[helene_t]

One of the system complexities that seems to be less popular among strong players than among lesser players (at least in EBU land) is variable 1NT opening, especially the agreement that 1NT is strong when vuln and weak when nonvul.

Presumably, for some players with limited system knowledge, it doesn't make much of an extra memory burden since they don't use much of the negative inference when p doesn't open 1NT anyway.

But theoretically I would think that if weak notrump and strong notrump are on average appr. equally good, the optimal system would be one with varying 1NT strength (and , consequently, probably also many other things that would have to vary, such as follow-ups after minor suit openings, and how to deal with 3-suited hands).

I suppose most people here don't play a variable 1NT. Have you considered playing it? Have you tried playing it and found out it didn't work?

[glen]

Why does a poll on variable NT force you to pick only one reason?

[dake50]

What is your intent when opening 1NT?

a. bal 15-17 fits system only by opening 1NT
b. preempt 1-level often
c. bal 12-16 fits system only here
d. another forcing opening
e. vary by position so game is still possible opposite passed partner
f. vary by Vul so penalty disaster minimized
g. other unspecified
h. other specifically entered in my blog

[NickRW]

I vary it - weak 1st and 2nd, strong 3rd and 4th - changed it that way for teams play.

At the club where I play (matchpoints) can't think of any single other pair who varies it (whereas I do with regular partners even at matchpoints - mainly to avoid the memory load of changing it back). There is one guy who likes to play strong NT throughout - a chap of South African origin I believe - other than that it is wall to wall weak.

In other environments I've played recently - well - hmm - can't think of a pair who varied it there either - though you do run into 14-16 or 15-17 at teams more often.

Nick

[hanp]

For an intermediate pair it is probably much less work to play variable notrumps than for a world class pair. When I played variable notrumps (14-16 and 10-12 NV in 1st and 2nd) it was in a precision context. We played different notrump systems but for the rest the impact wasn't very large.

But now I am playing a more standard based system with some artificial auctions. In those auctions opener often immediately says whether he has extras or not. Other parts of the system also are based on the notrump range. It would take a lot of work to change the system to a weak notrump base, and to play both at the same time sounds like a nightmare.

Not sure if I answered your question.

[Cascade]

We play variable.

We vary primarily by position but also a little by vulnerability in 1st nd 2nd seats.

Although I like weak 1NT I am forced to admit it is sometimes dangerous especially vulnerable in third seat opposite a known weak hand.

When I played weak 1NT throughout sometimes I would open these hands with a suit and just hope to get by.

However this was not the primary reason I changed from weak to variable 1NT. The machinery after 1NT - Stayman, Transfers etc are primarily aimed at getting you to the right game or slam. When you open a weak 1NT opposite a passed hand then most of the time game is out of the question and slam is all but impossible. So it occurred to me that one needed a different structure that was better aimed at finding a partscore opposite a weak 1NT in third and fourth seats. I started thinking about adjusting our structure and then decided it was much simpler to change the range of 1NT in third and fourth seat and use the well oiled machinery.

I am very comfortable with the variable 1NT range. We open 1NT a lot, especially the weak 1NT, allowing lots of non-standard shapes. Basically the style is open 1NT on anything close to balanced that might create rebid problems if you start bidding your suits. This includes many 4-4-4-1s, most 5-4-2-2s, some 6-3-2-2s, 5-3-3-2s along with the standard 4-3-3-3s and 4-4-3-2s. We also consider 1NT with some more extreme shapes with flaws - the most common would be 5-4-3-1 with a stiff honour or a bad five-card suit that would need to be rebid, say 1=3=4=5 or 1=4=3=5 etc.

Our ranges are:

10-13 1st/2nd NV
(11)12-14 1st/2nd V
15-17 3rd/4th any Vul

3rd/4th not vul even 15 is not needed in the strong NT since partner can't have more than 9 if BAL or nearly BAL.

[Mbodell]

Personally I'm a fan of a 10-13 nt any colors in 3rd seat at MP. It is definitely unsound, but it produces many more great MP results for each poor result. At teams it is a little riskier because the occasional (only 1 so far) -800 or -1100 costs much more and I'd probably consent to playing it only when white. If you are allowed conventional runouts after a weaker nt opener (which I've gotten conflicting rulings on from TD in ACBL land) I'd prefer a 3rd seat 8-13 1 nt for maximal preemption.

When playing in GCC events my preferred range is 10-12 3rd seat, 12-14 4th seat, 10-12 1st+2nd nv and 12-14 1st+2nd v. I find the stuff I play after 1nt is easy to use with different ranges (and I use the same stuff over a 12-15, 16-19, 18-19, 20-21, and 20-22 range also [for 1♣....1nt auctions covering the other ranges]).

[CSGibson]

I play variable NT in two partnerships, one set being 10-12 NV, 13-15 vul & 4th seat (precision context), and the other partnership with 11-14 NV 1st & 2nd seat, 15-17 vul or 3rd, 4th seats. In each partnership, we play the same system after a weak or a strong NT, so the memory stuff is a little less intense. I feel like we've had lots of success with the 10-12 NT, and lesser successes with the other ranges.

Overall, I feel like a weak NT is a powerful tool, but the possible downside is bigger vul, so playing variable NT lets me get the advantages of the weak NT when the risk is less.

[jonottawa]

I played variable 10-12/15-17. I'm getting old though, shrug.

[JanM]

One reason not to play variable NT isn't mentioned in your long list - that is the impact that the 1NT range has on the rest of your bidding. It just changes your feel for hands, particularly in competitive situations, whether partner's 1m opening might be a 4333 12 count or promises either shape or strong NT values. It's difficult to change from weak to strong for different partnerships and really hard to change because of vul (or even I think position - I agree with Cascade that you want a different structure when you open a weak NT opposite a passed partner; our approach to that is to play a different structure, not to change the NT range).

So the memory issue doesn't have to do with the opening bid - it is more remembering what you're playing in competitive auctions. I know it's an issue because I often get problems I'm given wrong if I don't remind myself to recognize that the pair bidding the hand play Strong NT - my instincts are just off base. The same thing happens to me when I'm commenting on Vugraph; I have to make an effort to realign my thinking because of the fact that they didn't open 1NT on a hand where I would have.

There's some danger in playing weak NT in 3rd position vulnerable, so Lew & Chip actually do vary that - 3rd, vul they play strong. But I haven't gone for enough numbers to worry about it, and my life is simpler if I play the same range throughout.

[MickyB]

I would consider playing 10/11-13 1st NV only, otherwise I want my 1NT to be strong.

When I was playing something that was well suited to switching no-trump range (transfer walsh, allowing you to show two balanced ranges at the one-level) I did just that.

However, playing most methods, it is a lot of added complexity, in return for a gain when you open 1NT but (IMO) a loss when you don't.

[rbforster]

I play 10-12/13-15 NV when playing precision, and 12-15 Vul or 4th. It is definitely worth playing different NT structures (2-way stayman or the like) over the weak NT since the priorities are different. Especially for a 10-12 or weaker NT, responder wants to declare more often, so we don't play transfers and 2♦ GF stayman initiates puppet stayman style responses.

JanM, on May 17 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

One reason not to play variable NT isn't mentioned in your long list - that is the impact that the 1NT range has on the rest of your bidding.

Right - like how you can't play a semiforcing NT easily with weak NTs, since after 1M-1N-? opener will have extras if balanced and can't safely pass if 1N was bid with an invitation.

[rogerclee]

Mbodell said:

Personally I'm a fan of a 10-13 nt any colors in 3rd seat at MP.  It is definitely unsound

Yes, agree it is unsound.

Mbodell said:

I'd prefer a 3rd seat 8-13 1 nt for maximal preemption.

This seems like a bad idea to me.

I think a good estimate is that your LHO will double this 1NT about 60% of the time you open. If you think this is a reasonable start for your side, then I think you should reconsider.

[Codo]

I played variable NT for some years but the gains in practice had been smaller then the losses due to memory load.

[se12sam]

Variable NT is probably most destructive when the lower range of variable is the 10-12 NT ("mini-NT"?)

I occassionally played against a pair that played Acol 4cM with a 12-14 NT 3/4th of the time and Acol with a 10-12 NT when white vs red. This was in any seat (or at least that's what I recall)

[whereagles]

With my regular pard, I play 9-11 when NV12. Else 15-17.

Works great, even when pard opens the 9-11 variation on a lousy 8. LOL.

[ArtK78]

I play 10-12 1NT 1st & 2nd seats nonvul, 15-17 1NT otherwise.

The 10-12 1NT is in the context of a light opening standard system.

For those who play 10-13 1NT in 3rd seat, I have to ask - why would you open a weak 1NT opposite a passed hand? It seems to me that you are inviting a double.

[helene_t]

JanM, on May 18 2009, 05:36 AM, said:

One reason not to play variable NT isn't mentioned in your long list - that is the impact that the 1NT range has on the rest of your bidding. [....]

Oh sorry maybe I was unclear - this is exactly what I mean by memory load, like what Han describes.

One p of mine strongly prefers weak NT. I am ok with that in 1st/2nd but I really hate it in 3rd/4th, especially when vulnerable. As Cascade writes, it is tempting sometimes to open a suit instead and then hope you don't get a rebid problem.

So we settled on this compromise: In 3rd/4th we play 14-16. However, responder can still make Acol-like responses to a suit opening, because opener with a balanced 11-13 will pass a change of suit at the 2-level.
1x-2y
2NT
is 17+ (while it would have been 15+ after a 1st/2nd seat opening but that is not too difficult since both are GF anyway).

(In the meantime we changed to 2/1 so now it's only an issue after a 1♦ opening. Still not sure how to play the 1♦ follow-ups in a weak-NT 2/1 system. I think Frances once posted something about 1♦-2♣-2♥ not promising extras but including minimum 4441 hands).

[NickRW]

se12sam, on May 18 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

Variable NT is probably most destructive when the lower range of variable is the 10-12 NT ("mini-NT"?)

(At the risk of slightly hijacking this thread, sorry Helen - its a related question anyway...)

I'm quite attracted to the mini - at least for match points 1st/2nd nv anyway. But I've never really understood why those who play it often settle on 10-12 a lot of the time. Surely one of the distinct advantages of the mini is that it is comparatively difficult for the opps to find their games over a 1NT opening - but with an upper ceiling of 12, opps are going to double with most 13s and a lot of 12s with a decent lead - fairly much guaranteeing that their partner is well placed to judge when they should (at least probably) be in a game or not.

To my mind a mini should have either 11 or 13 as its upper ceiling - or maybe just make your weak NT mini-ish by including some 11s and upgrading quite a few 14s at the other end.

Nick

[helene_t]

Nah, opps shouldn't double with 13 points, too dangerous. Besides, if you double "promises" 13 points, how does partner know to bid game with 8 opposite 18?