[Shugart23]

pescetom, on 2022-February-27, 11:27, said:

My comment was inappropriate because I misread your OP, my apologies. I read "show an unspecified 4 of a Major" as "show a hand with 4 cards in an unspecified Major" rather than "show a hand worth a sound opening of 4 in an unspecified Major". So 3NT as an alternative to Namyats, which of course has sense and is already played by some.



>> KJxxxxxx xx xxx void
4♠ playing Namyats, otherwise 2♠ ready to bid 4♠ if provoked

>> AKxxxx x QJ10 xxx
1♠

>> AKQxxxxx xx x Ax
4♦ playing Namyats, otherwise 2♣ then 3♠ (yes I'm not in EBU)

>> QJxxxxx void QJx QJx
3♠

I just threw those hands together without really contemplating what I would bid, but my intention was to show 4 different hands that, depending upon who is vulnerable and who is not, and whether or not partner is a passed hand, could all be opened 4S....Partner and I do ahve a pretty sound method and agreement of 'knowing' how many tricks we will be set on a preemptive bid. But in the case of bidding game, maybe instead of being down 3, the bidder really thinks he will be down only 1 or 2. By bidding 3NT,Responder can use the 4C bid to find out how much 'better' his hand is . Then Responder can just set the final contract...I hope I am explaining this well enough

[sanst]

hrothgar, on 2022-February-27, 08:21, said:

I think that a director would be better off learning basic definitions such as "What is a Brown Stick Convention?" before pontificating about them because a 2NT opening that shows 5/5 in the minors sure as hell doesn't qualify (nor do openings of 3NT and above)

And, while I'm not sure about this, I don't think that the WBF requires players to provide suggested defenses to Brown Sticker COnventions.

I suspect that folks might find your little tirades more edifying if they were grounding in reality rather than inaccurate assertions.

I might be wrong, but you’re downright insulting. I think the moderator should take action against this.

[hrothgar]

sanst, on 2022-February-27, 14:31, said:

I might be wrong, but you’re downright insulting. I think the moderator should take action against this.

I don't think that you have any real appreciation for what "insulting" actually looks like.

Regardless, if you're going to wander into a thread and start lecturing people about proprieties
and the rules, then you really should have basic familiarity with the topic at hand.

Simply put, strongly held ignorant opinions don't deserve much in the way of respect.

Stop whining.
Grow up.
Try to do better next time.

[pescetom]

Shugart23, on 2022-February-27, 12:38, said:

I just threw those hands together without really contemplating what I would bid, but my intention was to show 4 different hands that, depending upon who is vulnerable and who is not, and whether or not partner is a passed hand, could all be opened 4S....Partner and I do ahve a pretty sound method and agreement of 'knowing' how many tricks we will be set on a preemptive bid. But in the case of bidding game, maybe instead of being down 3, the bidder really thinks he will be down only 1 or 2. By bidding 3NT,Responder can use the 4C bid to find out how much 'better' his hand is . Then Responder can just set the final contract...I hope I am explaining this well enough

The first and third hands are the classic argument for playing Namyats or some equivalent, preferably not involving the stop card or folding your cards: if you put both through the same opening, then partner will either miss some cold slams or go -1 too often.
Yes you can conventionalize the strong opening sufficiently to allow responder to make decisions, although I think that gives up part of baby with the dishwater and prefer indifferentiated control-bids here.
I wouldn't consider 4♠ for the second hand, all sorts of contracts are possible and the system works well after a 1M opening.
The fourth hand is tricky but 4♠ even with Namyats is not on my radar: 3♠ is unlikely to score badly at MP and 3NT making is not impossible if partner has the right cards.

[sanst]

hrothgar, on 2022-February-27, 14:53, said:

I don't think that you have any real appreciation for what "insulting" actually looks like.

Regardless, if you're going to wander into a thread and start lecturing people about proprieties
and the rules, then you really should have basic familiarity with the topic at hand.

Simply put, strongly held ignorant opinions don't deserve much in the way of respect.

Stop whining.
Grow up.
Try to do better next time.

That’s it. I’m out of it. I wish you all but hrothgar, a worthy representative of Trump country, the best.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2022-February-27, 08:21, said:

I suspect that folks might find your little tirades more edifying if they were grounding in reality rather than inaccurate assertions.

Please restrict that tone to the Water Cooler.

[Shugart23]

pescetom, on 2022-February-27, 15:40, said:

The first and third hands are the classic argument for playing Namyats or some equivalent, preferably not involving the stop card or folding your cards: if you put both through the same opening, then partner will either miss some cold slams or go -1 too often.
Yes you can conventionalize the strong opening sufficiently to allow responder to make decisions, although I think that gives up part of baby with the dishwater and prefer indifferentiated control-bids here.
I wouldn't consider 4♠ for the second hand, all sorts of contracts are possible and the system works well after a 1M opening.
The fourth hand is tricky but 4♠ even with Namyats is not on my radar: 3♠ is unlikely to score badly at MP and 3NT making is not impossible if partner has the right cards.

Thanks, i will look into namyats. I appreciate your comments

[blackshoe]

Knock it off, folks.