[awm]

♠Axxx
♥xx
♦KJTx
♣AQx

You see one of the following two auctions, red vs. white at IMPs:

4♣(1) - Pass - 4♥(2) - ???

(1) A good 4♥ bid
(2) To play

OR

4♥ - Pass - Pass - ???

Do you double in either auction?

[655321]

I double in both auctions.

Double of 4♥ opening seems a WTP. I guess there are arguments against double after the 4♣ opening but I still have a decent hand with relatively short hearts, so double.

[Fluffy]

I would double on both, but I am too agressive doubling at the 4 level. As 655 said doubling 4♥ is easier.

[mikeh]

ATT, I usually pass. Here in BBF, emboldened by the fact that no-one is going to make me actually pay any imps, other than virtually, I double on both auctions.

I actually hope that the real hand shows that pass was the best action... I have long been a coward here, and often get ribbed by partners/teammates when wrong (funny how they rarely congratulate me for discretion when right).

[aguahombre]

My teammates expect "wrong", so I get praise when right.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't double on the 4♣ auction (though in direct seat I would have doubled 4♣ if playing that as takeout of hearts). Doesn't it show 8-9 tricks, so I'm guaranteed not to get rich?

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Jul 23 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

I wouldn't double on the 4♣ auction (though in direct seat I would have doubled 4♣ if playing that as takeout of hearts). Doesn't it show 8-9 tricks, so I'm guaranteed not to get rich?

When you wrap 4S you get pretty rich!

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jul 23 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 23 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

I wouldn't double on the 4♣ auction (though in direct seat I would have doubled 4♣ if playing that as takeout of hearts). Doesn't it show 8-9 tricks, so I'm guaranteed not to get rich?

When you wrap 4S you get pretty rich!

True. I'll remember that when I don't have a 14 count with bad spades and a doubleton heart.

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Jul 23 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

I wouldn't double on the 4♣ auction (though in direct seat I would have doubled 4♣ if playing that as takeout of hearts). Doesn't it show 8-9 tricks, so I'm guaranteed not to get rich?

FWIW I held the partner hand and I included in my reasoning that the double in the Namyats auction was more likely to be shaped than to be a good balanced hand with 42 or so in the majors for this exact reason.

[jdonn]

xcurt, on Jul 23 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 23 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

I wouldn't double on the 4♣ auction (though in direct seat I would have doubled 4♣ if playing that as takeout of hearts). Doesn't it show 8-9 tricks, so I'm guaranteed not to get rich?

FWIW I held the partner hand and I included in my reasoning that the double in the Namyats auction was more likely to be shaped than to be a good balanced hand with 42 or so in the majors for this exact reason.

(Sorry for the digression but it's a good opportunity)
I prefer to play something like the following over 4♣ Namyats.

Double 4♣: Takeout of hearts
Double 4♣ then double 4♥: Stronger takeout of hearts. Double then pass is more like a hand slightly worse than this to a hand about a queen better than this (with this shape).
Pass then double 4♥: Penalty, often strong balanced
Overcall 4♦: Diamonds and spades (NLM haha)
Overcall 4♥: Clubs and spades
Overcall 4NT: Minors
Pass then overcall 4NT: Natural

This shows why (in theory) I think Namyats is a completely terrible convention. You let the opponents get a lot more important hand types in and take almost all the pressure off the opponent in direct seat. They can break up the strength of their takeout, show all specific two suited combinations, overcall with a natural notrump, and get a free penalty double. When you combine that you also make their life similarly easier over the 3NT opening (as opponent to opening a natural 4 of a minor) as long as they are willing to make some relatively simple agreements then I just don't get it.

[MFA]

Double after 4♥ but pass against Namyats. Somewhat protected by the fact that partner had available X of 4♣ as a shape-takeout not promising the world (X+X from him would be strong shapeTO, P+X strong balTO).

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jul 23 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jul 23 2009, 04:19 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 23 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

I wouldn't double on the 4♣ auction (though in direct seat I would have doubled 4♣ if playing that as takeout of hearts). Doesn't it show 8-9 tricks, so I'm guaranteed not to get rich?

FWIW I held the partner hand and I included in my reasoning that the double in the Namyats auction was more likely to be shaped than to be a good balanced hand with 42 or so in the majors for this exact reason.

(Sorry for the digression but it's a good opportunity)
I prefer to play something like the following over 4♣ Namyats.

Double 4♣: Takeout of hearts
Double 4♣ then double 4♥: Stronger takeout of hearts. Double then pass is more like a hand slightly worse than this to a hand about a queen better than this (with this shape).
Pass then double 4♥: Penalty, often strong balanced
Overcall 4♦: Diamonds and spades (NLM haha)
Overcall 4♥: Clubs and spades
Overcall 4NT: Minors
Pass then overcall 4NT: Natural

This shows why (in theory) I think Namyats is a completely terrible convention. You let the opponents get a lot more important hand types in and take almost all the pressure off the opponent in direct seat. They can break up the strength of their takeout, show all specific two suited combinations, overcall with a natural notrump, and get a free penalty double. When you combine that you also make their life similarly easier over the 3NT opening (as opponent to opening a natural 4 of a minor) as long as they are willing to make some relatively simple agreements then I just don't get it.

you make some valid points, and at the risk of diverting thread further, are you as confident about your defences to a modified namyats that I play: 4♣ non-solid good 4 level major, 4♦ no-loser suit good 4 level major?

Especially opposite 4♦, responder will virtually always know the suit whenever he has slam aspirations. This style, as with all transfer preempts, does suffer from the flaw that an opp can pass in direct seat with almost complete assurance of being able to bid later, but the ambiguity means that you don't get your full scheme in direct seat.... in particular, it seems difficult to play (effectively) that double of either opening is takeout of a particular major

[Phil]

MFA, on Jul 23 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Double after 4♥ but pass against Namyats. Somewhat protected by the fact that partner had available X of 4♣ as a shape-takeout not promising the world (X+X from him would be strong shapeTO, P+X strong balTO).

Agree with this and I'm a lot closer to a pass on the 2nd auction than a bid on the first.

[Phil]

mikeh, on Jul 23 2009, 05:05 PM, said:

you make some valid points, and at the risk of diverting thread further, are you as confident about your defences to a modified namyats that I play: 4♣ non-solid good 4 level major, 4♦ no-loser suit good 4 level major?

You get this approved?

[nigel_k]

jdonn, on Jul 23 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

This shows why (in theory) I think Namyats is a completely terrible convention.

Isn't this missing the point?

The alternatives to Namyats are to open at the one level which also lets opponents in easily or an overweight preeempt that risks missing slam. The fact that 4C is easier to play against than 4H doesn't really show that it's a bad convention.

I don't play it just because I am unwilling to give up four of a minor preempts but have toyed with the idea of using a 3NT opening on the Namyats hand type.

[jdonn]

nigel_k, on Jul 23 2009, 08:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 23 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

This shows why (in theory) I think Namyats is a completely terrible convention.

Isn't this missing the point?

The alternatives to Namyats are to open at the one level which also lets opponents in easily or an overweight preeempt that risks missing slam. The fact that 4C is easier to play against than 4H doesn't really show that it's a bad convention.

I don't play it just because I am unwilling to give up four of a minor preempts but have toyed with the idea of using a 3NT opening on the Namyats hand type.

That is obviously very different, you don't give them that many more options playing that or playing something like Mike plays because they don't know your suit. No cuebid, no immediate takeout doubles, no specific two suiters...