[PhilG007]

There has been an increasing tendency in the past decade for partnerships to open 1NT with 10-12 hcps
regardless of the vulnerability. It has proved to be a highly controversial tactic with the ACBL
banning it in tournaments under their auspices. Debates have raged over the years as to the MNT's
merits and demerits. So it poses the question,is the Mini No Trump all it's cracked up to be?
Is it good or bad,black or white,hero or villain? Over to you, fellow players....

[1eyedjack]

Never had the courage to play it vul. Non-vul I think it is quite effective when it arises, which of course is frequently. My main objection to it is that it puts a lot of extra pressure on bidding stronger balanced hands. It does not fit well with my preferred TWalsh structure, for instance. And its effectiveness has diminished a bit over time due to opponents' familiarity and more evolved defensive techniques. Still quite fun to play it against ACBL octogenarians.

[Mbodell]

I hesitate to feed the beast, but "the ACBL banning it in tournaments under their auspices" is an outright fabrication. You can open an 8-10 nt in the ACBL. You can open a 10-12 nt in the ACBL with no restrictions (other than not upgrading 9 counts into it if you play systems after it). I know some who play it always, some who play it always in 1st or 2nd seat. In one of my regular partnerships I play it when white in 1st or 2nd seat and always in 3rd seat.

[rhm]

1eyedjack, on 2015-May-28, 01:08, said:

Never had the courage to play it vul. Non-vul I think it is quite effective when it arises, which of course is frequently. My main objection to it is that it puts a lot of extra pressure on bidding stronger balanced hands. It does not fit well with my preferred TWalsh structure, for instance. And its effectiveness has diminished a bit over time due to opponents' familiarity and more evolved defensive techniques. Still quite fun to play it against ACBL octogenarians.

I do not know your TWalsh structure, but it struck me that mini notrump is particularly suitable to TWalsh methods, since one of the disadvantages of all weak notrump openings is that transfer methods are so suitable for strong balanced hands.
Playing transfer methods anyway this obstacle could be made to disappear to a large extent.
Of course mini notrump requires accommodation of any bidding structure.

Rainer Herrmann

[hrothgar]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-28, 00:15, said:

There has been an increasing tendency in the past decade for partnerships to open 1NT with 10-12 hcps
regardless of the vulnerability. It has proved to be a highly controversial tactic with the ACBL
banning it in tournaments under their auspices. Debates have raged over the years as to the MNT's
merits and demerits. So it poses the question,is the Mini No Trump all it's cracked up to be?
Is it good or bad,black or white,hero or villain? Over to you, fellow players....

To my knowledge, the ACBL has never placed restrictions on a 10-12 HCP 1NT opening.
Perhaps you have confused this with opening 1NT with a nine count, where there are restrictions on the use of conventional measures?

[nige1]

10-12 1N opener works well in 1st 2 seats, non-vul, when, as Eric Crowhurst pointed out, the side that bids 1N first, usually has an advantage. IMO, if you use it vulnerable, you keep losing unnecessary 200s.

[PhilG007]

Mbodell, on 2015-May-28, 02:05, said:

I hesitate to feed the beast, but "the ACBL banning it in tournaments under their auspices" is an outright fabrication. You can open an 8-10 nt in the ACBL. You can open a 10-12 nt in the ACBL with no restrictions (other than not upgrading 9 counts into it if you play systems after it). I know some who play it always, some who play it always in 1st or 2nd seat. In one of my regular partnerships I play it when white in 1st or 2nd seat and always in 3rd seat.

Yes,you are right,I stand corrected on that. It IS allowed in ACBL events but no responses,not even Stayman, are permitted..

[hrothgar]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-28, 05:35, said:

Yes,you are right,I stand corrected on that. It IS allowed in ACBL events but no responses,not even Stayman, are permitted..

Normally, when people make some kind of completely erroneous statement and get corrected, they have the common sense to actually look at the regulations in question rather than asserting some new type of nonsense.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you appear to be confused about the set of regulations governing 10-12 HCP 1NT openings and regulations governing NT openings that contain nine or fewer HCPs. The restrictions that you keep talking about apply to the latter, not the former.

One questions whether you might do better attending some of the BIL classes rather than perpetrating them on hapless newbies...

[ArtK78]

I have been playing 10-12 1NT openings nonvul in 1st & 2nd seats for well over 20 years in ACBL competition with a full system of conventional responses. There is absolutely no restriction on the use of a 10-12 1NT opening.

Recently, my partner and I changed the range to 10-13 for systemic reasons. We now use a "continuous NT" structure: Nonvul 1st & 2nd seats: 1NT - 10-13; 1 of a suit followed by 1NT -14-17; 2NT - 18-20; 2♣ followed by 2NT - 21-22. Vul or 3rd & 4th seats: 1NT - 14+ - 17; 1 of a suit followed by 1NT - 11-14-; 2NT - 18-20; 2♣ followed by 2NT - 21-22. A 2NT rebid after a major suit response shows 3-6 in partner's major and my opening suit, with approximately 16-18 HCP (a version of The Bridge World "hand of death").

[ArtK78]

Mbodell, on 2015-May-28, 02:05, said:

I hesitate to feed the beast, but "the ACBL banning it in tournaments under their auspices" is an outright fabrication. You can open an 8-10 nt in the ACBL. You can open a 10-12 nt in the ACBL with no restrictions (other than not upgrading 9 counts into it if you play systems after it). I know some who play it always, some who play it always in 1st or 2nd seat. In one of my regular partnerships I play it when white in 1st or 2nd seat and always in 3rd seat.

I have always wondered why anyone would play a 10-12 1NT opening in third seat opposite a passed partner. You seem to be inviting the opponents to double you.

[Mbodell]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-28, 08:51, said:

I have always wondered why anyone would play a 10-12 1NT opening in third seat opposite a passed partner. You seem to be inviting the opponents to double you.

Yes, and there is risk there. But defending 1NT is hard, we have good run outs, and opponents might have game or slam. It is high variance, but in practice also has high expectation. And actually it is around 10+-13 (and occasionally 14) in reality.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2015-May-28, 06:12, said:

Normally, when people make some kind of completely erroneous statement and get corrected, they have the common sense to actually look at the regulations in question rather than asserting some new type of nonsense.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you appear to be confused about the set of regulations governing 10-12 HCP 1NT openings and regulations governing NT openings that contain nine or fewer HCPs. The restrictions that you keep talking about apply to the latter, not the former.

Maybe he's thinking of the fact that ACBL doesn't allow you to upgrade 9 counts when you're playing 10-12 1NT. So if you claim you're playing 10-12, but might ever upgrade 9's, they assert that you're actually playing 9-12, and are thus prohibited from using artificial responses.

That's the only benefit of the doubt I'm able to give him regarding his misunderstanding.

[steve2005]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-28, 10:51, said: I have always wondered why anyone would play a 10-12 1NT opening in third seat opposite a passed partner. You seem to be inviting the opponents to double you.

Mbodell, on 2015-May-28, 10:17, said:

Yes, and there is risk there. But defending 1NT is hard, we have good run outs, and opponents might have game or slam. It is high variance, but in practice also has high expectation. And actually it is around 10+-13 (and occasionally 14) in reality.

At MP I would play 10-12 in 3rd seat NV and trust that your well thought out methods will do better than opponents methods who are often making it up on the fly. Yes you may get bad boards but that's MP. IMPs not worth the risk.

[ArtK78]

Mbodell, on 2015-May-28, 10:17, said:

Yes, and there is risk there. But defending 1NT is hard, we have good run outs, and opponents might have game or slam. It is high variance, but in practice also has high expectation. And actually it is around 10+-13 (and occasionally 14) in reality.

Not meaning to be accusatory or anything like that, but is your convention card marked 10-12 or is it marked 10-14 for your 3rd seat 1NT opening?

[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2015-May-28, 08:51, said:

I have always wondered why anyone would play a 10-12 1NT opening in third seat opposite a passed partner. You seem to be inviting the opponents to double you.

I've tried 10-12 1N, in all positions at green (We vul, they not). It's not particularly dangerous because 1N is notoriously hard to defend. 1NX-3 might even be a reasonable save against 3N= the other way. Also, you get lots of exciting opportunities to practice your escape methods

[Free]

Is it good? Yes, even with it's occasional big loss. The problem is, like it is for every method, you might encounter issues when you're NOT opening 1NT. In a natural system for example, you get an extra NT range or wider ranges on your NT ladder which have to be handled as well (with and without intervention!). I always played it in a strong ♣ context which is much easier (10-12 and 13-15, you can swap them if you're afraid when Vul or when you're in 4th or 3rd seat).

I've played 10-12 in 1st, 2nd and 3rd seat in the past, independent of vulnerability. On occasion we got hammered for -800, but it happened almost the same amount of times that we went off 3 while opps had 12-12/12-13/13-13 and kept quiet. So on the big scores we lost light in the long run. However, many part score battles were won. And there was occasionally a missed 4-4 Major fit, which happens with any NT opening. But since you play against the field you get some swings as well.

[mycroft]

I play 10-12, frequently at all vul (but in an odd framework), sometimes first three seats NV in a Precision framework.

I like it; but part of the reason to do it is going the way of the dodo. It used to be that most of these hands weren't being opened at all; and getting the first stroke in was a serious advantage. Now everybody opens flat 12s, and most open many flat 11s; those playing Precision are opening all 11s and good flat 10s. So when we have a good NT opening, they're opening, probably with something more useful than a preempt (and face it, 10-12 NT is a preempt); when we have a bad NT opening, that's when we're likely headed for a poor score. Frankly, the "fear of upgrading" and the ban on agreeing sub-double-digit NT openings in the ACBL seem to be getting long in the tooth, given that everyone else is opening these hands now.

The other issue with a 10-12 NT is that in a standard structure (and, frankly, in a Precision structure), it really stretches your NT ladder, and you always end up with at least one "too big" range (or you distort both minor openings to get the ranges back). I'd rather play 11-13 and 1♦ grunt to include 14-16 BAL, these days.

It's very effective; but also very swingy. People tend not to be able to stay fixed against it, and that is usually good for the NTers.

[PhilG007]

hrothgar, on 2015-May-28, 06:12, said:

Normally, when people make some kind of completely erroneous statement and get corrected, they have the common sense to actually look at the regulations in question rather than asserting some new type of nonsense.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you appear to be confused about the set of regulations governing 10-12 HCP 1NT openings and regulations governing NT openings that contain nine or fewer HCPs. The restrictions that you keep talking about apply to the latter, not the former.

One questions whether you might do better attending some of the BIL classes rather than perpetrating them on hapless newbies...

At least I was big enough to admit I was in error. Do I get Brownie points for that(?!) And FYI I do attend BIL classes...as a mentor(!)

[Cthulhu D]

I played a 11-13 NT in a T-walsh context when NV. We decided to scrap it because of the complexities when you don't open 1NT are not outweighed by the advantages of the NT opening. Contested auctions are just to hard in particular - you need different competitive understandings, and the competitive agreements seem tough.

We have since reverted to 14-16 1st through 3rd and 15-17 in 4th.

[hrothgar]

PhilG007, on 2015-May-29, 01:15, said:

And FYI I do attend BIL classes...as a mentor(!)

I am aware of that. I was suggesting that you would better serve yourself and your victims if you attended as a student.