[Wackojack]

You are dealt this hand nv v v playing a strong club system

---

.

Do you open it 1♣ or 1♥? Had you been playing Namyats would you have opened it 4♣? Or would you open it with any other bid?

[P_Marlowe]

4H.

If the hand qualified for a Namyats 4C, I dont know, my guess is no,
I think most require a out side quick trick.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[WellSpyder]

I don't think a strong 1♣ is an option on this hand (and not just because I play in England, where the hand falls foul of the restrictions on what you are allowed to agree qualifies as a strong club). If you don't fancy 4♥ you can open 1♥. However, I would be strongly tempted to open 4♣ playing Namyats.

[mfa1010]

I have never played (or wanted to play) Namyats, but if I did I would open this hand 4♣. There are 9 tricks, is that not enough for 4♣?

[gnasher]

mfa1010, on 2010-November-03, 08:10, said:

I have never played (or wanted to play) Namyats, but if I did I would open this hand 4♣. There are 9 tricks, is that not enough for 4♣?

It might be too many.

[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on 2010-November-03, 06:04, said:

I don't think a strong 1♣ is an option on this hand (and not just because I play in England, where the hand falls foul of the restrictions on what you are allowed to agree qualifies as a strong club). If you don't fancy 4♥ you can open 1♥. However, I would be strongly tempted to open 4♣ playing Namyats.

Isn't it 10HCP and 8 clear tricks, so it does qualify as an EBU strong bid "Extended rule of 25".

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2010-November-03, 08:40, said:

Isn't it 10HCP and 8 clear tricks, so it does qualify as an EBU strong bid "Extended rule of 25".

If you say so - you must have a lot more experience than I do of applying these regulations. I thought the requirement for this part of the "Extended rule of 25" was "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening bid". I have never seen that interpreted as 10HCP, and I would have thought that is was rather uncommon for a normal 10-count to be treated as a one-level opening bid.

[NickRW]

Well, I wouldn't 1 ♣ it, regardless of whether it is legal or not - not enough high cards for me. At these colours it has too many playnig tricks for 4♥ for me - so I'd namyats it if I have that in the tool box - otherwise I might 5♥ it - though it is heavy in the spades - I'd have prefered one of the singletons to be there

[mikeh]

I wouldn't 1♣ it for the same reason that, if you added an Ace, I wouldn't open it 2♣ in a standard-based method. Strong artificial opening bids should, in my view, generally carry with them a good expectation of being able to beat at least 2 possible opposition slam contracts. I've found that to be a useful rule Here, I can see 3 possible slam contracts to which I may well have zero defence.

Add to that the obvious fact that there is no risk of a 1♥ bid being passed out, and the arguments in favour of 1♣ seem to evaporate.

This is an easy 4♣ call, if playing namyats, and if playing my preferred style, it would be a 4♦ call (shows, in my preferred method, an ostensibly no loser major, while 4♣ shows a 1-loser suit.....I'd stretch to call this no-loser).

[mtvesuvius]

4♣ for me, no outside cards is bad, but a good 9 card suit seems to be enough.

[W Kovacs]

I don't have Namyats in my arsenal, so I plunk down 4♥ and pray partner has a winner or 2.

And being the pessimistic type, I see a loser in my heart suit.

[Gerben42]

It's one trick too many for Namyats at favourable so I open 5♥. Hehe

[Wackojack]

If you can decipher the 2010 EBU Orange book, opening this hand 1C is permitted
:

10 B 4 Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the
minimum allowed is any of:
a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal highcard
strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks,
or
any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or
c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs
Examples:
ª A K Q J x x x x © x x ¨ x x § x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks.
ª A K Q x x x x x © x x ¨ x x § x does not.
10 OVERALL RULES FOR AGREEMENTS
45
Clear-cut tricks are clarified as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s
hand and the second best suit break.
Further examples:
AKQxxxxx (7 CCT), KQJxxxx (5), AQJ98xx (5), KQJTx (3), KQJTxxx (6),
AKT9xxxxx (8), KJTxxx (2)
10

[WellSpyder]

Wackojack, on 2010-November-03, 11:22, said:

If you can decipher the 2010 EBU Orange book, opening this hand 1C is permitted

Well, I think I can decipher the bit about clear tricks, and I agree the OP hand has 8 clear tricks. But I'm not sure I can decipher the required point count. It looks to me as if the examples given are merely intended to clarify the clear trick count, not to give example hands that necessarily fall within the extended rule of 25 - for example, surely the suit quoted of AKT9xxxxx would fall foul of the point count requirement if the remaining 4 cards did not add a decent number of points?

[bucky]

Gerben42, on 2010-November-03, 10:55, said:

It's one trick too many for Namyats at favourable so I open 5♥. Hehe

I share a similar view. For me it is a toss-up between 4♥ and 5♥. I would never open 4♣ even if Namyats is available to me, since it gives opponents too many options, they can double immediately to show a lighter takeout of hearts, or bid 4♥ as michaels, or bid 4♦ natural.

In theory 5♥ is an invitation to slam, asking partner to raise with either heart ace or king (but not based on any side suit control). But since I am holding both heart honors, I *know* partner cannot raise, and the preemptive effect of 5♥ has clear merits.

[Fluffy]

If I played Namyats I'd open this 4♣ for sure, if this is not the hand then the convention is just never gonna work.

1♣ is completelly wrong.

I can live with 1♥ but I try to bid 4♥ as much as I can.

[Gerben42]

bucky, on 2010-November-03, 12:21, said:

I share a similar view. For me it is a toss-up between 4♥ and 5♥. I would never open 4♣ even if Namyats is available to me, since it gives opponents too many options, they can double immediately to show a lighter takeout of hearts, or bid 4♥ as michaels, or bid 4♦ natural.

In theory 5♥ is an invitation to slam, asking partner to raise with either heart ace or king (but not based on any side suit control). But since I am holding both heart honors, I *know* partner cannot raise, and the preemptive effect of 5♥ has clear merits.

Your meaning is the classical meaning of a 5M opening bid. In practice, many pairs don't know what it shows. The last one I've seen was from a recent Bermuda Bowl / Venice Cup / Seniors Bowl:

Vulnerable a player of the Dutch Ladies Team opened 5♠ on this:

---

(and gained a double digit swing for the wrong reasons)

For me personally, I think a 5M opening bid is in principle a preemptive bid but since 5♠-1 looks a bit weird I play it as follows.

4♠ = Preempt with the correct number of losers for a 4♠ preempt
4♦ = Preempt with the correct number of losers for a 5♠ preempt
5♠ = Preempt with the correct number of losers for a 6♠ preempt
6♠ = Preempt with the correct number of losers for a 7♠ preempt

Basically at these levels the rule of 2-and-3 applies (no more cutting corners white-vs-red, just open 4M on more hands at those colours). The actual hand has 4 losers not vulnerable, suggesting the 6-level, i.e. 5♥.

[kayin801]

1♥, 1♣ is completely batty.

If it's too good for Namyats (9 tricks) then we're forced into this, no?

[Zelandakh]

Gerben42, on 2010-November-04, 16:48, said:

Your meaning is the classical meaning of a 5M opening bid. In practice, many pairs don't know what it shows. The last one I've seen was from a recent Bermuda Bowl / Venice Cup / Seniors Bowl:

Over here the 'classical' meaning of a 5M opening is a hand with no side losers but missing 2 of the top 3 trump honours.

[ggwhiz]

Opening 1♣ lets the opponents in to any conceivable suit(s), bad policy.

4♥ is probably right but I've had success by opening 1♥ and sounding tough on my way to the dive. This could well be a slam hand but it might be theirs.