[JLOL]

I like 10 to 12 NV but it usually creates a system hole (since it makes the other ranges too wide). For instance playing 10 to 12 in standard, a rebid of 1N shows 13 to 16 which is unplayable (alternatively you jump to 2N with 16, also unplayable). I also don't like 4 point ranges so I prefer 11 to 13 generally when NV. This goes well with a strong club system where 1D then 1N can be 14 to 16 and 1C then 1N 17 to 19. I also dont like forcing to 2N with 17, so in standard systems I prefer 12 to 14 NV.

When vul I like 15 to 17 in standard systems since I don't like to get to 2N with 17 as mentioned before, and 14 to 16 in strong club.

[MickyB]

Agree with the last two posts, except I strongly prefer strong no-trump in 2nd seat, and am not that fussed even 1st NV, so in practice I play strong(ish) no-trump throughout at the moment.

Playing strong club, that's 14-16 1st/2nd and 15-17 3rd/4th. Playing natural methods, it's 15-17 1st/2nd and 14-16 3rd/4th.

[MickyB]

Cascade, on Jan 18 2009, 09:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 19 2009, 08:17 AM, said:

I prefer strong notrumps since I'm used to them. But my least favorite range is definitely any 4 point or wider range (you know what I mean Cascade, leave me alone! ). I do understand 11-14 often means 11+ - 14 which is ok. I played 12-15 for years, and it is definitely too wide which leads to guesswork and bad results.

If 12-15 is too wide for 1NT does that mean that 20-21 or similar is too wide for 2NT?

No. The problem over 1NT isn't the hands that land up in game, it's the ones that land up in 2NT or 3M having invited. Holding 10-11 opposite 12-15 will happen way more often than holding 0-4 (or whatever) opposite a 20-21, not least because the 20-21 hands are much less frequent in the first place.

[inquiry]

I like 14-16. the reasaons are:

• More frequent than 15-17
  
• Limits 1m-1M-1NT to smaller range, I like to open light, so having the 1NT rebid to 13 helps out
  
• The 1NT opening bid often is still with the field, as others often upgrade 14 to 15 anyway,
  
• Experience shows this range works well for my style of bidding

[awm]

I like strong notrump, especially in the context of a natural system. It seems like playing a weak notrump creates a lot of problems after opening one of a suit, because you can't rebid 1nt on weak misfitting hands, and because there are many competitive sequences where opener has "a little bit extra." I also play a lot of matchpoints and it seems like -200 vulnerable comes up a bit too often after opening a weak notrump.

I'm happy with 15-17 playing standard methods; in my strong club system I like 14-16 in the first two seats but 15-17 in third/fourth. Part of the reasoning is that it's nice for the 1nt rebid opposite a passed hand to deny the strength for game to help avoid getting too high, and our opening style is such that almost all hands worth game opposite a 14-count will open.

[rogerclee]

I think this depends on system, I have always preferred a 14+-17 range playing basic 2/1. I played 12-14 for a year or two and found that I did not like starting my strong NT hands with 1m, there were considerable losses when the opponents interfered.

I don't like a 10-12 or 10-13 range in a 2/1 system, I think you are really giving up a lot in order to have the (questionable) benefit of being able to open 1N on these kinds of hands.

[peachy]

I play 12-14 with one partner and like it because it often steals the hand and gives away no information to the opponents. Plus, opps feel friskier to overcall a weak NT in some manner and get burned. Plus, opps have difficulty deciding whether to balance in against weak NT or not.
Still, mostly I play 15-17 and I feel more comfortable with it. Playing weak NT, I have to concentrate to remember to look for the inferences from the auction if partner "did" or "didn't" open 1NT.

[keylime]

14-16 NT. Works very well if you're not of the split range NT crowd.

[JLOL]

MickyB, on Jan 18 2009, 10:28 PM, said:

I strongly prefer strong no-trump in 2nd seat

I used to think that this MUST be theoretically superior (for obvious reasons), but it seemed to work differently in practice. This could be because my opponents were terrible against weak NT, but i think it was because I was playing mainly matchpoints and opening 1N with a weak NT non vul is just so money imo. It makes it so much harder for them to compete and you go minus 50 or 100 into their partscore so often it seems like. I think at imps I still agree with this though, but I'm not sure even then since it makes effective game bidding harder (you get to the 3 level too much or miss some games sometimes or lose double partscore swings...). It just seems like there's huge value in MP in playing weak NT NV in second seat.

Also don't remember if I said it in my first post in this thread but I would never play weak NT in THIRD seat and don't like it in fourth either.

[shintaro]

12 - 14 Cos I play proper bridge (ACOL) and prefer the pre-emptive value of the bid;

Perhaps those who play Strong NT only do so cos they cannot play No Trump contracts;

Ducking down behind couch and putting on Tin Hat and Tin Knickers ready for the backlash

[the hog]

10-12 and 14-16 depending on vulnerability.

[georgeac]

12-14 or 15-17 depending on the partner.

[FrancesHinden]

Vulnerability, position and form of scoring all matter.

Ideally, I would play subtly different ranges depending on all three factors. I don't, because I don't have the energy, and I usually just play a strong NT (with a mini 1st NV in one partnership). The problem is that all of your constructive and competitive auction inferences change with the NT range and I can't cope.

As a complement to JLOL's comment about matchpoints, at aggregate (total points), the strong NT is in my experience a big winner.

I do play strong NT in many matchpoint events with most of the field playing weak NT and I think in general the direct gains and losses tend to balance out in total. Certainly the weak NT gains tend to come when the weak NT bidder is not vulnerable.

The indirect effects (what happens in competition etc) I believe generally favour strong NT, but this is very difficult to prove one way or the other.

[Tcyk]

I ran an extensive study of NT ranges using BRidgeBRowser. It seems that the weaker the range the better the results. I saw another article/blog that stated that the side that bid NT first tended to get the best results. This is in keeping with the low NY ranges. They bid NT first.

I saw someones profile yesterday that said 1NT was 15+ HCP and 2C was balanced 21-23 HCP. I wondered if this really meant that he would open 1NT with 24+ HCP. I may be wrong but I believe Romex used 1NT as its strong forcing opening bid.

[whereagles]

JLOL, on Jan 19 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

I like 10 to 12 NV but it usually creates a system hole (since it makes the other ranges too wide).

You can "fix" that by playing a preparatory club/diamond.

1♣ 1x
1NT = 13-14

1♦ 1x
1NT = 15-17

This allows even a 1NT lowering to 9-11.

[babalu1997]

12-14 mt works well for me.

when I decided to paly so, i had to convince several partners, but now they all prefer wek nt.

the thing is when i am playing 15-17 1nt open, and my partner opens a minor and rebids 1nt, i have to take 1 teaspoon of maalox.

whereas a 1nt rebid of 15-17 allows me rither to pass for a great contract or immediately place a game.

[nige1]

I agree with Frances Hinden. The ideal range varies, depending on a variety of factors. For example

• System.
  
• Position at the table.
  
• Vulnerability.
  
• Kind of scoring.
  
• State of the match.
  
• Prejudices.
  
• How much complication the partnership can accommodate. Simplicity is often best.

I've tried most variations

• From 8-10 (Green in 1st 2 seats) up to 17-19 (Red in last 2 seats).
  
• Wide range (eg Blue club)
  
• Artificial (eg Romex).

For ease of memory, like Helene, I now prefer a mundane 13-15.

[mtvesuvius]

whereagles, on Jan 19 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

JLOL, on Jan 19 2009, 02:33 AM, said:

I like 10 to 12 NV but it usually creates a system hole (since it makes the other ranges too wide).

You can "fix" that by playing a preparatory club/diamond.

1♣ 1x
1NT = 13-14

1♦ 1x
1NT = 15-17

This allows even a 1NT lowering to 9-11.

Yes, but then you lose the value of a minor suit opening here... You also are in trouble if there is interference. I have done this many times before, but I don't feel that it's worth it.

[whereagles]

mtvesuvius, on Jan 19 2009, 02:26 PM, said:

Yes, but then you lose the value of a minor suit opening here... You also are in trouble if there is interference. I have done this many times before, but I don't feel that it's worth it.

A 2+ cards opener is just about as muddy as a 3+ cards opener. I don't really see the difference should matter much.

[Gerben42]

But with these ranges you lose TWO minor suit openings. I very much prefer 2+♣ 4+♦ and that's not possible with 9-11 NT or the like.