[OleBerg]

JanM, on May 18 2009, 06:36 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. 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.

My sentiments exactly. You can't always play the very most superior method, everybody's memory is limited.

Furthermore, the advantage of the variable NT is limited. So, when you play a complex system (Could be Transfer-Walsh with 1♦ as unbalanced), it's probably not worth the trade-off, as many sytematic gadgets, many in competitive bidding, is centered around the fact, that a 1♣ opner cannot have a balanced minimum.

An aside; fourth hand is actually the place where I sometimes upgrade 11 hcp to a 12-14-NT. We know the strength is evenly divided, and if I have a few tenaces they can lead into, and some good intermidiates, I think (hope) it is odds-on.

[NickRW]

helene_t, on May 18 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

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?

You're right that 8 opposite 18 may not be easy - but you can pretty much pick on any pair of numbers opposite a given doubling minimum and say, "that's hard" - or that doubling minimum is too high to be useful or whatever.

I don't buy "too dangerous" - especially not at matchpoints - which is where you might see the mini more (actually I don't see it in practice anywhere!). Overcalling or doubling a mini is a bit like acting over a preempt - you're going to get it wrong sometimes - and so are they - it is a balance of risks - and with 13+ opposite their 12 or less - I'm prepared (assuming I bothered to figure out what I was going to lead before I doubled) to bet they're off.

Nick

[CSGibson]

NickRW, on May 18 2009, 05:26 AM, said:

helene_t, on May 18 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

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?

You're right that 8 opposite 18 may not be easy - but you can pretty much pick on any pair of numbers opposite a given doubling minimum and say, "that's hard" - or that doubling minimum is too high to be useful or whatever.

I don't buy "too dangerous" - especially not at matchpoints - which is where you might see the mini more (actually I don't see it in practice anywhere!). Overcalling or doubling a mini is a bit like acting over a preempt - you're going to get it wrong sometimes - and so are they - it is a balance of risks - and with 13+ opposite their 12 or less - I'm prepared (assuming I bothered to figure out what I was going to lead before I doubled) to bet they're off.

Nick

It's not just raw points opposite points you have to worry about - it's also that your X is undefined as to shape as well as minimally defined as to range. It's not like making a takeout double, after all. When the 10-12 NT person settles in a suit contract with their run-out structure, is your next X penalty or take-out? How about your partner's X? If you bid a suit instead, does your partner leave it in with a small doubleton, or start scrambling?

When you start with 1N 10-12, all subsequent bidding is defensive, and mostly ill-defined, which can lead to disasters and big scores, same as any weak NT. The 10-12 comes up more frequently, and gives a wider range of hands for penalty X.

[mtvesuvius]

I love a variable NT, however for some partners it is too much of a memory load. I like a Weak NT in 1/2nd Seat and Strong in 3/4th Seat... In a 2/1 context I really dislike 10-12 NTs, however when playing precision it fits perfectly. One partner of mine believes in having the same NT range at all vulnerbilities and all seats: 12-14. This drives me insane, but I suppose the memory load is a little less.

[benlessard]

Non vulnerable , 1Nt should be used as a preemptive action of one kind or the other.

1- The lowest range where the opps dont use penalty double.

Ill gladly play those range if the opps arent using penalty X.

14-16
13-16
13-17

and of course anything lower


2- weak Nt in its pure form.



3- strong Nt inflated.
15-17 but with some 13pts with 6 card minor and many 14 with 5 card suit.

The idea is that from a constructive playing strenght your hand is 15-17 but from a defensive standpoint your hand is a weak Nt. Against this style and against 14-16 i strongly suggest to play penalty doubles.




Imo to play a pure strong nt when non-vul is inferior to one of the above (not by a wide margin, but there is no doubt in my mind)

[awm]

I've played variable notrump (although mostly in a strong club or diamond style system). In fact I still play it in a couple partnerships, but for the most part I tend to prefer not. This is for a combination of two of the given reasons:

(1) Memory load / system design. It's not that I've ever forgotten what my notrump range is at the table. The issue is that the ranges for a lot of other calls typically become different (strong club starts at a different place, 1♦ opening contains a different hand set, etc). This means that a lot of the little optimizations that we've added to our methods need to be revisited for the other notrump range, and so we're left playing a "not very optimized" system for one range or the other, or having substantially different systems (not just different notrump range) based on vulnerability.

(2) Randomizing. This is not exactly the same as field protection, since playing strong club and 14-16 notrump doesn't get you a lot of field protection anyway. The issue is more that I find very weak notrumps to be highly randomizing. The 10-12 can be a good way to give up boards to opponents who are quite weak. Obviously you get a bunch of good results from opening 10-12 notrump too (especially against weak opponents) but why raise the variance against people you expect to beat up on anyway? This is especially annoying at pairs scoring, where it's critical to get your 75% boards against the weak pairs in order to win. Opening 10-12 is very often a top or bottom proposition, and while against weak opponents it's probably 2:1 tops over bottoms, why randomize the bidding against people who will give you a trick in the play?

I also haven't been that impressed with the results of playing weak notrump in general (either my results, or the results of my opponents) -- playing weak notrump at NV might be a mild win but I'm quite convinced it's not a huge win, and not worth the hassle of dealing with (1) and (2).

[rbforster]

NickRW, on May 18 2009, 06:49 AM, said:

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"?)

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.

In the US, ACBL makes it harder to play lower than 10 points - you can't use conventions like transfers or stayman if your 1NT range includes 9 for example. I think without this restriction, some precision players would use 9-11 as their mini-NT (playing 1♦...1N as 12-14 and a 15+ strong club). For a while online I played a 8-9 1NT (no invitational sequences needed), but that was part of a funny system.

10-13 is also reasonable - wider ranging for inviting (so worse for constructive bidding), but also harder on the opponents since they will have to look for games sometimes over your 10's but these are quite rare over 13's.

I also strongly agree with benlessard that weaker NTs win a lot at NV, as long as they don't get their penalty double to stick. If the field plays a specific rule (like "strong defenses against anything with 15", you probably want to play a range is the weakest they will treat as strong (12-15?).

[skjaeran]

I've played variable NT according to position, not vulnerability. That makes more sense to me. But I don't think it's allowed these days.... maybe depending upon what jurisdiction you play in.

[Cascade]

skaeran, on May 19 2009, 07:11 AM, said:

I've played variable NT according to position, not vulnerability. That makes more sense to me. But I don't think it's allowed these days.... maybe depending upon what jurisdiction you play in.

What jurisdiction is it not allowed in?

[skjaeran]

Cascade, on May 18 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

skaeran, on May 19 2009, 07:11 AM, said:

I've played variable NT according to position, not vulnerability. That makes more sense to me. But I don't think it's allowed these days.... maybe depending upon what jurisdiction you play in.

What jurisdiction is it not allowed in?

Might be mistaken, but I think the WBF has a rule that you can vary your system with regard to vulnerability. Nothing said about position.

[NickRW]

I don't know what the WBF says. But the EBU, which, as far as I know, is not particularly known for giving the WBF a hard time, says in the latest Orange book:

"11 F One No Trump Opening Bids
11 F 1 Developments
All responses and continuations are allowed with or without intervention.

Allowed at Levels 2, 3 and 4
11 F 2 Natural
A natural 1NT must have a defined range, a minimum of 10 HCP and must not be
forcing. The HCP range may be varied according to position and/or vulnerability. One
of the following may be played:
(a) a balanced hand
(b ) a balanced or semi-balanced hand
Players are free to agree more restrictive distributional constraints (eg no five card
major)."

Underlining added by me. The regs go on to give various relaxations of the above at higher levels.

I'd therefore be surprised to hear that the WBF are more restrictive if this allowed at level 2 (Novice and holiday bridge) in England

Nick

[JanM]

NickRW, on May 18 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

I don't know what the WBF says.  But the EBU, which, as far as I know, is not particularly known for giving the WBF a hard time, says in the latest Orange book:

A natural 1NT must have a defined range, a minimum of 10 HCP and must not be forcing.

I'm confused by this. I thought that it wasn't allowed to require any specific number of HCPs for a natural bid - that (I thought) is why the ACBL instead says you can't play any conventional responses to a 1NT opening bid that has a lower limit of less than 10 HCPs. I realize this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, and apologize for that; I just wondered.

[Mbodell]

JanM, on May 18 2009, 09:09 PM, said:

NickRW, on May 18 2009, 05:23 PM, said:

I don't know what the WBF says.  But the EBU, which, as far as I know, is not particularly known for giving the WBF a hard time, says in the latest Orange book:

A natural 1NT must have a defined range, a minimum of 10 HCP and must not be forcing.

I'm confused by this. I thought that it wasn't allowed to require any specific number of HCPs for a natural bid - that (I thought) is why the ACBL instead says you can't play any conventional responses to a 1NT opening bid that has a lower limit of less than 10 HCPs. I realize this has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread, and apologize for that; I just wondered.

2 clarifications:

1. I believe that requirement changed with the latest laws so now SO can regulate any partnership understandings, not just conventional agreements.

2. I believe that this is from a list in the orange book that isn't limiting people to just opening this way, but instead is saying any opening this way is allowed. There are other things that are described (like an artificial strong forcing 1NT bid) in other sections.

[gnasher]

Mainly that I don't think it would have much technical merit.

The question is pertinent only if you want to play a weak notrump but think the risk too high in certain positions or vulnerabilities. Personally I think that a natural system doesn't work work well without a strong notrump, because if can be awkward to deal with 15-17 balanced in a competitive auction. Furthermore, a 12-14 1NT leads to too many hands played in the wrong partscore.

If I didn't think that, I still wouldn't do it, for similar reasons to Han: changing the notrump range has so many ramifications that effectively I'd be playing two different systems in parallel. I have quite enough to think about without the extra burden of a second system.

[Gerben42]

With Smirny I played 11-13 1st 2nd NV, 14-16 otherwise. This worked very well and I would do it again.

Currently the reason for not playing variable NT is that I play weak NT around the board anyway. With partners who think this is a dangerous practice I would prefer the variable NT to at least have a weak NT some of the time.

[helene_t]

gnasher, on May 19 2009, 09:16 AM, said:

The question is pertinent only if you want to play a weak notrump but think the risk too high in certain positions or vulnerabilities.

Maybe I see this wrongly but for me the reason not to play a weak NT in 3rd/4th isn't that it is more dangerous than in 1st/2nd. Maybe it is safest to play weak NT in 4th seat where neither opp can have enough to double for penalties.

My thoughts are:
- It has most preemptive effect in 1st seat (where neither opp has inference from his partner's failure to open) and least in 4th (where both opps have).
- The strong NT hands get more frequent the later the seat.
- It is not particularly useful to show at least 12 points balanced to a p that is limited to 11. Vul you might as well pass, nonvul you might as well play 0-13.
- Some 12-13 hands have the alternative of open a good 4-card suit mainly for the lead, maybe planning to pass a "forcing" response.

I am not saying that opening a 12 or 13 bal with 1NT in 3rd seat has zero merits, just that it has less merits than in 1st/2nd, so I think the merits of opening a 15 or 16 has more merits in 3rd/4th.

[benlessard]

Quote

The strong NT hands get more frequent the later the seat.

Wich is a good thing for weak Nt.

Its better to open 1D-----1H-------1Nt showing 15-17 than to open directly 1Nt. Each time you open 1Nt you risk losing a 4-4 M fit no matter what is your range. So for constructive purpose the less you open 1Nt the better it is. The biggest downside of weak Nt is that its more common that 15-17 therefore you ll play 1Nt holding 4-4 M fit more often that strong NT. Add to that a strong Nt is much more likely to hit a GF responder so at the end you get 15-17 vs 0-8 against 11-14 vs 0-11 wich is is a huge frequency difference.

Quote

It has most preemptive effect in 1st seat (where neither opp has inference from his partner's failure to open) and least in 4th (where both opps have).

Its not that clear because if you open a weak nt in 1st or 2nd seat and they have an opening hand with a 5M they would bid anyway. If you open in 4th seat and they overcall with a good suit bad hand its no big deal because these are hand where they could have done a weak 2 anyway.

So weak NT in all seat are mainly preempting against weakish 5M hands, against weakish take-out double against 4 card overcall and against some michael type. So in 4th seat you are preempting against the exact same hand except a notch lower in strenght therefore more frequent. The extra benefit you have in 4th seat is that if holding 44 in both M or 4m and 4S you still can open 1m planning to pass partner response or to rebid 1S.

So each time i have 5 or 6 card in the majors in 4th seat. Weak nt look like a big winner.

[CSGibson]

skaeran, on May 18 2009, 01:35 PM, said:

Cascade, on May 18 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

skaeran, on May 19 2009, 07:11 AM, said:

I've played variable NT according to position, not vulnerability. That makes more sense to me. But I don't think it's allowed these days.... maybe depending upon what jurisdiction you play in.

What jurisdiction is it not allowed in?

Might be mistaken, but I think the WBF has a rule that you can vary your system with regard to vulnerability. Nothing said about position.

So if you play weak 2's in seats 1,2, & 3, then you must play them in 4th seat, also? Doesn't make sense to me.

[gnasher]

Part of the WBF's definition of a "Red" system is

WBF Systems Policy said:

a system in which the basic methods (other
than the no trump range) vary according to position, vulnerability
and the like

This implies that a system where only the notrump range varies is "Green". In any case, "Green", "Blue" and "Red" systems are allowed in all WBF events.

[Free]

I prefer to play weak NT all the time. In a strong ♣ system you may want to switch between weak and mini NT. However, I find it quite hard to play weak NT in a standard system. Since I prefer natural systems these days, I feel quite obligated to play a strong NT all the time.