[awm]

benlessard, on May 19 2009, 05:07 AM, said:

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.

I think there are some other pretty substantial problems with weak notrump. In particular:

Compare the slow auction of 1♦-1♥-1NT to opening 1NT. You acknowledge that the slow auction finds more 4-4 major fits -- this is an advantage for strong notrump because responder can more often act over the 1NT opening (so you miss fewer major fits). But it's also the case that the slow auction helps opponents a lot more on defense (they get information about opener's minor suit lengths). This information obviously can help regardless of the notrump range, but when opener has a strong notrump you will often play the hand in 3NT (where the minor suit information is helpful only to the defense) whereas when opener has weak notrump you will fairly often want to play in a partial (especially opposite a passed hand) in which case the minor suit information can help your side reach a better contract.

There are also some issues with competitive auctions. If 1m can frequently be either of 16 balanced or a shapely 11, then responder often has issues when holding something like 8-10 points in competition. He doesn't really want to pass because you could easily miss a game that way, but bidding opposite an 11-point misfit will be an absolute disaster. It tends to help if the balanced option is the weakest type of opening, such that the opening bid is usually at the low end.

[gwnn]

CSGibson, on May 19 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

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.

I think they allow you to change ranges and general style with position but not the 'basic meaning'.

In a partnership we played 2♦=weak with 4-4 or better in the majors. Then we thought we should play 2♦=10-13 6+♦ in 4th position and our TD's said that wasn't allowed. So in 4th position we played it as weak NT with 4-4 in the majors (because that seemed to be the best approach if it had to contain 4♥4♠) - this was allowed.

[helene_t]

Never heard of such WBF restrictions. Sounds like a local thing.

[mikeh]

I have played (usually but not always position-based) variable notrump for many years.

The argument that doing so has ramifications on the rest of the auction makes little sense when the variability is position based, since ALL good players, playing 'normal' standard or 2/1 systems, use different methods opposite 1-level suit openings, depending on position. Who plays 2/1 GF by a passed hand? Or drury by an unpassed hand? (note: I said 'normal std or 2/1.. I am aware that there are methods in which 2♣ over 1M, by an unpassed hand, include drury-like holdings)

There are pros and cons of each range, and they have, I think, been discussed ad nauseam in other threads.

I do like the preemption of weak 1N in 1st and 2nd, and the constructive value of the strong in 3rd and 4th... since 1N is a well-defined hand, one can and should use relatively complex methods over it, designed to reach the optimum contract, and I feel that these methods should focus on game bidding, in terms of where one puts one's energies. While game is not impossible with a passed hand opposite, say, a 12-14 1NT, it is relatively infrequent, so I prefer a 15-17. In 1st and 2nd, 12-14 is my preferred range: I used to play a lot of 10-12, but found that it hurt our bidding when we held 11-16+... not so much the range of the 1N rebid but more the opportunity for 4th seat, in particular, to overcall 1Major after, say, 1♣ (P) 1♦/♥ ?

Of course, there are many more factors at play in the decision making process. But memory load varying according to seat seems to be a minor one.

[Phil]

I've played a variable NT a lot with my partners this season, although they probably weren't aware they were playing it with me.

I've only played a variable NT in one partnership along with a big club. 1N was either 10-13 or 14-16.

[benlessard]

Quote

There are also some issues with competitive auctions. If 1m can frequently be either of 16 balanced or a shapely 11, then responder often has issues when holding something like 8-10 points in competition. He doesn't really want to pass because you could easily miss a game that way, but bidding opposite an 11-point misfit will be an absolute disaster. It tends to help if the balanced option is the weakest type of opening, such that the opening bid is usually at the low end.

You have to rethink this because its exactly the opposite. 99% of players that have played both range will tell you that weak nt is better for competitive auction and in my case its not close at all. The balanced weak hand is always the dreadful hand in comp auction. Its the hand that force partner to pass instead of competing its the hand you have when you are passing a double and they make it, its the hand that you have when you go 1 level too high.



1m------(2H)------???
1m------(3H)------???

lets say you are short in H and limited values or that you have values but are not short in H. You are borderline about competing, selling might be bad but competing might be worse. What is the possible hand that partner may have that will give you problem ? Is it a likely hand ?

[awm]

benlessard, on May 20 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

1m------(2H)------???
1m------(3H)------???

Okay, let's take an example. Say the auction goes:

1♣ - (3♥) to me. I hold:

♠xxx
♥Kxx
♦AQxxx
♣xx

What do I do? In a strong notrump system, I have an easy pass. Partner will almost always have a weak notrump, or a roughly equivalent hand with long clubs. We have no particular need to compete opposite that. In a weak notrump system, if partner has a strong notrump we are almost sure to have game. If partner has a 4(31)5 12-count we are probably going for a number if I do anything but pass. What's my call?

The point is that in a strong notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range than I have a game force opposite anything partner might have. If I have less than this, I am quite safe to pass because partner is in the 11-14 range with super high frequency. In a weak notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range then we might be in huge trouble if/when partner has an unbalanced minimum. So do I bid or pass? Keep in mind that I can't rely on partner to always balance on a flat 15-17.

1♣ - (3♥)

♠KQTxx
♥xx
♦Axx
♣xxx

If partner had opened a strong notrump, it would be obvious to bid 3♠ here. If partner had opened a weak notrump, it would be obvious to pass. What if partner opens 1♣? In a strong notrump system, it's obvious to pass. In a weak notrump system I guess I'm supposed to bid (in case partner has a strong notrump), but what if opener holds: ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx AQxxx? Guess I go for 500 opposite air?

Even if you think there are comparable problems for a strong notrump system on different hands (I disagree) the original post was about variable notrump. The fact that the problem hands are different and that you need to take different actions on the same auction with these hands implies that there's more to playing different ranges based on seat/vulnerability than appears at first glance.

[NickRW]

awm, on May 20 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

... The fact that the problem hands are different and that you need to take different actions on the same auction with these hands implies that there's more to playing different ranges based on seat/vulnerability than appears at first glance.

I can certainly agree with that.

While I see the point you're making, I think the analysis is a little over simplistic - in a strong NT system (or seat pos/vulnerability where you play it strong), you still have quite a high possibility that opener has the minimum unbalanced option. When you get a preemptive overcall after a suit opening you're not always going to get it right no matter what your 1NT opener means.

Nick

[benlessard]

Quote

What do I do? In a strong notrump system, I have an easy pass. Partner will almost always have a weak notrump, or a roughly equivalent hand with long clubs. We have no particular need to compete opposite that.

xxx
Kxx
AQxxx
xx

its a near perfect example for my case. Here it simply way safer to X if you play a weak nt and more dangerous to pass if you play a strong nt no matter how you look at it. Think about it its fairly obvious.

In a weak nt context here are partner possible hand and look at the possibles outcomes. My hand can be a bit weaker or a bit stronger (assume that i have a ensemble of hands similar to the example ,with 4 S or not short H or not)

balanced 15-17 = i double and they get nailed or we bid 3Nt or partner bid 3S and i bid 3Nt or i pass and he reopen with a 17. When we both pass its more likely we missed game but its more likely we are defeating 3H. But remember i need less to double

unbalanced 3 suiter short in H dead minimum. double he bid 3S i bid 3Nt and he correct to 4m (he know i didnt bid 3Nt right away) Its likely we go down but they possibly can make 3H.

unbalanced short H medium. If i double we reach game and we may go overboard. If i passed he may or may not reopen (both for good and bad results)

unbalanced short H extras he will reopen with a double so its likely to reach the same spot. Wheither i pass or not.

long clubs. Partner will be less encline to reopen since i can act with less values.


In a strong Nt context.

balanced 12-14 = i need more to double. If I double partner will have a hard time passing if we bid 3Nt it might not be cold. If i pass he cant reopen with a 14. When we both pass its not likely we missed game but its more likely they are making 3H.


unbalanced 3 suiter short in H dead minimum. double he bid 3S i bid 3Nt and he correct to 4m (he know i didnt bid 3Nt right away) Its likely we go down but they possibly can make 3H. If i pass he has to avoid the temptation to reopen.

unbalanced short H medium. If i double we reach game and we may go overboard. If i passed he will need to reopen (because i still can have fairly good values) and ill probably need to overbid my initially borderline hand even if i know partner is quick on the balancing.

unbalanced short H extras he will reopen with a double so its likely to reach the same spot. Wheither i pass or not.


long clubs. Partner will be more encline to reopen since i can still have fair values.


Another simpler way to look at it is that with a weak Nt as possibility it take more values to enter at the 2 or 3 level (X, raise or new suit). Meaning that youll pass more often sometimes for good but sometimes for bad results. But the cost will be that partner will be under more pressure to rebid or to reopen because you pass was too wide and non-descriptive.

In a strong Nt, You have a polarization in 2 groups all hand that you dont want to compete (weak Nt) and the rest that may or may not want to compete.

While in a weak Nt you only have 1 group, Strong Nt and unbalanced hand where it might be good or bad not to compete.

[Cascade]

awm, on May 21 2009, 06:18 AM, said:

The point is that in a strong notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range than I have a game force opposite anything partner might have. If I have less than this, I am quite safe to pass because partner is in the 11-14 range with super high frequency. In a weak notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range then we might be in huge trouble if/when partner has an unbalanced minimum. So do I bid or pass? Keep in mind that I can't rely on partner to always balance on a flat 15-17.

You use the same language "very common" to describe a weak no trump hand in a strong no trump system and a strong no trump in a weak no trump system.

The reality however is that a strong (15-17 HCP) no trump hand is about half as frequent as a weak (12-14 HCP) no trump hand. (If you open most 11 HCP then it is getting close to 1/3 the frequency).

[hanp]

While I agree with the case Adam was making, I didn't agree with his use of "very clear".

[Cascade]

hanp, on May 21 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

While I agree with the case Adam was making, I didn't agree with his use of "very clear".

I can't find his use of "very clear"

[NickRW]

Cascade, on May 21 2009, 07:46 AM, said:

hanp, on May 21 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

While I agree with the case Adam was making, I didn't agree with his use of "very clear".

I can't find his use of "very clear"

He didn't. But to be fair, it seems as though he meant it.

[ninja89]

I enjoy slam bidding over 1NT openings, and it's quite a bit rarer to have a slam try opposite +11-14 1NTs than over strong notrumps. Plus, I'm emotionally biased towards the strong notrump.

[Cascade]

ninja89, on May 21 2009, 09:38 PM, said:

Plus, I'm emotionally biased towards the strong notrump.

You won't fit in here.

That comment exposes your predujices too honestly

[hanp]

He edited his post and changed it to "obvious". Either that or it was "obvious" all the time.

[helene_t]

ninja89, on May 21 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

I enjoy slam bidding over 1NT openings, and it's quite a bit rarer to have a slam try opposite +11-14 1NTs than over strong notrumps. Plus, I'm emotionally biased towards the strong notrump.

Hi Ninja89, welcome to the forum, I am sure you will fit in well despite Cascade's funny comment

Btw I think there should be a mandatory field in the user profiles for "emotional biases", would make the discussions much easier to follow!

[rhm]

awm, on May 20 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

benlessard, on May 20 2009, 11:56 AM, said:

1m------(2H)------???
1m------(3H)------???

Okay, let's take an example. Say the auction goes:

1♣ - (3♥) to me. I hold:

♠xxx
♥Kxx
♦AQxxx
♣xx

What do I do? In a strong notrump system, I have an easy pass. Partner will almost always have a weak notrump, or a roughly equivalent hand with long clubs. We have no particular need to compete opposite that. In a weak notrump system, if partner has a strong notrump we are almost sure to have game. If partner has a 4(31)5 12-count we are probably going for a number if I do anything but pass. What's my call?

The point is that in a strong notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range than I have a game force opposite anything partner might have. If I have less than this, I am quite safe to pass because partner is in the 11-14 range with super high frequency. In a weak notrump system, if I have a game force opposite partner's (very common) balanced range then we might be in huge trouble if/when partner has an unbalanced minimum. So do I bid or pass? Keep in mind that I can't rely on partner to always balance on a flat 15-17.

1♣ - (3♥)

♠KQTxx
♥xx
♦Axx
♣xxx

If partner had opened a strong notrump, it would be obvious to bid 3♠ here. If partner had opened a weak notrump, it would be obvious to pass. What if partner opens 1♣? In a strong notrump system, it's obvious to pass. In a weak notrump system I guess I'm supposed to bid (in case partner has a strong notrump), but what if opener holds: ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx AQxxx? Guess I go for 500 opposite air?

Even if you think there are comparable problems for a strong notrump system on different hands (I disagree) the original post was about variable notrump. The fact that the problem hands are different and that you need to take different actions on the same auction with these hands implies that there's more to playing different ranges based on seat/vulnerability than appears at first glance.

It is a fair point you are making against a weak notrump and the same Fred made in a previous thread.
Nevertheless even though I tend to play strong notrump myself I am not sure it prooves much.
It is well known that weak notrump has advantages and disadvantages.
This particular problem is of quite low frequency at least if you compare it to the problems a weak notrumper passes to opponents regularly.
Your partner must open with a minor next opponent must have the right hand to come in with a preempt, always much more dangerous when one opponent has already bid, and you must sit there with a borderline hand to come in, with no clear bid.
Your first hand qualifies but your second one does not

After

1♣ - (3♥)

♠KQTxx
♥xx
♦Axx
♣xxx

I would always double and expect early Christmas opposite ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦Kxx AQxxx and it is not so clear whether a negative double or 3♠ is the superior bid opposite a strong notrump.
Which only proves your example hands have to be constructed carefully and are rare in practice.
Where I agree completely is that you have to play different systems if you vary your notrump.
In the short term this may be a disadvantage, memory burden and all that. In the long term it may give you many advantages having experienced all the different aspects of the game.
Players, who have played different systems are usually more competent like people who have lived in different cultures.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikeh]

Any discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the weak notrump would take far more space than any one post or, indeed, any one thread. It is a complex topic that is made all the more complex by the reality that no single 'convention' or 'bid' can or should be analyzed in isolation from the rest of the methods in play.

While Adam makes some valid points, he addresses only a small part of the range of issues that arise. Moreover, I do not think that the debate can ever be resolved with any degree of mathematical precision.

For example: what range of weak notrump are we considering? 10-12 is fundamentally different from 12-14. 11-14 carries with it issues that do not apply, at least with equal force, to 12-14. And so on.

Do we allow 5 card majors within any of our 1N ranges? If so, do we have criteria for when we do and when we don't?

Do we play negative doubles after our 1N, and, if so, at what levels?

How effective are our rescue/competitive measures after a double or other interference over our weak notrumps?

Do we play that double, by responder, of a 1♥ overcall denies spades? This is relevant because in std, absent this treatment, we are going to have a problem hand with, say, 3=2=5=3 9 counts after 1♣ (1♥) ? How much of a problem and how to deal with it will vary according to our 1N range.

How important is winning the race to 1N, when the hcp are shared roughly equally between the 2 sides? In mps, very much... in imps, not as much. Weak Notrumps are good for this, compared to strong.

How important is preemption? Weak notrumps preempt 2nd seat well, but 4th seat poorly (when opener has a strong notrump and opens a minor, allowing 4th seat to get in at the one-level on some hands).

This is not intended to set out the issues to be addressed: this is merely to suggest some of the complexity involved.

But, as some have pointed out, the original post was not about relative effectiveness but about variability. Surely no serious bridge player is really worried about the 'memory strain' of playing different ranges? Do we all play the same methods with all of our partners, for example? And nobody plays the same major suit opening structure over a 3rd seat 1major as they do over a 1st seat opener, do they?

My subjective impression is that, within a 2/1 framework, 10-12 is ineffective against good opps, but great against the mass of players, while 11-14 is too wide a range. 12-14 is very effective in 1st and 2nd, but slightly less so at mps where we lose a lot of 4=4 fits, especially in the major.... a factor partially offset by the difficulty most defenders have defending 1N well. 15-17 is safe and reliable, but is non-threatening to the opps... 12-14 increases their risk, since they may be missing game (or a good partscore) if they are conservative, while that is a relatively rare occurrence over the strong Notrump...

[ninja89]

Thanks for the welcome, helene_t. Interesting that you should bring up the profile - I was thinking that it would be better to have "Conventions I swear by" and possibly "Conventions I despise" in the profile rather than "Preferred Conventions/System Notes," to allow for more... direct exposure of prejudices.