[Chamaco]

hrothgar, on Aug 12 2004, 11:48 AM, said:

1. His own suit with no controls
2. 4NT with a King
3. A new suit with either an Ace or a void in that suit

New suits are control asking bids. Partner will rebid

1. 5 of his major with no control
2. Step with a second round control in the suit
3. Step +1 with a first cound control in the suit

4N is a control ask in the Intermediate suit.

1. After a 4♣ opening, 4N is a CAB in Diamonds.
2. After a 4♦ opening, 4NT is a CAB in Hearts

5NT = Asks partner to bid 7 with 0 trump losers

Richard is correct.
However, I think this structure has one small flaw.

Suppose pard opens 4C (=Hearts).
We respond 4D = asking for 1st round controls or side K. (If pard bids a suit, he has 1st round control there.)
Pard bids 4NT = no 1st rnd control, but one side K.

Now, in the "standard" structure, 5C asks "which King " ?
But what will pard bid if his K is the Spade K ? He does not know whether the SK is useful or not, and bidding 5S may get us too high.

Yet, there is a solution.
The solution is that, in the specific sequence of Namyats for H:

4C:4D
?

The meaning of 4S and 4NT are switched:
instead of the "normal" meaning of:
1) 4S = 1st round cue in S and 4NT = I have an unspecified K

we shall use

2) 4NT = 1st round cue in S and 4S = I have an unspecified K.
In this second version, after 4S = 1K, we have room to inquiry with 4NT for which of the 3K.

[Free]

Nice, now you mention it, you're right And the solution was the first one that popped into my mind as well

[inquiry]

Well when I played Naymats regularly, I played it as described by George Rosenkratnz in his ROMEX system. The requirements were very strick if I remember correctly.

1) No void
2) A suit with at most one loser
3) One or two aces in the hand (no aces not allowed)
4) Two of the five key cards
5) A maximum of four controls (two aces) and minimum of 3 (Ace and king)
6) and between four and four and half losers (these are romex losers)

Responder knew his partner hand very well after this. Here we used the inbetween bid (4C-4D and 4D-4H) as Roman key card blackwood. Since opener has at most 2 key cards, responder needs two key cards to try for slam. Since opener can not have a void, responder knows all aces he has are working. Since opener has 4 or 4.5 losers, responder needs three potential cover cards to move towards slam.

So withouth 2 key cards or 3 potential cover cards, responder signs off. With these, he bid the RKCB.

When one of these hands came up (rarely), we certainly always bid them right, but at the cost of giving up on for level preempts. Sincce preempting to the four level before partner has bid turned out to often be a bad idea, we started playing Romex naymats in first/second seat only... but have since given them up.

Ben

[Chamaco]

Scoring: MP

---

Is *THIS* hand worth a Namyats ?

Assume you play Precision (limited openings).
If not Namyats, do you pass or how many spades do you bid, second seat, in front of an unpassed pd ?

[the hog]

Depends on your agreements as to what Namyats is. A vul 4S for me.
However I am very curious - why would you even suggest "pass" as a possibility?

[Chamaco]

The_Hog, on Aug 16 2004, 08:39 AM, said:

Depends on your agreements as to what Namyats is. A vul 4S for me.
However I am very curious - why would you even suggest "pass" as a possibility?

I *think* I read somewhere that hands too strong to preempt in front of unpassed pd, and not strong enough to open (e.g. no 2.5 defensive tricks) should pass then bid.

Not that I like passing these kind of hands (that's why I prefer to stretch to bid), but, now and then, it occurs to me to play with people whose favourite sentence is "Why should you preempt your pard? If I am unpassed, just pass and make your bid at a later turn".
In this case there is the added info that RHO has passed so odds of preempting p is 50% as opposed to having to make a choice in first seat (33.33%).

[whereagles]

Chamaco, that hand is the reason 4S preempts were invented

[Chamaco]

whereagles, on Aug 16 2004, 09:56 AM, said:

Chamaco, that hand is the reason 4S preempts were invented

My 4S preempts are more lousy

[the hog]

Well Mauro there is your answer. If you play that this is too good for a 4S opening, then for your partnerships, this would be a Namyats opening, and a better hand still would be opened with 1S.

For me, if I passed this, none of my partners would possibly believe I could hold this hand.