[kgr]

What is best/standard definition of Namyats?
My partner prefers a closed suit like the first 2 examples.
I prefer some points & would probably preempt 4S with the 1st hand because the lack of defense.
We both agree that it promises 8-9 tricks, but not sure if this should be more strict like vul=9 tricks, nvul=8 tricks.
AKQxxxxx=x=xx=xx
AKQxxxxx=x=Qx=xx
AQJxxxxx=x=Qx=Ax
AJTxxxxx=x=Qx=Ax
AJTxxxxx=A=Qx=Ax
(We also have uni-color major available: semi-forcing via 2♦ and GF via 3-level transfer preempt)

[ArtK78]

kgr, on 2012-March-02, 14:39, said:

What is best/standard definition of Namyats?
My partner prefers a closed suit like the first 2 examples.
I prefer some points & would probably preempt 4S with the 1st hand because the lack of defense.
We both agree that it promises 8-9 tricks, but not sure if this should be more strict like vul=9 tricks, nvul=8 tricks.
AKQxxxxx=x=xx=xx
AKQxxxxx=x=Qx=xx
AQJxxxxx=x=Qx=Ax
AJTxxxxx=x=Qx=Ax
AJTxxxxx=A=Qx=Ax
(We also have uni-color major available: semi-forcing via 2♦ and GF via 3-level transfer preempt)

The definition that I use is:

1) 8 1/2 to 9 playing tricks.
2) A long solid or semi-solid major suit.
3) No more than one side suit with 2 or more quick losers.

I would not claim that this definition is "standard," although it may be best. I have never seen the last item - quick losers in side suits - as part of anyone's definition of Namyats. It prevents one from opening Namyats on the first two hands that you provide as examples.

I don't think that anyone would open Namyats on a suit headed by AJT, as in your last two examples.

[kgr]

We had a Namyats bidding yesterday:
Teams/IMP's

---

What do you bid now?

[dake50]

I have a further partition. Solid with a void starts differently.
So after a namyat bid, partner knows all aces are useful.
Also solid from semi-solid is usually distinguished.

kgr,
Was that composition to show nothing's perfect?
Or to claim that misfits should be systemically planned for?

[kgr]

dake50, on 2012-March-04, 08:35, said:

Was that composition to show nothing's perfect?
Or to claim that misfits should be systemically planned for?

It wasn't a composition, but a hand from Yesterday tournament.
But it shows that it is important to have good agreements about namyats

[Flameous]

I ditched Namyats but I play 3NT as a strong pre in a major.
It shows 8-9 or 8,5-9,5 playing tricks depending on vul or more, like 10+ with a void when Namyats bidder continues with exclusion. It always shows solid or solid without the ace suit. Point for this is that we never have to agree on the suit, we always manage with just blackwood.

[Zelandakh]

The definition I learned was 8 tricks or so with either a solid suit and no outside ace/void or a 1 loser suit and an outside ace. To that it is quite good (imho) to add a 1 loser suit with an outside void since this is quite easy to program into the follow-ups and often good to open at the 4 level. By this definition 1, 2 and 3 would be possible 4♦ openings but not 4 and 5. Whether you want to open hand 3 at the 4 level is another question entirely. As Flameous mentions, using 3NT for these hands is an increasingly popular treatment.

[mich-b]

Our requirements for Namyats are rather flexible , we don't require a solid suit and we don't deny a void.
Our typical Namyats hand will have 8-8.5 tricks , a good suit (not necessarily solid) , and about one defensive trick outside the long suit , which brings the typical hcp count to about 11-14.
AKQxxxx + outside Ace is typical, but variations like AKxxxxx x x Axxx or KQxxxxxx x x AQx are ok.

[pigpenz]

I liked playing the namyats style that Rosenkranz promoted in Romex.
It didnt promise a solid suit but showed playing tricks
and responses to namyats were in key card controls i believe

4♣4♥ showed 0-2 keycards
4♣4♦showed 3keycards
4♣4♠showed 4 keycards

then suits were asking bids
i could be off on the responses it could be 0-1
its been 20 years since I played it, but the person opening namayts usually knows what he needs to make slam
more than the repsonder does, so it allows him to be in charge by asking bids knowing what key cards his partner
has to start with.

Romex style had a different approach than the standard namyats of a solid suit, they would open on kqjxxxxx aqx x x say

[kgr]

kgr, on 2012-March-04, 02:57, said:

We had a Namyats bidding yesterday:
Teams/IMP's

---

What do you bid now?

This was the complete hand and bidding:

IMP's

---

Two days before we had another hand with Namyats and discussed it. We agreed that Namyats promises a solid suit (which I wondered was best) and that made it easier on this hand.

[Free]

You can also just open 1♥.