Preempts from A+Z this hand would be considered too strong for NAMYATS

You have

seven hearts to the AKQ
two first round controls outside of trump
The AK of clubs

[Echognome]

jillybean2, on Jun 27 2008, 07:31 AM, said:

Unanimous !

I was hoping I could "self splinter" in ♦ and I havent been out drinking with Justin.

If your partner had bid 1NT, you could have self-splintered by bidding 4♦. However, since your partner bid 1♠, your 4♦ call would show a splinter agreeing spades.

I think even if my partner had bid 1NT, I prefer the 3♣ force (letting partner evaluate club honors), rather than a self splinter.

[andy_h]

jillybean2, on Jun 28 2008, 01:31 AM, said:

Unanimous !

I was hoping I could "self splinter" in ♦ and I havent been out drinking with Justin.

The usual trend with these non-jump/jump/doublejump tends to work like this. If your lowest (non-jump) rebid of x is NF, then a jump rebid of x is GF, then a double-jump rebid is some form of splinter bid.
The example is, say, 1H-1S. If you bid 2C that's NF, therefore 3C is GF, therefore 4C is a splinter. Same goes with 1S-1NT; 2C=NF, 3C=GF, 4C='self' splinter. Splinter bids normally agree partner's suit, but when partner has bid 1NT, then the only form of splinter is a self-splinter.

If you're used to the style where a non-jump is forcing, the jump bid will then be a splinter (because the GF hands will not need to jump). Using the same example from above on 1H-1S, if 2C here is forcing, that makes 3C a splinter, and 4C usually a void splinter.

Having said that, presuming you're playing the style where 2C would be NF, like Echo mentioned it would be better to mention the clubs rather than using a self splinter would be more beneficial (had partner responded 1NT). You can always revert back to hearts later, but we may hit jackpot if partner has SA and CQJxx. Not saying that it's likely, but it can't hurt to try and you would usually play in hearts most of the time anyways.

[ArtK78]

hrothgar, on Jun 27 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 27 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

I am somewhat surprised that no one has questioned the opening bid as of yet.  The hand has what appears to be 9 stone cold tricks at hearts.  If one were playing Namyats, this hand would certainly qualify.  If not, one is taking a risk by not opening 2♣.

If you look at the description of a NAMYATS type preempt in Preempts from A+Z this hand would be considered too strong for NAMYATS

You have

seven hearts to the AKQ
two first round controls outside of trump
The AK of clubs

With all due respect, that definition is silly if it results in this hand being "too strong" to open Namyats.

The agreement that I have with my partner is:

A 7 card or longer suit which expects to have no losers opposite a singleton.

8 1/2 to 9 playing tricks.

No more than one side suit with 2 or more quick losers.

Too few HCP for a 2♣ opening bid.

This hand meets all of these criteria.

EDIT: I have reviewed a number of online bridge sites that attempt to define Namyats. The definitions are all over the map. What really surprises me is that some definitions of Namyats allow for a suit no better than KQTxxxx.

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Jun 27 2008, 08:59 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 27 2008, 11:13 AM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 27 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

I am somewhat surprised that no one has questioned the opening bid as of yet.  The hand has what appears to be 9 stone cold tricks at hearts.  If one were playing Namyats, this hand would certainly qualify.  If not, one is taking a risk by not opening 2♣.

If you look at the description of a NAMYATS type preempt in Preempts from A+Z this hand would be considered too strong for NAMYATS

With all due respect, that definition is silly if it results in this hand being "too strong" to open Namyats.

The agreement that I have with my partner is:

Maybe, maybe not ...

There are advantages and disadvantages to a disciplined preemptive style. The more disciplined your preempts, the better positioned partner is to make an intelligent decision. If you permit a NAMYATS opening with random voids, Aces and side controls partner is going to have a lot of time deciding whether to signoff in 4M or investigate slam.

Zenkel and Anderson advocated a quite disciplined NAMYATS style. My copy of Preempts from A to Z is at home, but I seem to recall that they recommended a style in which the NAYMATS opener explictly denied more than one Ace or King outside the trump suit.

I don't claim that I am in a good position to evaluate their recommendation.

I will state that if I see Sabine Auken and Ron Anderson say X and you and your partner say "Y" I'm going to listen to Auken...

For what its worth, I do think that its possible to play a "2 way" NAMYATS structure in which opener either has a normal NAMYATS opener OR a hand suitable with 11 playing tricks which needs a specific cover card to make 6M.

Playing this type of structure, you might play to open 4♦ holding

♠ AKQxxxxx
♥ xx
♦ AK
♣ A

You plan to open 4♦, expecting partner to rebid 4♠. If partner signs off in 4♠, you plan to rebid 5♥ asking partner to bid 5♠ with no heart control. Unfortunately, I think that the hand in question is way too weak for this bid.

[pclayton]

This hand is too strong for Namyats. There's winners, and then there's WINNERS.

Frankly I'd open it 2C. If I started 1♥, I'd 3♣.

[P_Marlowe]

jillybean2, on Jun 27 2008, 10:31 AM, said:

Unanimous !

I was hoping I could "self splinter" in ♦ and I havent been out drinking with Justin.

Not the worst idea, but there is a catch.

4D is a splinter, agreeing spades.
Of course you will later bid hearts and hearts,
hoping that partner will get the message.
Unfortunately, spades outrank hearts, i.e. every
time partner corrects your cue, you will have to
bid your suit a level higher.

With kind regards
Marlowe