Okay so I do admit to be an opening jumper.. I usually play an opening and get tired of it after some months and switch. I know this is not a great idea but I believe it has helped me because now I am more familiar with all sorts of pawn structures and piece play. Also, I can confidentely play 1.Nf3 d6 2.e4 where my opponent has to go into a certain form of the sicilian, phillidor or pirc. I've played all as both sides but the black side of the phillidor.

My current opening is 1.Nf3. If my opponent plays ...Nf6 or ...d5 I get into the Nimzo-Larsen, 2.b3. I do not play the 1.Nf3 variation for traps, I just don't really like black playing e5. I just wanted to ask what is thought about this opening.. do people actually study it from the 0-1999 range, and is it well thought of? The only way black usually confuses me is 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.b3 d6. Maybe I could get away with 3.d4 and play normal chess from there? Seems reasonable to me.

Well, Larsen's 2. b3 is not a route to an opening advantage, but if that is o.k. with you it is a perfectly reasonable move. If you are open to playing 3. d4 though, I question whether you shouldn't be playing 2. d4 (or 1. d4!), since the point of 2. b3 is to secure the long diagonal for the dark squared bishop.

After 1. Nf3 d6 2. b3 e5, I would play 3. c4, and follow up with Nc3, g3, and Bg2 before considering a central advance.

It's more likely to give you an advantage to transpose to something more normal, like 2. d4 Nf6 3. c4.