[glen]

I'm having trouble with the Kantar 3NT opening, as described in the ACBL July 2011 Bulletin (the one where the cover model is JLogic).

Kantar said:

3NT ... a seven- or eight-card major headed by the AKQ ... a seven-card suit may have an outside king, and a seven- or eight-card suit may have as much as two outside queens

An example given was:

♠ 76
♥ AKQ9543
♦ 5
♣ 876

♠ 8542
♥ 8
♦ A976
♣ A954

and the bidding given was 3NT-Pass!

As it turns out, I had the exact same responding hand on these:

♠ AKQ9763
♥ 76
♦ 5
♣ 876

♠ 8542
♥ 8
♦ A976
♣ A954

3NT was not a success

♠ ---
♥ AKQ9543
♦ K4
♣ T876

♠ 8542
♥ 8
♦ A976
♣ A954

again 3NT was not a success

♠ --
♥ AKQ97543
♦ 4
♣ QJT8

♠ 8542
♥ 8
♦ A976
♣ A954

3NT would not be 3NT! but 3NT???????

Now Kantar tell us he has been playing this for nearly 40 years, so should I just discard these results?

[Siegmund]

Opting for 3NT on those hands rather than retreating to 4M is a bit unusual - though if partner has 7 solid and nothing outside, there will be only 9 tricks in the major so 3NT-1 will tie 4M-1 and may make on a bad lead or a 4-4 break the wide open suit.

I think bidding 4M and hoping for a working king or queen is the more usual approach. (You may even deliberately make partner declarer so the lead comes toward his hypothetical Qxx or Kx rather than through it.)

It's a convention I am fond of, though I admit I'm still waiting to reach one of those miracle slams the asking bid responses enable you to find. It does take some pressure off the 4M openings, though, and adds only one artificial opening to the system rather than Namyats's 3.

[Fluffy]

why do people mak up things and expect a response?, I dont like these made up stories pretending top be true.

Perhaps this has something to do with language, but posts like these make no sense to me

[glen]

Fluffy, on 2011-November-06, 09:31, said:

why do people lie on posts and expect a response?, I dont like to talk to liars

JLogic really was on the cover, in fact "Kantar 3NT" is just about at his knee level.

Perhaps this has something to do with language, but calling people "liars" without understanding a post makes no sense to me.

[Zelandakh]

I believe Fluffy was probably referring to

glen, on 2011-November-05, 18:23, said:

As it turns out, I had the exact same responding hand on these:

Did you really hold all these hands or were you just making this up for effect? "Making up" is a polite word for "lying", although on BBF one might also use a term such as "a lamford story".

[glen]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-06, 11:55, said:

.. Did you really hold all these hands or were you just making this up for effect? ...

You don't actually physically hold the hands when using deal software, but you do have them, although spot cards in the long major hand were not exact since I was copying the previous hand to save time.

[semeai]

Can we really not tell the difference between lying and a rhetorical device?

On topic:

There's some trade-off between preemption and accuracy here certainly. For the 3NT vs 4M decision, though, Kantar 3NT is better off than Namyats, which can't go back to 3NT.

Is your objection that pass seems worse than getting to 4M on xxxx-x-Axxx-Axxx opposite a Kantar 3NT opener, in which case we should do a simulation? Or are your examples supposed to be an indictment of Kantar 3NT itself as a convention, in which case it must also be an indictment of Namyats?

[glen]

semeai, on 2011-November-06, 12:25, said:

.. Is your objection that pass seems worse than getting to 4M on xxxx-x-Axxx-Axxx opposite a Kantar 3NT opener, in which case we should do a simulation? Or are your examples supposed to be an indictment of Kantar 3NT itself as a convention, in which case it must also be an indictment of Namyats?

Indictment of just 3NT-Pass, not the complete convention - it seemed to me that it was a "gambling pass", and should not have been in the article.

[semeai]

glen, on 2011-November-06, 12:37, said:

Indictment of just 3NT-Pass, not the complete convention - it seemed to me that it was a "gambling pass", and should not have been in the article.

Fair enough. This seems very well suited to a simulation. I imagine it was included in the article because it looks flashy and is something Namyats just can't do.

Without doing a simulation, I was about to go impress you with just how overwhelmingly likely it is partner has hearts, but by my rough calculations, it's 80% or so, which is sizable but not quite overwhelming.

[MickyB]

He should really have given dummy a 5th spade, but then I guess that looks a bit contrived.

[Fluffy]

Thx Zelan, I just realised Lamford is partially at fault for my rudeness, I will edit my post so it looks less harsh.

[rbforster]

DId they forget to teach the "stop 3N" showing hearts and direct 3N showing spades in the article? Sheesh, that's BB for you.

[Vampyr]

glen, on 2011-November-06, 12:37, said:

Indictment of just 3NT-Pass, not the complete convention - it seemed to me that it was a "gambling pass", and should not have been in the article.

Yes, my regular partner and I play a similar convention, and have never passed 3NT.

[lamford]

 Zelandakh, on 2011-November-06, 11:55, said:

I believe Fluffy was probably referring to



Did you really hold all these hands or were you just making this up for effect? "Making up" is a polite word for "lying", although on BBF one might also use a term such as "a lamford story".

I held this hand, as did seven others! https://woodberrybc....-foxymoron.html

[bluenikki]

 glen, on 2011-November-05, 18:23, said:

Now Kantar tell us he has been playing this for nearly 40 years, so should I just discard these results?

In 1976, Kantar commented on playing against Katz-Cohen when they opened a Kantar 3NT against him, "I thought I had burned all the copies of the BW issue where I introduced this."