[Cascade]

hanp, on Jun 10 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 7 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

Perhaps I should have mentioned that 3NT is the specific ace ask opening?  So there is in fact room for some additional information although I am not sure how helpful that is.

Could you elaborate on your agreements here? What do follow up bids mean? If partner shows the diamond ace and no other ace, isn't pretty much any bid now a sign off?

We can ask for kings.

4♦ would show the diamond ace. Over which we can make a quantitative invite in the majors.

In theory with lots of extra strength partner could raise invitationally (or perhaps cue) over 4♥/♠.

[Gerben42]

4NT as specific ace ask sounds a bit optimistic, might lead to 5♠-1 too often. In other news, this opening bid is too rare to be any use, please pick one of:

* Both minors
* A good 5m preempt

The actual hand is perfect for a 4♦ opening (Namyats). For modern BW readers, maybe 3NT showing the same thing

[Cascade]

We play 3NT not 4NT as the specific ace ask which increases its frequency. Because of other changes to the system we would be reluctant to give this up. It is not that frequent I think it has only come up once or twice in actual play in a couple of years. And a few more times in practice.

When my partner suggested 3NT on the hand in this thread I immediately thought it was a bit optimistic but she pointed out that the hand only has 13 HCP and one opponent has passed so partner rates to have some values. It also seems that many other auctions will make it difficult to find out about key cards like the ♦Q.

I did some simulations and 6♠ was making very often opposite the diamond ace and whatever else partner happened to have. The only problem hands for a specific ace ask were when partner had only the ♣A. Currently our agreement is to respond 5♣ with that hand. Opposite the ♣A and not other aces 5♠ was failing a significant number of times when 4♠ was making. Perhaps we can improve our method with 4♣ showing club ace or none and relaying to determine which. ♣A only (ace) occurred about 20% of the time.

Perhaps the optimistic 3NT specific ace ask is not such a bad idea after all.

[gnasher]

Gerben42, on Jun 10 2009, 10:11 AM, said:

The actual hand is perfect for a 4♦ opening (Namyats). For modern BW readers, maybe 3NT showing the same thing

"Perfect" seems an overstatement. 4♦ isn't going to get you to a grand slam opposite x Axxx AQJx xxxx but let you stop in game opposite x Axxx xxxx AQJx

[ArtK78]

I agree that calling this hand perfect for a Namyats 4♦ opening is an overbid - Partner has a right to expect that his ♣A is a useful card opposite a Namyats opening, and he will have trouble figuring out that his ♥A and ♦QJ is good enough for slam.

That is not to say that I wouldn't open Namyats 4♦ on these cards. It is a reasonable, if flawed, opening, but not clearly worse than opening 1♠. It may serve to preempt the opponents out of a reasonable game or sacrifice.

As for a specific ace ask, this is not the hand you were looking for when you decided to play that convention. You could find partner with both the ♥A and the ♦A and still not know how high to bid.

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on Jun 12 2009, 04:42 AM, said:

I agree that calling this hand perfect for a Namyats 4♦ opening is an overbid - Partner has a right to expect that his ♣A is a useful card opposite a Namyats opening, and he will have trouble figuring out that his ♥A and ♦QJ is good enough for slam.

That is not to say that I wouldn't open Namyats 4♦ on these cards. It is a reasonable, if flawed, opening, but not clearly worse than opening 1♠. It may serve to preempt the opponents out of a reasonable game or sacrifice.

As for a specific ace ask, this is not the hand you were looking for when you decided to play that convention. You could find partner with both the ♥A and the ♦A and still not know how high to bid.

There is still room to consult.

You could find the same information after opening 1♠ and still not know about what to do with the deep diamond losers.

My simulations suggest that even without consultation you have 13 double dummy tricks nearly 70% of the time opposite those two aces. Single dummy is probably a little less although you also have the opportunity single dummy of an inferior defense (opening lead).

[TimG]

I doubt I'm going to be able to get the information I need through a scientific approach, so I'd be very tempted to muddy the waters with something mis-descriptive. Of course, if there is a novice at the table...

[cherdanno]

I don't understand why 1S-3D-4S isn't good enough with this hand. In fact, I don't see how anything else does better.

[ArtK78]

If you can guarantee that your opponents will not be in the bidding, then by all means take the slower route.

I think it is probably an impractical approach.