[ggwhiz]

whereagles, on 2014-December-17, 09:25, said:

I like the dog-walking approach. 3♥ for me too.

My experience is that this works better than expected.

The winner of an NABC Pairs game back in the 60's(?) once bid like this on a similar hand and when 3♠ came back to him he passed it out for all the matchpoints!

[jillybean]

---

Is this a hand you would open 4♣ playing namyats? If not, what does a namyats hand look like?

[whereagles]

namyats is usually something like

- 7-card suit, max 1 loser
- a side A or K

But since namyats is a constructive bidding tool, in 3rd/4th seat stuff may change a bit. A 3rd/4th seat namyats may for example be stronger. Like 0-1 tricks away from making, encourages pard to try slam with fit + aces.

The actual hand is more like a 4♥ opener because it's impossible for pard to gauge that xxxx xx xxxx AQx is golden.

[ArtK78]

I play Namyats with the following requirements:

Solid 7+ card major.
8.5 - 9 playing tricks.
No more than one suit that has 2 quick losers.

[whereagles]

Those are the older namyats requirements. I remember reading them in Sontag's book "power precision". I've played them for like 3 years and it never seemed to come out

[lowerline]

jillybean, on 2014-December-18, 19:31, said:

---

Is this a hand you would open 4♣ playing namyats? If not, what does a namyats hand look like?

Yes. IMHO a Namyats opening is just below a 2♣ opening. If you apply the 4+4 Bergen rule to decide whether to open 2♣, a Namyats opening is typically a hand that has 1 loser more or 1 quick trick less than what is needed for a 2♣ opening.

S.