Why don't you play variable 1NT openings?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

 

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]

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

 

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.

[awm]

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]

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. :P

 

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

[benlessard]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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).