[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Oct 18 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

Hm. Interesting idea. It sounds a bit like what Anderson and Zenkel called "Kantar 3NT". IAC, I've not played it, so I dunno. Maybe I'll give it a try, if I can find a willing partner.

It's way way better than regular Namyats. But it's not GCC legal, stupidly.

[blackshoe]

Bah. That figures.

[TylerE]

Actually, you could probably wrangle it...

STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto.

So just play responses like

4♣=Shortness somewhere
4♦=No shortness

and you're golden (or play control showing responses or something)

While somewhat weasly, this should be fully legal under the ACBL guide line that a strong opening is whatever the player making it thinks it is...

[aguahombre]

couldn't answer the poll because I don't think 3N showing a broken minor preempt is really "Gambling 3NT". It is just what we do when 4m shows something else.
The ideas about 3NT showing the 8 trick hand in a major are good, and we might switch. But, my point was about not calling what we currently do "gambling 3NT"

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Oct 18 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Oct 18 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

Hm. Interesting idea. It sounds a bit like what Anderson and Zenkel called "Kantar 3NT". IAC, I've not played it, so I dunno. Maybe I'll give it a try, if I can find a willing partner.

It's way way better than regular Namyats. But it's not GCC legal, stupidly.

It won't be the first convention that is stupidly not allowed.

[fred]

I don't like Gambling 3NT, but I am not exactly thrilled with any of the popular alternatives. The solid major concept has some appeal, but I have never tried it. I am not a fan of Namyats.

My regular partner and I use 3NT openings for hands with at least 6-5 in the majors (either way) and less than opening bid strength (but at most vulnerabilities it would not be unreasonable to open at the 1-level with the typical hand with which we would open 3NT).

This bid has come up a only few times, but so far it has worked well. Another plus is that this is a fun convention to play

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nigel_k]

I also prefer 3NT as a good (but not necessarily solid suit) 4 of a major preempt -a better hand than opening four of a major in order to be able to preempt on those hands but also enable partner to make good slam and competitive decisions.

The Gambling 3NT is not that bad though and I'd rate it better than NAMYATS plus 3NT with a 4 minor preempt. It can obviously wrong side the contract but puts partner in a pretty good position otherwise. If you make it any solid suit (not just a minor) you can right side some major games and also play 3NT with a solid major and exactly nine tricks.

[vincit]

The 3NT-Vernes opening is described as :
- a 6+m suit (any quality) ;
- no 4M
- 13 to 15 "mixed" points (MP).

Mixed points are calculated with the 4321 scale in the m-suit, and 321 scale (Ace=3) in the 3 other suits. The 7th card in your minor count as a full MP.
[QUOTE]


Hello François how are you doing?
yes this idea of playing 3NT as described by Vernes seems to be effective, still it did not really had a big success in France or elsewhere for that matters ! That is the way it is ...
Cheers

[the hog]

We used to play a "pure" gambling 3NT in 1st and 2nd. Solid 7, nothing outside.
Partner was able to judge quite well. On analysing our results we found we gained little, however. We switched to 4m Namyats and 3NT as a 4 level m pre empt.
After discussing the opening with the late Jim Borin, we also experimented with 3NT being a solid M. Again there were no measurable gains over the period of 1 year. Jim used to swear by this use of 3NT however.

[vincit]

We used to play a "pure" gambling 3NT in 1st and 2nd. Solid 7, nothing outside.


Do you include a 8 with AK in your definition of "pure" gambling or any other combination
Some people seem to think that a gambling is only a 7 suit headed by AKQ
Very restrictive in my views !

[vincit]

Quote

My regular partner and I use 3NT openings for hands with at least 6-5 in the majors (either way) and less than opening bid strength (but at most vulnerabilities it would not be unreasonable to open at the 1-level with the typical hand with which we would open 3NT).

Interesting ... I am experimenting with 2NT = 55 in the majors weak or strong instead of the overrated minors two-suiters may be 2NT is not high enough with this type of two suiters

[Hanoi5]

I thought Gambling was a really nice convention. Of course it's important to have agreements on how to follow (Pass/correct, asking for shortness and how to respond, etc).

Also at least AKQ, AK eighth might not be 8 tricks.

[Tomi2]

I play 3N as strong minor-two-suiter with bids from responder to show controls in outside suits and to decide who plays the final contract, helped me 2 weeks ago in the european universities championships when I held
KJ
void
Aqjxx
AKQJxx

and got a 4S response showing spade ace, could easily bid 6 clubs and knew pd would even rais with king of dias

unfortunately this comes not so often

[Phil]

TylerE, on Oct 18 2009, 08:10 PM, said:

Actually, you could probably wrangle it...

STRENGTH SHOWING OPENING AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER that asks for aces, kings, queens, singletons, voids or trump quality and responses thereto.

*groan*

I have a great idea for a 2♦ opener in pairs play in the ACBL. Between us chickens it shows a weak two in either major. Pard responds:

2♥ - "shows" a heart v/s/dub
2♠ - "shows" a spade v/s/dub.

Think I can get away with it?

[Phil]

By the way, several years of correspondence to the ACBL requesting that NAMYATS 3N be allowed have passed by without a response except from Rick Beye who didn't understand what I was asking for. Someone can fish out an old thread if they have time.

Ch00 and I are having drinks with Barry Harper (who is on C and C now) in San Diego.

I remain hopeful

[awm]

Tyler's idea isn't quite as bad as Phil makes it out to be.

The issue is that a 3NT opening showing a "strong major preempt" is often a hand that has about eight and a half tricks. This is sometimes used as the trick count for opening 2♣. In any case, this is a hand that is bidding 4M with the expectation of usually making. While the high-card points for this hand are relatively light, they are often hands that one could imagine opening a strong club (for example) based on the extra shape. Take a hand like:

♠AKJxxxxx ♥- ♦Axx ♣xx

Eight or nine tricks, at least a little bit of defense. Would I open a strong 2♣ on this? Not really. But a director wouldn't rule against me if I did.

This is different from Phil's example, where arguing that the 2♦ bid is "strength-showing" is extremely dubious, even though it certainly "asks for shortness."

[skjaeran]

I've played the gambling 3NT for as long as I can remember. And I'm comfortable with it. Of course we wrongside 3NT on some hands, but on the upside it's somewhat preemptive, and it's often easy for partner to judge where to play.

I've played Namyats some 20 years ago. It didn't come up very much. And I strongly prefer 4m as a natural preempt. If I wanted to have a stronger 4M opening, I'd use 3NT and get rid of the gambling 3NT. But I haven't done that in any partnership this far. So we have a lower limit on our 1-suited major hands in our 2♣ opening than many would be comfortable with.

[dellache]

vincit, on Oct 19 2009, 04:20 AM, said:

Hello François how are you doing?
yes this idea of playing 3NT as described by Vernes seems to be effective, still it did not really had a big success in France or elsewhere for that matters ! That is the way it is ...

Hi smiling tiger, I'm doing fine. Very happy that almost none of my opps play the 3NT version suggested by Vernes. Still hiding along the chao praya ?

Cheers,
Vince.