[pescetom]

Reading the B-D system card here I was intrigued by 3NT as a strong 4M. Has anyone here played it or studied it, or have expert-level thoughts?
My first thought is that I would rather have some other use for 4m, but that is jumping the gun.

[DavidKok]

I think it's good. Gambling 3NT is not that great anyway, and the answers to 3NT are clean and simple.

[mikeh]

Eddie Kantar espoused such a treatment several decades ago

[kreivi68]

pescetom, on 2023-January-23, 14:11, said:

Reading the B-D system card here I was intrigued by 3NT as a strong 4M. Has anyone here played it or studied it, or have expert-level thoughts?
My first thought is that I would rather have some other use for 4m, but that is jumping the gun.

Norberto Bocchi himself has written articles about it:

http://youth.worldbr...to-bocchis-tip/

http://youth.worldbr...3nt-opening-ii/

[pescetom]

"It is also technically wrong because you always play on the wrong side and moreover it happens once every Pope’s death"

And moreover you your partner can never remember the finer developments when it finally happens


Yes, giving up 3NT gambling is the least of my concerns (although I admire the spirit of the original version and have some respect for the Italian variant with 1 stop).

[sfi]

It's rare, but helps to limit other major hands. Given who I was playing with, the responses were more complex:

4♣ = slam interest but fewer than 3 aces, so 2 aces and at least one other useful card.

• 4♦ = where is your card?
  
• 4M = needs two useful cards

4♦ = 0-1 ace or 2 aces and nothing extra
4♥ = 3 aces

[pescetom]

kreivi68, on 2023-January-23, 14:59, said:

http://youth.worldbr...3nt-opening-ii/

The page starts off promisingly, but I was underwhelmed once I scrolled down to the actual developments. I was hoping that starting from 3N rather than 4m might add a little firepower, but this actually gives up a fair bit compared to our Namyats (a control-bid below 4M and rightsiding of 4M to play, to start with). It does add distinction between mild and strong slam interest of responder, but I'm not sure that is really useful, especially when responder has to decide before knowing the suit. I'm also puzzled about why B-M are putting game-only interest through 4♣ rather than playing 4♥/♠ pass/correct like B-D do.

I do think the potential is there over a 3NT opening though. I'll have a think and see if I can come up with something closer to our style based around control-bidding.

[DavidKok]

P/C is definitely a waste. If you can tell which suit partner has you can just bid that suit, while if you cannot tell you can ask with 4♣.
One simple and relatively popular scheme I've heard is "4♣ = transfer into your suit, 4♦ = bid your suit, 4M = I wish to play this". The slam tries go through either 4m bid and then bid on to clarify. There are Multi 2♦ schemes that assign the same meaning to 4m responses, but unlike a weak Multi opener is much more likely to have positional values for this artificial 3NT opener.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-January-24, 11:04, said:

P/C is definitely a waste. If you can tell which suit partner has you can just bid that suit, while if you cannot tell you can ask with 4♣.

Maybe I missed something, but my thought was that putting the game-only hand through 4♣ is sub-optimal because it wrongsides both majors (whereas 4♥ P/C will only wrongside hearts) and because you can't assign a meaning other than signoff to simple completion of the transfer by responder (giving opener the possibility to bid on).

[pescetom]

I thought some more about 3NT as a strong 4M and decided that it does look better than playing Namyats plus Gambling. My only real reserve is that it makes no use of the opportunity for responder to pass 3NT, which seems like a waste, but I can't think of a clearly better alternative that does.

I didn't like Bocchi's developments and I wanted to retain the main features of my current NAMYATS, in particular right-siding a signoff, responder showing/denying a control below game and obtaining a smooth transition into a control-bidding sequence. Starting one step lower than a hearts NAMYAT, I hoped to squeeze in clubs control too, although that complicates things with the major still unknown. So I put it on back burner and now came up with the following idea.

[pescetom]

NOTYATS

A 3NT opening shows a hand equivalent to a strong 4 level opening in an undisclosed major:

4♣ = transfer to your major (I control ♣ and am interested in either major. If I merely complete the transfer I do not control ♦)
4♦ = bid your major (I control ♦ if I continue over your major)
4♥ = pass/correct or ask RKCB in your major(I am interested but do not control minors: if interested use Roman Keycard, if not just pass/correct)
Pass/other = undefined (I don't want to play in this partnership any more)

After a 4♥ response, 4♠ is signoff, 4NT is RKCB(♥) and 5♣ is RKCB(♠).
All other continuations are normal control-bidding sequences where 4NT is Turbo.
In case of interference, use standard defence of a control-bid sequence wherever possible.

[pescetom]

As can be seen, the initial decisions are all up to Responder, Opener is passive and usually just defines his major. Responder with no slam interest will usually just bid 4♦ and then pass 4M. If he is interested in slam then he will bid his cheapest minor control, as if he already knew trumps. If he has clubs control then opener will get to learn about diamonds too after the transfer. If he has no minor control but an interesting hand he bids 4♥, inviting Opener to RKCB in his suit if interested.

Responder has some memory load, but it should be fairly intuitive remembering the aims of the convention and it does look fairly robust against forgets: even in total amnesia both players should be able to figure out that 4♦ asks for the major and take it from there (this is actually safer than my version of NAMYATS, where 4M by Responder is forcing). If opener bids his hearts naturally over 4♣ then things get comical, but one has to give the opponents some fun

Defence against interference is basically as over a control-bid sequence, although some choices need to be made about their 4♣ and 4M bids (my first thought is that Responder should never bid beyond 4M by his RHO and Opener's Pass of 4M should flag that it is a psyche of his suit).

Interested of course in your thoughts. It hasn't yet been tested and may well have a hole somewhere, so if you spot one please let me know.

[DavidKok]

I think the focus on controls and key cards is not a great idea. You have multiple ways to make positive tries (bidding past partner's suit directly, via 4♣ and via 4♦), but I think tying those to suit controls or ace-asking is suboptimal. I also don't see the point of 4♥ P/C when you have 4♣+4♦ available to get to 4M from either side.

[bluenikki]

mikeh, on 2023-January-23, 14:32, said:

Eddie Kantar espoused such a treatment several decades ago

Later, Katz-Cohen used it against Kantar-Eisenberg. Commenting on this, Kantar said he thought he had burned every copy of the BW issue where he published it.

Passing the opening was definitely an option he gave in the censored article.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2023-February-06, 11:33, said:

I think the focus on controls and key cards is not a great idea. You have multiple ways to make positive tries (bidding past partner's suit directly, via 4♣ and via 4♦), but I think tying those to suit controls or ace-asking is suboptimal. I also don't see the point of 4♥ P/C when you have 4♣+4♦ available to get to 4M from either side.

Thanks. The focus on controls is an attempt to "restore equity" to what would have happened after a 1M.....3M slam interest auction, rather than starting cold from 4M. I can see why you might prefer other approaches that catch up on shape instead. The 4♥ P/C/K is just there to handle a rare hand which can't truthfully or safely go through 4♣ or 4♦ (slam interest but only if opener controls both minors).

To be honest, what I expected more as a criticism is that this structure poses an awkward choice to responder with clubs control, slam interest and a singleton in a major. If he bids 4♣ he may not be able to convince Opener to stop in 4M when he has the wrong major, if he bids 4♦ and continues then only he knows what is going on (although Opener might figure it out from the keycards or 5♣). It's an issue, but low frequency in an already low frequency convention.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2023-February-06, 14:58, said:

Later, Katz-Cohen used it against Kantar-Eisenberg. Commenting on this, Kantar said he thought he had burned every copy of the BW issue where he published it.

Passing the opening was definitely an option he gave in the censored article.

Thanks. Did it have a name in the article or later?

[DavidKok]

pescetom, on 2023-February-07, 10:24, said:

Thanks. The focus on controls is an attempt to "restore equity" to what would have happened after a 1M.....3M slam interest auction, rather than starting cold from 4M. I can see why you might prefer other approaches however. The 4♥ P/C/K is just there to handle a rare hand which can't truthfully or safely go through 4♣ or 4♦ (slam interest but only if opener controls both minors).

I wouldn't be concerned with what happens at the other table. Play the methods that best cater to the hands you(r partner) might have and the problems you face. Whether or not that coincides with the field auction is the field's problem.

pescetom, on 2023-February-07, 10:24, said:

To be honest, what I expected more as a criticism is that this structure poses an awkward choice to responder with clubs control, slam interest and a singleton in a major. If he bids 4♣ he may not be able to convince Opener to stop in 4M when he has the wrong major, if he bids 4♦ and continues then only he knows what is going on (although Opener might figure it out). It's an issue, but low frequency in an already low frequency convention.

It probably depends at least in part on what your standards for 'good preempt' are. I would not assume "at least a running suit opposite a singleton", since that pushes the frequency and utility of the bid down a lot. Which in turn implies that if you only have a singleton in support and possible gaps in other suits slam should be far from your mind. So I would feel comfortable bidding 4♦ (or 4♣, depending on your hand) and bidding on with a generic slam try(/control bid) if partner happens to hold our longer major.

If you do want to have slam tries below 4M you could perhaps try to fit:
4♣ - With hearts, bid 4♥. With spades, bid 4♦ (mid), 4♠ (min) or 4NT+ (max with a feature). It is probably better to flip 4♥ and 4♦.
4♦ - Show me a feature (I'm still a fan of minimum: bid your suit. Unroll the maxima however you like, e.g. 4NT = spades, 5m through 5♥ is hearts, over 4NT responder you can ask for more information or bid cooperatively).
4♥ - P/C.
4♠ - ParadoX raise, slam try for hearts but to play opposite spades. Hearts hands show a feature (e.g. 5♥ min, 4NT spade control, 5m minor suit control).
I made this up on the spot. Resolving suit, quality and perhaps also feature below 4M is difficult so I tried to split responder's hands in compatible with hearts, spades or both. But game before slam - I'd much rather have good tools to get to the best games and accept that most slam tries will get us to 5M at least. One big downside of the above structure is that 3NT-4♣; 4♥-P, 3NT-4♥; P and 3NT-4♠; P all imply our fit isn't too great, which is valuable information for the defenders. I imagine this will come up far more often than that you can find a miracle slam.

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2023-February-07, 10:39, said:

Thanks. Did it have a name in the article or later?

Kantar did not give the convention s fancy name, no.

[pescetom]

bluenikki, on 2023-February-12, 15:52, said:

Kantar did not give the convention s fancy name, no.

I dubbed it NoTyats in lack of a better idea.

Did he give any examples of hands that would usefully pass 3NT?

[bluenikki]

pescetom, on 2023-February-13, 04:40, said:

I dubbed it NoTyats in lack of a better idea.

Did he give any examples of hands that would usefully pass 3NT?

I believe he did. But the following seems obvious:

QJ0x
x
Axxx
Axxx