[DavidKok]

Having narrow requirements for a bid gains when you have that hand and loses every time you had a hand that might have bid the same way but doesn't meet your requirements. I think any Namyats version where the South hand is worth pushing past 4M is very low frequency - at best I would make a positive noise and then reside in 4M, but even then only when playing with people who favour a conservative Namyats style. On average I think a weaker variation is much more profitable, though wide-ranging 4M openings have served me perfectly well. If you think it is very likely that we should be playing four of a major you can score quite well by bidding four of a major, even if it's a bit unscientific.

[mikeh]

Lol to all the comments. The argument about 4H leading to the opps bidding 4S is not exactly sound, if the argues, as it seems to be, that one should open 1H

Here’s a simple question, which the ‘they’ll bid 4S over 4H’ crowd seems unable to answer: which is easier to overcall…1H or 4H?

Plus who is to say that we don’t want them bidding 4S?

As it happens, I chose 4H so maybe I’m biased

Slam was on a finesse but is unbiddable even if you’re the kind of player who thinks it’s a sin to miss 50% slams

I have namyats available but we play a very restricted form. We only do it with either a no loser suit or a 1 loser suit. This is to facilitate slam bidding since we play an imp oriented style

[akwoo]

mikeh, on 2023-November-13, 11:05, said:

I have namyats available but we play a very restricted form. We only do it with either a no loser suit or a 1 loser suit. This is to facilitate slam bidding since we play an imp oriented style

When I posted I was also a little worried about suit quality for namyats but decided AQ-8th counts as a 1 loser suit; I'd be more wary about AQ-7th. But I haven't discussed this point with partners and presumably you have.

[mikeh]

We want to cater to moving towards slam when responder has no support but a good hand. It’s a very rare bid and we’ve toyed with 4m being natural. However, we’ve stuck with our version of namyats. Btw, 4C shows a 1 loser major and 4D shows a solid major

The idea is to allow responder to evaluate. Responses of 4S and higher (other than 4N) show rate cheaper of touching aces and a source of tricks. Opposite 4C, they show a filler in opener’s suit as well. Responder virtually always knows the suit when he has rye values for a slam try

[jillybean]

This discussion reminds me of when I started playing and filling my Convention Card with every convention I came across. Namyats was one of the more bizarre ones that not too many people played and as far as I could glean, no-one knew what the responses to 4C/4D were, other than bidding game in the Major.
I now have fewer conventions and no Convention Card.

If I do add Namyats back into the system, I'll use Mike's version.

[mycroft]

I like "systems that have been thought out". So, 25 years old though it might be, I play the "Preempts from A to Z A" version. Not because it's better than anything else (I have no idea about that), but it's written down and complete (enough for me, who has it come up maybe twice a year).

Its main advantage is when you preempt your partner, they can see right away that "Trump x" is/is not good enough support in slam. "I have 12 tricks if we have no heart loser. But if we had no heart loser, partner would have opened 4♣ instead of 4♥." Comforting thought, that.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-November-15, 20:32, said:

This discussion reminds me of when I started playing and filling my Convention Card with every convention I came across. Namyats was one of the more bizarre ones that not too many people played and as far as I could glean, no-one knew what the responses to 4C/4D were, other than bidding game in the Major.
I now have fewer conventions and no Convention Card.I

Having no Convention Card is against most regulations and the spirit of the Laws, as you well know.
And no convention can work well (or be disclosed effectively) without discussion and definition.
That goes for a "natural" 4m opening too.

jillybean, on 2023-November-15, 20:32, said:

If I do add Namyats back into the system, I'll use Mike's version.

Also have a look at alternatives using 3NT, like my Notyats.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2023-November-16, 16:24, said:

Having no Convention Card is against most regulations and the spirit of the Laws, as you well know.
And no convention can work well (or be disclosed effectively) without discussion and definition.
That goes for a "natural" 4m opening too.

No CC is widely accepted in the games I play in, including tournaments.
No need to bother with one.

pescetom, on 2023-November-16, 16:24, said:

Also have a look at alternatives using 3NT, like my Notyats.

Where do I find information on Notyats?

[Gilithin]

jillybean, on 2023-November-15, 20:32, said:

If I do add Namyats back into the system, I'll use Mike's version.

If you do go for Namyats, I would suggest the original and simplest: 4♣ a 0-1 loser heart suit and 4♦ a 0-1 loser spade suit. Responses to the relay are then 4M = 1 loser suit with no side ace; 4NT = 0 loser suit; new suit = ace of suit bid and a 1 loser suit. The current trend is actually away from this structure and towards using a 3NT opening to show a good preempt, usually in a major. This is because of the realisation that Gambling 3NT is actually a bad convention and using 3NT in this way gives additional options for constructive auctions over Namyats. Unfortunately these continuations also tend to be more complex than the basic Namyats so I would suggest avoiding this to begin with. Using 3NT as a good minor preempt and 4m as a good major preempt is simple and generally effective enough for non-expert pairs.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2023-November-17, 18:10, said:

Where do I find information on Notyats?

It was born and described in this thread about 3NT as strong 4M.
NoTyats itself is rather eccentric and only for fans of Italian-style control-bidding, but the thread also contains links to an alternative by Norberto Bocchi and some sensible suggestions by Davidkok if you want to brew your own.

[Gilithin]

pescetom, on 2023-November-18, 12:12, said:

It was born and described in this thread about 3NT as strong 4M.
NoTyats itself is rather eccentric and only for fans of Italian-style control-bidding, but the thread also contains links to an alternative by Norberto Bocchi and some sensible suggestions by Davidkok if you want to brew your own.

Again, what I would suggest for a club-level pair to start off with is the simple: 4♣ = relay for hearts (or both); 4♦ = relay for spades; 4♥ = pass/correct. Then after the 4♣ relay, 4♦ = spades (now 4♥ is the usual Namyats relay); 4♥ = 1 loser heart suit with no side ace; 4NT = no loser heart suit; 4♠/5m = 1 loser heart suit and ace of suit bid. And after a 4♦ relay, 4♥ = hearts; 4♠ = 1 loser spade suit with no side ace; 4NT = no loser spade suit; 5m/5♥ = 1 loser spade suit and ace of suit bid. This is not optimal but is a decent starting point after normal Namyats before progressing on to the more advanced structures.

[DavidKok]

The continuations don't matter, if you wait for a 1 loser suit you won't get to open it anyway, and you'll have forgotten by the time it comes up in a year.

Personally I prefer much lower requirements for the 3NT opening, and also play a simpler responsive scheme. Fortunately I don't have to try to investigate slam in the two steps left below 4♥ quite as often, so the bids can be used for other purposes. I'd recommend the simple 4♣ = transfer me into your suit, 4♦ = bid your suit, 4♥/4♠ = this is my suit, you should pass. The last two bids can be repurposed (if you have spades and want to play them you can make partner show theirs and then pull, and if you have hearts and want to play them facing spades you can bid 4♣ and pass the transfer, to technically these are idle, but it's low frequency anyway).

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2023-November-19, 02:29, said:

The continuations don't matter, if you wait for a 1 loser suit you won't get to open it anyway, and you'll have forgotten by the time it comes up in a year.

So true.