[Cyberyeti]

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-16, 15:38, said:

Is this not Level 5?

Dunno, but no specific suit promised anyway.

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-08, 17:22, said:

No-one has ever understood weak to be as strong as an opening bid.

Most people would understand a weak NT to be as strong as an opening bid.

"Weak", "Strong", "Intermediate" all depend on the context. Why not just explain: "ditributional takeout, about x to y HCPs"?

Rik

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-17, 07:00, said:

Most people would understand a weak NT to be as strong as an opening bid.

"Weak", "Strong", "Intermediate" all depend on the context. Why not just explain: "ditributional takeout, about x to y HCPs"?

Rik

Because then people on forums like this one would have nothing to talk about?

[bluejak]

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-17, 07:00, said:

Most people would understand a weak NT to be as strong as an opening bid.

"Weak", "Strong", "Intermediate" all depend on the context. Why not just explain: "ditributional takeout, about x to y HCPs"?

Because such calls do not depend on point count. My aim is always to make players understand our methods, not to confuse them.

As you say, weak depends on context: a weak takeout is understood by people, point count makes them believe that we decide by point count.

---

---

I would bid 1NT over 1♣ with the second one, but not the first. If I describe it as takeout, 5 to 11, they will expect me to bid 1NT with the first and not the second.

---

---

Similarly I would double 1♣ with the first but would bid 1NT with the second. So point-count might confuse.

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-17, 07:00, said:

Most people would understand a weak NT to be as strong as an opening bid.

"Weak", "Strong", "Intermediate" all depend on the context. Why not just explain: "ditributional takeout, about x to y HCPs"?

Rik

Perhaps because you assume it will be understood in context, just as other uses of the term are. How do you think phrases like "weak NT" and "weak 2" became commonly understood, other than people using them? So if there's any hope of "weak takeout" becoming similarly understood, you've got to say it. Although if you realize it's not well known yet, you should probably say both: "weak takeout, usually x to y points". if enough people do it similarly, stating the point range will eventually become redundant.

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-17, 08:05, said:

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-17, 07:00, said:

Why not just explain: "ditributional takeout, about x to y HCPs"?

Rik

Because such calls do not depend on point count.

And you think the opponents don't know that?
You think it is asking too much from them to understand that overcalls don't depend solely, or even primarily, on point count. Yet, you think that they should understand that "weak" in this context means 6-10 HCP, where it might have been easily understood as 12-14?

And, to help you, I have highlighted the word "about" in the quote of my post.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-17, 08:05, said:

---

Similarly I would double 1♣ with the first but would bid 1NT with the second. So point-count might confuse.

Another example of "weak" including opening hands.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2012-May-17, 10:45, said:

Perhaps because you assume it will be understood in context, just as other uses of the term are. How do you think phrases like "weak NT" and "weak 2" became commonly understood, other than people using them? So if there's any hope of "weak takeout" becoming similarly understood, you've got to say it. Although if you realize it's not well known yet, you should probably say both: "weak takeout, usually x to y points". if enough people do it similarly, stating the point range will eventually become redundant.

Exactly. The explainer should say the range (and adding "weak" can only help).

But the key is in your last sentence: if enough people do it similarly, stating the point range will eventually become redundant. It appears that this is exactly what happened in this case.
From the original post:

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-April-17, 05:35, said:

S [] has sort of come across this before where you do one thing with an 11-14/15 ToX and something else with a 15/16+.

South has heard the phrase "weak takeout" a few times before and it always meant an 11-14/15 hand. Therefore, adding the point range eventually became redundant... as long as the point range was 11-14/15.

Rik

[FrancesHinden]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-16, 14:27, said:

What event was this in?As far as I can work out this 2C overcall isn't currently permitted in any EBU event (if it promises 4+ cards in a particular suit e.g. promises both majors it's allowed at level 5 but that's it).

 Vampyr, on 2012-May-16, 15:38, said:

Is this not Level 5?

No. But that is irrelevant.

to repeat,
this 2C overcall isn't currently permitted in any EBU event (if it promises 4+ cards in a particular suit e.g. promises both majors it's allowed at level 5 but that's it)

[bluejak]

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-17, 11:35, said:

Another example of "weak" including opening hands.

I cannot help your judgement.

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-17, 11:33, said:

And you think the opponents don't know that?

Yes, I think opponents don't know that.

My experience of a lot of opponents is that if you state a range they assume it is cheating/pulling a fast one/trying to gain an unfair advantage/stupid/evidence you cannot count if you are outside stated point count, and pretty much the same if you don't bid on a hand within the point count. To a lot of players, there are two sorts of hand: those dependent on point count, and those dependent on judgement.

[Cyberyeti]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-18, 08:25, said:

My experience of a lot of opponents is that if you state a range they assume it is cheating/pulling a fast one/trying to gain an unfair advantage/stupid/evidence you cannot count if you are outside stated point count, and pretty much the same if you don't bid on a hand within the point count. To a lot of players, there are two sorts of hand: those dependent on point count, and those dependent on judgement.

I think opponents take as read that there are edge cases where you upgrade and downgrade point count ranges, if you play a weak no trump, are there not some 11s and 14s you upgrade and 12s and 15s you downgrade ?

Describing it as "Less than an opening hand and not a COMPLETE bust" would do the job.

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-18, 08:25, said:

My experience of a lot of opponents is that if you state a range they assume it is cheating/pulling a fast one/trying to gain an unfair advantage/stupid/evidence you cannot count if you are outside stated point count, and pretty much the same if you don't bid on a hand within the point count.

I wonder if this type of thinking is promoted by bridge lessons? How many times do they teach you to find the location of a key card by counting the points a player has shown, and then said "He can't have X because then he would have opened instead of passing" or "He needs to have that card to justify his opening bid"?

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-18, 08:25, said:

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-17, 11:33, said:

And you think the opponents don't know that?

Yes, I think opponents don't know that.

My experience of a lot of opponents is that if you state a range they assume it is cheating/pulling a fast one/trying to gain an unfair advantage/stupid/evidence you cannot count if you are outside stated point count, and pretty much the same if you don't bid on a hand within the point count. To a lot of players, there are two sorts of hand: those dependent on point count, and those dependent on judgement.

But, as I showed before (which you sh/could have quoted too), you think that those very same opponents do know what "weak" means in this context.

My point was that you should state an approximate range (i.e. also stating that it is approximate) to give the idea of what ballpark we are in. Instead, you just put a sticker "weak" on it, which could be in or outside any ballpark in this context. At best, it is complete non-information, but, as we have seen, it is much worse: It is begging to be misunderstood. Against an opponent who has the experience that it means 11-14/15 (such as the OP) it is completely misleading if you intend it to mean about 6-10.

Rik

[bluejak]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-May-18, 10:37, said:

I think opponents take as read that there are edge cases where you upgrade and downgrade point count ranges, if you play a weak no trump, are there not some 11s and 14s you upgrade and 12s and 15s you downgrade ?

If you are asking me personally, of course, But I do not think that a lot of opponents do assume anything of the sort. That is the problem.

 Trinidad, on 2012-May-18, 11:47, said:

But, as I showed before (which you sh/could have quoted too), you think that those very same opponents do know what "weak" means in this context.

Yes, I do. I think you fail to realise that I base my views on what opponents do and say, and I do not get opponents who misunderstand a weak takeout. It is all very well a forum telling me what opponents think, but I prefer to let opponents tell me what they think.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2012-May-18, 10:48, said:

I wonder if this type of thinking is promoted by bridge lessons? How many times do they teach you to find the location of a key card by counting the points a player has shown, and then said "He can't have X because then he would have opened instead of passing" or "He needs to have that card to justify his opening bid"?

An interestingi real life case happened in the writeup of an appeals case from the recent USBC trials. Meckstroth says he based his defense on declarer having a minimum 12 HCP, and therefore played him to have a missing jack.

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2012-May-19, 13:16, said:

An interestingi real life case happened in the writeup of an appeals case from the recent USBC trials. Meckstroth says he based his defense on declarer having a minimum 12 HCP, and therefore played him to have a missing jack.

In fact, I was also thinking about that. And in that case, he apparently even asked dummy whether declarer opens light balanced hands, and was told that he rarely does (despite having done so twice so far in the session).