[rbforster]

Some recent discussion touched on the differences in style (system?) that might make sense in 3rd seat but not in 1st/2nd. I'm interested in situations where one might want to play a very wide ranging 1NT in 3rd seat, for example since the game exploration goal has been largely ruled out by partner's pass. Perhaps an example will make this clear -

Suppose you play aggressive precision style with a 15+ club and light openings that includes opening all 10 counts when NV (and shapely 9 counts etc). What does this mean for your 3rd seat NV 1NT opening? Since partner's pass has denied as much as a balanced 10 count, in 3rd position your side is unlikely to miss game if you can't open a 15+ strong club. So instead of playing 1NT as 10-12 or 12-14 or something, why not play 10-14 or even 8-14? I suppose if you were really crazy and played an 8-10 NT in 1st/2nd NV, you could even have an 8-16 NT in 3rd seat and not risk missing anything game-wise.

If you decide playing a preemptive NT opening seems like a good idea in 3rd seat (esp when NV), why stick with something traditional like 12-14 instead of something more wide-ranging? Presumably when you open 1NT this way it will make it harder on the opponents' bidding at the (minor) expense of making it harder for partner to make that rare business redouble. Another benefit if you normally have two different NT ranges is that your 1♦ opening can be more natural (4+ instead of 2+) since basically all balanced hands weaker than 1♣ are opened 1NT.

Has anyone played or heard of something like this? What do you think of the general principles here?

[pclayton]

There's a long discussion on Chris Ryall's site about a wide ranging NT in 3rd seat.

I also believe that a wide range NT opening is on the agenda at the BoD meeting in St. Louis in two weeks, although I don't know why.

[david_c]

pclayton, on Mar 3 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

I also believe that a wide range NT opening is on the agenda at the BoD meeting in St. Louis in two weeks, although I don't know why.

A likely reason is that currently they can't stop people playing a wide-ranging NT opening, but they can (and do) stop people playing conventional continuations after it, which makes it very difficult to play. Under the new Laws, which will be brought in later this year, they will be able to ban a wide-ranging NT outright. Perhaps they are going to decide whether they want to do this.

[rbforster]

pclayton, on Mar 3 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

There's a long discussion on Chris Ryall's site about a wide ranging NT in 3rd seat.

I found an extensive discussion of competitive issues over 1NT in general, but only a few brief comments on the effect I'm thinking about. He makes the point that a wide-ranging 3rd seat NT can be reasonable if partner has failed to open light, but I didn't find much more than that.

[pclayton]

http://chrisryall.ne...1nt-complex.htm

Quote

A nice side effect of a mini 10-12) range in that partner's pass is limited to 9 points (unless unbalanced). So it's safe to open 1NT on 10-15 in 3rd hand doubling the frequency. Playing 9+ NT an incredible 9-16 3rd hand range will not miss games!

I think this is the reference I spoke about. I agree, there isn't much discussion here, only a few comments.

[MickyB]

I prefer a strong NT/4cM approach in 3rd+4th. The main problem with a wide-ranging NT is that if the oppo bid, responder will have no idea if he should be competing or not.

[matmat]

MickyB, on Mar 3 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

I prefer a strong NT/4cM approach in 3rd+4th. The main problem with a wide-ranging NT is that if the oppo bid, responder will have no idea if he should be competing or not.

That's fine, and you're quite likely to be right, but this is hardly an argument in favor of litigating the bid.

[awm]

The wide-range thing is okay. I've tried this before in a system where we opened virtually all 8 counts in 1st/2nd seat, and our 3rd seat 1NT opening was 8-17.

One thing to be aware of is that this only works when you really can't have game on values opposite a passed hand, and that most structures for responding to 1NT are based on finding your best game. So I actually wouldn't want to play "systems on" in this situation.

There are also some possible disclosure issues, since opening 1NT on 10 points opposite a passed hand that can't have 8 points can be somewhat suicidal. If you "only sometimes" open 1NT on the weaker hands (i.e. depending on vulnerability or having a suit to run to or your table feel for opponents) then things get a little tricky.

[rbforster]

MickyB, on Mar 3 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

I prefer a strong NT/4cM approach in 3rd+4th. The main problem with a wide-ranging NT is that if the oppo bid, responder will have no idea if he should be competing or not.

Your method with a strong NT is a more constructive, forward-going approach and is no doubt better at finding your games. A weaker and/or wider ranging NT is more obstructive to the opponents - it's a question of what you think is more important. At least in 3rd seat, many people favor aggressive preemption and obstructive bidding. When you make a wide ranging NT bid like those I suggested, responder knows he's just competing and only does so based on shape, rather than having to worry about if his values are sufficient to invite.

As for the legal considerations, I'm surprised they'd even consider this since I don't think I've ever run into someone playing a wider ranging NT than the allowed 4 points (15-18 or 12-15) and it was probably worse for them than it was for me . Seems like pretty much of a non-problem, so why bother worrying about it? In addition, I do know people psych 1NT in 3rd seat sometimes and if you play natural signoff methods (rather than transfers) it'd be pretty hard to keep people from psyching with weaker hands just to get around a potential range restriction. The rules about conventional followups wouldn't matter if all the bids where natural anyway.

[MickyB]

Rob F, on Mar 3 2008, 08:23 PM, said:

MickyB, on Mar 3 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

I prefer a strong NT/4cM approach in 3rd+4th. The main problem with a wide-ranging NT is that if the oppo bid, responder will have no idea if he should be competing or not.

Your method with a strong NT is a more constructive, forward-going approach and is no doubt better at finding your games. A weaker and/or wider ranging NT is more obstructive to the opponents - it's a question of what you think is more important. At least in 3rd seat, many people favor aggressive preemption and obstructive bidding. When you make a wide ranging NT bid like those I suggested, responder knows he's just competing and only does so based on shape, rather than having to worry about if his values are sufficient to invite.

Partner opens an 8-16 NT, RHO overcalls 2H, you have a 4144 or 4243 seven-count. Are you acting?

This style will -

Miss your fits

Leave you guessing whether to compete for the part-score

Leave you unable to penalise the oppo when opener is maximum

Go for penalties

Fail to the direct the lead, as a suit opening might

Make it harder to bid constructively


From this, it might sound like I think your suggested method is ridiculous, which I don't. It will certainly have its successes, I just think they won't be (quite) as frequent as the losses.