[1eyedjack]

At a teach-in the other day the teacher expressed a preference for weak 1N in 1st and 2nd seat and strong in 3rd and 4th. One of the reasons highlighted (for the stronger range opposite a passed hand) was that after 2 passes you are more likely to be entering into a battle for the partscore, and in a partscore battle it is more important to get your suits in early (if you are a weak 1N hand type as opener).

I was and remain unconvinced by this argument although I confess I have not really thought about it in those terms before and have an open mind. I have not before felt disadvantaged in a subsequent contested auction from having opened a weak 1N but it is hard to have an unbiased memory. Instinctively I feel that if anything there is a slightly higher chance of the auction remaining uncontested after opening 1N than by opening a suit. The point being made is that on that perhaps reduced set in which you get a contested auction you are poorly placed.

Teacher has more pedigree than I, and I also note a number of experts falling into line with this style. What would be interesting for me is to see a bridgebrowser analysis, if it is possible to do a meaningful search.

I was thinking that you would need to select (say) 3rd seat hands in the 12-14 balanced range after 2 passes, identify those which opened 1NT, of those split them into ones that were subsequently contested v uncontested, and average the IMP and MP results from each category. Might need to sub-analyse the results by the four possible vulnerability settings. Is that feasible?

[MickyB]

This analysis would still be ignoring the benefit of being able to open a strong NT when you have one. Btw, why the need to break down the results into contested and uncontested?

I greatly prefer a strong no-trump (or 14-16 - depends how aggressively you open in 1st+2nd) in 3rd+4th, there are a lot more reasons for it than just the one your teacher gave.

[1eyedjack]

All good points. Happy to be guided on the structure of the search. Or perhaps you are suggesting that this is not something that a search of BrBr has a hope of approximating?

[helene_t]

Agree with Micky.

There is not much point in promising p 12 points when he can't have more than 11. A non-vulnerable 0-13 range in 3rd seat I could understand but 12-14 is beyond me.

But in a way the same applies to the 1NT rebid if you play a 15-17 1NT.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Apr 16 2008, 02:24 PM, said:

There is not much point in promising p 12 points when he can't have more than 11. A non-vulnerable 0-13 range in 3rd seat I could understand but 12-14 is beyond me.

Well, to give just one example, if I have passed in 1st seat with a 9-10 count and it goes

P P 1N 2S
??

then I feel marginally better placed if I know that partner has 12-14 than if I know that he has 0-13.

[helene_t]

Yes, if you would like to double for penalties opposite a 12 count but not opposite a 0-count.

OTOH if I have 11 point and don't want to double for penalties, I would prefer to know that p can't have 14.

Everyone here in Lancaster insist on playing 12-14 throughout. I can live with that when nonvulnerable. But I can't make myself open 1NT with 12 points in 3rd seat when vulnerable, even though I suppose the system forces me to do so. I'd rather pass, or open a convenient suit.

[Al_U_Card]

As a veteran 10-12 advocate, in 3rd seat it was valuable for its preemptive and disruptive effect. In 4th seat, you could always pass with a ratty 10-11.

A good system and effective run-outs are key to any weak NT bid. Without those, it is just a quest to give away imps or mp.

[ArtK78]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 16 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

As a veteran 10-12 advocate, in 3rd seat it was valuable for its preemptive and disruptive effect. In 4th seat, you could always pass with a ratty 10-11.

A good system and effective run-outs are key to any weak NT bid. Without those, it is just a quest to give away imps or mp.

This just blows my mind. I play 10-12 1NT nonvul in 1st and 2nd seat. But opening a 10-12 1NT in third or fourth seat opposite a passed hand WHO COULD NOT EVEN OPEN A 10-12 1NT is suicidal. Not only that, the opponents know it and can double easily.

[awm]

It's very difficult to test this sort of thing on bridgebrowser. Some of the issues:

(1) People who play a weak notrump are typically at a substantial advantage over the BBO field at large because they have generally had some discussion of system. The vast majority of pairs on BBO are basically pickups without such discussion. Established partnerships have a big advantage and this will bias any such test.

(2) There is no way to easily distinguish between people opening a legitimate weak notrump, people psyching a strong notrump, people upgrading into a strong notrump, and people miscounting their points. Since the substantial majority of the field does in fact play strong notrumps, a fairly high percentage of the weak notrump openings are likely to be of this "phony" variety. Also, notrump ranges overlap -- a 1NT opening on 14 points could easily be a 12-14, or a 13-15, or a 14-16, or a 15-17 with an upgrade, or a 11-13 with a downgrade. People also tend to upgrade/downgrade more liberally opposite a passed partner.

(3) It is virtually impossible to determine the impact of notrump range on the rest of the system. In particular, your notrump range effects your auctions when you open 1m on an unbalanced hand because partner's expectations and actions in competition will be different. Pairs are not labeled by whether they play weak notrump or strong so you can't really analyze this.

(4) Presumably the rest of the system in play makes a difference. I suspect that playing a 12-14 notrump as part of a strong club system (say 1♣ 15+) is a very different beast from playing a 12-14 notrump as part of a "natural" system base (acol or whatever).

[babalu1997]

Well, we do apply weak nt 1214 in all seats and in all vunerabilities.

However-- our 12 counts always promise 2 quick tricks.

Sometimes partner can have 12 hcp without 2 quick tricks and have passed, or have and impossible open also with 12 hcp, so 3nt or even 4 major is a possibility.

Also 1nt is always good scoring in matchpoints.

So we make no adjustments to nt hands.

[ArtK78]

babalu1997, on Apr 16 2008, 12:48 PM, said:

Also 1nt is always good scoring in matchpoints.

Not always. 1NT -200 (doubled or undoubled) is not a particularly good score.

And, by the way, I was talking about 10-12 1NT openings.

[1eyedjack]

helene_t, on Apr 16 2008, 03:00 PM, said:

Yes, if you would like to double for penalties opposite a 12 count but not opposite a 0-count.

OTOH is I have 11 point and don't want to double for penalties, I would prefer to know that p can't have 14.

Everyone here in Lancaster insist on playing 12-14 throughout. I can live with that when nonvulnerable. But I can't make myself open 1NT with 12 points in 3rd seat when nonvulnerable, even though I suppose the system forces me to do so. I'd rather pass, or open a convenient suit.

Well I tend to play doubles for take-out, but yes I may want to double for take-out opposite 12 but not opposite zero. To be fair, once I don't hear a double on my right I will place opener with more than zero. Even so.

And with some shape there are other competive actions that I might wish to consider than double.

Yes the risk of a penalty double vul v non is a major reason to support a strong 1N in 3rd seat. Not so sure about nonvul v vul. I never claimed that the partscore battle is the only reason for the choice, and I am sure that the teacher would not suggest that either. There is only so much time for chat in session. I am primarily interested in finding the best method, and while the reason that it is best may be of academic interest to me it is a secondary issue. I was hoping that some empirical test might help. I agree that if an empirical test is out of the question then the only option is to discuss theoreticals.

[1eyedjack]

awm, on Apr 16 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

It's very difficult to test this sort of thing on bridgebrowser.

Heh, I find testing anything on brbr very difficult. By difficult I assume you mean nigh on impossible. So be it. But just to consider some of your points:

awm, on Apr 16 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

(1) People who play a weak notrump are typically at a substantial advantage over the BBO field at large because they have generally had some discussion of system. The vast majority of pairs on BBO are basically pickups without such discussion. Established partnerships have a big advantage and this will bias any such test.

It may be possible to limit the search to tourneys. Would not wholly solve that problem, I agree.

awm, on Apr 16 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

(2) There is no way to easily distinguish between people opening a legitimate weak notrump, people psyching a strong notrump, people upgrading into a strong notrump, and people miscounting their points. Since the substantial majority of the field does in fact play strong notrumps, a fairly high percentage of the weak notrump openings are likely to be of this "phony" variety. Also, notrump ranges overlap -- a 1NT opening on 14 points could easily be a 12-14, or a 13-15, or a 14-16, or a 15-17 with an upgrade, or a 11-13 with a downgrade. People also tend to upgrade/downgrade more liberally opposite a passed partner.

I would expect a few systemic departures from any sample. I would not expect them to be sufficiently frequent to distort the result over a sufficient population. Certainly not examples of gross psychic bids.

awm, on Apr 16 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

(3) It is virtually impossible to determine the impact of notrump range on the rest of the system. In particular, your notrump range effects your auctions when you open 1m on an unbalanced hand because partner's expectations and actions in competition will be different. Pairs are not labeled by whether they play weak notrump or strong so you can't really analyze this.

I was going to suggest rather simplistically that if opener has a weak 1N hand type and does not open it 1N then odds are that pair is not playing weak 1N.

awm, on Apr 16 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

(4) Presumably the rest of the system in play makes a difference. I suspect that playing a 12-14 notrump as part of a strong club system (say 1♣ 15+) is a very different beast from playing a 12-14 notrump as part of a "natural" system base (acol or whatever).

I agree, where we are discussing hands other than those within the balanced 12-14 population.

Broadly, I would never suggest that blind faith be placed on the outcome, and the limitations of the sampling method would clearly affect the reliability of the conclusion. Not sure that it would make the conclusion wholly worthless just because it is imperfect.

[Al_U_Card]

ArtK78, on Apr 16 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 16 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

As a veteran 10-12 advocate, in 3rd seat it was valuable for its preemptive and disruptive effect.  In 4th seat, you could always pass with a ratty 10-11.

A good system and effective run-outs are key to any weak NT bid.  Without those, it is just a quest to give away imps or mp.

This just blows my mind. I play 10-12 1NT nonvul in 1st and 2nd seat. But opening a 10-12 1NT in third or fourth seat opposite a passed hand WHO COULD NOT EVEN OPEN A 10-12 1NT is suicidal. Not only that, the opponents know it and can double easily.

A good system and effective run-outs are key to any weak NT bid. Without those, it is just a quest to give away imps or mp.

read and repeat as necessary.

[ArtK78]

Al_U_Card, on Apr 16 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 16 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 16 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

As a veteran 10-12 advocate, in 3rd seat it was valuable for its preemptive and disruptive effect.  In 4th seat, you could always pass with a ratty 10-11.

A good system and effective run-outs are key to any weak NT bid.  Without those, it is just a quest to give away imps or mp.

This just blows my mind. I play 10-12 1NT nonvul in 1st and 2nd seat. But opening a 10-12 1NT in third or fourth seat opposite a passed hand WHO COULD NOT EVEN OPEN A 10-12 1NT is suicidal. Not only that, the opponents know it and can double easily.

A good system and effective run-outs are key to any weak NT bid. Without those, it is just a quest to give away imps or mp.

read and repeat as necessary.

And opening a 10-12 NT opposite a passed hand is suicide.

You don't have to repeat as necessary, as if you do this, you are dead.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Apr 17 2008, 01:24 AM, said:

Agree with Micky.

There is not much point in promising p 12 points when he can't have more than 11. A non-vulnerable 0-13 range in 3rd seat I could understand but 12-14 is beyond me.

But in a way the same applies to the 1NT rebid if you play a 15-17 1NT.

Except that after a 1NT rebid you have had the opportunity to explore for a fit

[inquiry]

If you want to do this "test" the theory that weak notrump is more dangerous in the 3rd seat than the first seat, the solution maybe relatively simple. Compare opening bids of 1NT with balanced 12-13 in 1st seat to opening in 3rd seat with the same holding. This removes (at least in theory) the comments that players who play weak nt have at least discussed their system ... as these should be the same people.

There are several things you have to remember, however, even in such comparisions. The first, after 3rd seat weak notrump, GAME is extremely rare, and slam is unheard of. Not so after 1st seat weak NT. So to determine the appropriateness of the bid, you have to decide how this difference (frequent game/slam after 1st seat infrequent game/no slam after 3rd seat) will be factored into the analysis.

I no longer post on studies using the program I no longer mention on the forum, but if i did, 3rd seat weak NT opening bids (12-13, balanced) work out well in the long run, so there seems to be no "fear" to overcome as a general rule. Now at imps in a match where a single big number could mean elimination, one might want to re-examine the premise. At mp, i would feel perfectly comfortable with a weak notrump in 3rd seat.

[Al_U_Card]

ArtK78, on Apr 16 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 16 2008, 03:43 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Apr 16 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 16 2008, 09:19 AM, said:

As a veteran 10-12 advocate, in 3rd seat it was valuable for its preemptive and disruptive effect.  In 4th seat, you could always pass with a ratty 10-11.

A good system and effective run-outs are key to any weak NT bid.  Without those, it is just a quest to give away imps or mp.

This just blows my mind. I play 10-12 1NT nonvul in 1st and 2nd seat. But opening a 10-12 1NT in third or fourth seat opposite a passed hand WHO COULD NOT EVEN OPEN A 10-12 1NT is suicidal. Not only that, the opponents know it and can double easily.

A good system and effective run-outs are key to any weak NT bid. Without those, it is just a quest to give away imps or mp.

read and repeat as necessary.

And opening a 10-12 NT opposite a passed hand is suicide.

You don't have to repeat as necessary, as if you do this, you are dead.

Well, after over 10 yrs usage.....I'm not dead yet and it was always lively, hardly suicide. (But it was almost always at mp....only a few swiss events)

[helene_t]

inquiry, on Apr 16 2008, 11:37 PM, said:

If you want to do this "test" the theory that weak notrump is more dangerous in the 3rd seat than the first seat

As I see it it's not so much a question of safety.

The point is that you should use the 1NT opening for something useful. Taking the 14-16 hands out of the 1x openings is useful. For example, p can safely respond 1NT with 11 points, thereby freeing the 2♣ (or better: 2♦ as in Adam's method) for a constructive raise.

Taking the 12-13 out of the 1x openings is much less useful in 3rd/4th seat IMHO.

[rbforster]

In precision, I like playing 10-12 or 10-13 NT ranges when NV in 1st-3rd seats. Vul or 4th are closer to a strong NT. Good run-outs + NV makes a 3rd seat very weak NT quite effective as a preempt. Just my opinion...