Full disclosure

[Cyberyeti]

I'm sorry, this does not make sense to me.

To exaggerate to make a point.

 

If I say I'm playing a strong club, and in fact I open 1♣ only on hands with 28 or more points so you dial 1100 after interfering, you might have a case. The explanation while true is an incomplete explanation of an extremely unusual agreement and misleading as it is very likely to be interpreted as something else without a second thought.

 

I actually have a situation like this with one of my partners. Our 2 suited bids are "Bad or good, but our view of good may be lighter than yours" the gap being about 9-13 if 5-5. We had a ruling which went all the way to the national authority where one of us bid on over a hesitation in a situation where it was mandatory by system to do so (a 6-5 12 count with tenaces over the opening bid), and really struggled to persuade anybody that this was actually what we played with just bad or good on the card.

[mycroft]

An incomplete explanation, if the incomplete part of it is the important part, is misleading whether what was said was 100% true and accurate. Also, while interesting, proving that a call wasn't a LA in one's system is a different beast from an MI case (although with similar issues of evidence).

 

I think if Cyberyeti said "true and accurate and *complete*", then it's a more interesting question. I wonder what the answer to that would be. Having said that, I'm not sure whether the OP case is "complete, but potentially misleading" or "incomplete, and potentially misleading"; the good news is that I'm pretty certain it wasn't "deliberately misleading".

 

On that note, for me, "weak TOX" means "shape for a TOX, but weaker than you'd expect"; so I would have got the right read of the explanation - but I can see (although wouldn't have at the time) the alternative "general TO strength, but we shade a point or two on both ends".

[Cyberyeti]

An incomplete explanation, if the incomplete part of it is the important part, is misleading whether what was said was 100% true and accurate. Also, while interesting, proving that a call wasn't a LA in one's system is a different beast from an MI case (although with similar issues of evidence).

 

I think if Cyberyeti said "true and accurate and *complete*", then it's a more interesting question. I wonder what the answer to that would be. Having said that, I'm not sure whether the OP case is "complete, but potentially misleading" or "incomplete, and potentially misleading"; the good news is that I'm pretty certain it wasn't "deliberately misleading".

 

On that note, for me, "weak TOX" means "shape for a TOX, but weaker than you'd expect"; so I would have got the right read of the explanation - but I can see (although wouldn't have at the time) the alternative "general TO strength, but we shade a point or two on both ends".

I agree the UI is slightly different, but it has changed the way we explain the bid and would also cover the MI situation if somebody claimed damage because we treated a 14 count as a good hand and they then didn't bid game/slam.

 

I don't think they were deliberately misleading, but the problem is that the much more common occasions that you hear the "weak ToX" explanation (Hackett or the artificial 1x-1N overcall) it means 11-14 or similar.

[blackshoe]

An incomplete explanation, if the incomplete part of it is the important part, is misleading whether what was said was 100% true and accurate. Also, while interesting, proving that a call wasn't a LA in one's system is a different beast from an MI case (although with similar issues of evidence).

"It isn't true, but it's accurate". — Sally Field, in "Absence of Malice".

[bluejak]

I don't think they were deliberately misleading, but the problem is that the much more common occasions that you hear the "weak ToX" explanation (Hackett or the artificial 1x-1N overcall) it means 11-14 or similar.

I play "the artificial 1x-1N overcall". 3-11 is the range, not a pusillanimous 11-14.

[Cyberyeti]

I play "the artificial 1x-1N overcall". 3-11 is the range, not a pusillanimous 11-14.

And what do you explain it as ?

[bluejak]

"A weak distributional takeout showing two or three of the unbid suits".

 

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

[Finch]

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).

[Cyberyeti]

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).

National pairs final IIRC.

 

You are entirely right, and damn, that probably cost us some places and a load of greens/cash.

[Vampyr]

National pairs final IIRC.

 

Is this not Level 5?

[Cyberyeti]

Is this not Level 5?

Dunno, but no specific suit promised anyway.

[Trinidad]

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]

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? B-)

[bluejak]

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.

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sq432h9542dq652cq&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c]133|200[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sqj632hjt954dt98c&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c]133|200[/hv]

 

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.

 

[hv=pc=n&e=skjt9hqjt9dkj987c&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c]133|200[/hv]

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sq43hqj43dkj643ckd=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c]133|200[/hv]

 

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

[barmar]

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]

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]

[hv=pc=n&e=sq43hqj43dkj643ckd=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c]133|200[/hv]

 

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]

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:

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

[Finch]

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).

 

 

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]

Another example of "weak" including opening hands. ;)

I cannot help your judgement.

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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]

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.