Cyberyeti Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 :unsure: Well, your previous post said conventions, so I was responding to that. Weak NT is assumed,, but Acol 2's have pretty much gone the way of the dinosaurs. "Observe the herd of brontosaurus moving majestically across the Norfolk countryside". Now they're saying we're 100 million years out of date :) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 ... but Acol 2's have pretty much gone the way of the dinosaurs.Although seen at last weekend's Camrose Trophy, so not totally extinct. And will be seen in Manchester in March, how will the locals cope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Will we have caught up once we all start playing 2/1 GF?Maybe - when was it invented? Maybe it will take until everyone starts playing 22nd century club or SEA2050. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 As played here, it seems that the opener suit rebids at the 2-level are 12-14, and higher bids are 15/16. Natural apart from 2♦ (delayed support = 3 cards) and strength showing : just as you said. 2♦ means 12-14 without the ability to bid a major. However, according to Bridgeguys, Crowhurst has 2♦ as max 13, and may have 3 card major support. Also, 2♥ new suit could be 16. Which is the real Crowhurst, I don't know. Maybe Bridgeguys has it wrong. Was Crowhurst the one who popularised the silly concept of a 12-16 1NT rebid? Maybe he liked going off in 2NT on a combined 21 count misfit. The real Crowhurst is the one in Eric Crowhurst's books. That is:- 2NT or higher shows 15-16- Two of a major is natural with 12-14- 2♦ is 12-a14 without anything to show in a major And yes, it was Crowhurst who popularised the 12-16 1NT rebid. The reasons were to avoid opening 1NT with a 5-card major, a weak doubleton, or a 5422 shape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Will we have caught up once we all start playing 2/1 GF?Better than nothing, but it's only playing catchup. By the time we get there, the world will have moved on. What we need to do is to get the EBU to change its regulations and teach in the schools something like: Pass = 0-5 or 16+ with a relay structure For the 6-15 hands : 1♣ = balanced 1♦/♥ = 5 card major (we don't mind borrowing this idea from the French, most of the best things in life are French) 1♠ = a minorOf course second seat is playing the same methods, so the relays need to take into account the likely weak second seat bids, and when it starts pass pass the 4th seat relays need to be adapted to those made by third seat. When beginners come to the clubs playing like this, then perhaps we will have caught up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Will we have caught up once we all start playing 2/1 GF? Depends, what will "we" be responding with 4-4 in the blacks and a GF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Well, your previous post said conventions, so I was responding to that. Weak NT is assumed,, but Acol 2's have pretty much gone the way of the dinosaurs.Weak NT and Strong NT are both conventions, just as 5-card Majors and 4-card Majors are; conventions are not necessarily artificial bids. I could have been clearer if I'd said "agreements", I admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I would describe different variants of natural bids as treatments. Whatever "convention" means in real English, in bridge it is not used to describe things such as natural 1-level opening bids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 I would describe different variants of natural bids as treatments. Whatever "convention" means in real English, in bridge it is not used to describe things such as natural 1-level opening bids.There's a fuzzy line between treatments and conventions. I think if it's significant enough to give a name to, it's appropriate to call it a convention. E.g. Strong NT and Weak NT are conventions. Whether "strong" is 15-17 or 16-18 would be a treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Barry is in ACBL realm where: "Part II Conventions" of the Alert Procedures states: "A convention is defined as any call which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named." I don't think redefining conventions to include opening NT range or the number of cards promised in a natural 1-bid is particularly useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Isn't that the definition of "artificial bid"? The Bridge World's definition of "convention" is: "an understanding between partners that would not ordinarily be understood by the opponents in the absence of an explanation." I think the reason for ACBL's definition is that previous versions of the Laws said that regulating authorities were only permitted to regulate use of conventions, but not natural bids. So they defined "convention" in the Alert Procedures and Convention Chart to be what they were permitted to regulate. The Laws have since been revised to use the phrase "special partnership understanding", but ACBL still has the old wording in their regulations. But that doesn't make their use the common use of the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMan Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 1NT showing points and a balanced shape is not artificial by any measure I can think of, unless you consider that the concept of "notrump" is itself artifice. That way lies madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 1NT showing points and a balanced shape is not artificial by any measure I can think of, unless you consider that the concept of "notrump" is itself artifice. That way lies madness.When did I say that it was artificial? What I said is that ACBL's definition of "convention" is actually the definition of "artificial bid". Not all conventions are artificial bids, and ACBL is wrong in conflating the two concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenMan Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 When did I say that it was artificial? What I said is that ACBL's definition of "convention" is actually the definition of "artificial bid". Not all conventions are artificial bids, and ACBL is wrong in conflating the two concepts. Sorry, I misread you. But now that I'm caught up, I disagree: The words "not necessarily" allow for, e.g., bids that show the suit named but also something else about the hand, such as a DONT overcall showing the suit named and another one. I'd think an artificial bid is one that either denies length or strength in the named suit (or balanced strength in the case of NT), such as a splinter or Western Q, or says nothing about it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 About 20 years ago there was a discussion on BLML about the definition of a convention. After months of debate and the contributions of quite a few good ideas, a perfect definition was never found. But defining every bid as a convention is not a solution. At the very least, bids which are natural and non-forcing and don't carry a message about some other suit (a NT bid may carry a message about an unbid suit) are not conventional. Also passes which show weakness or nothing more to say, and penalty doubles and redoubles, are not conventional. Beyond these basic categories, YMMV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fromageGB Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I think a convention is a rose. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 18, 2014 Report Share Posted January 18, 2014 I think a convention is a rose. B-)It was, until this thread arose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 About 20 years ago there was a discussion on BLML about the definition of a convention. After months of debate and the contributions of quite a few good ideas, a perfect definition was never found.This is probably one of the reasons they removed the word from the 2007 Laws. "partnership agreement" and "partnership understanding". The strength of 1NT opening is something members of a partnership are expected to agree on; whether you call it a "convention" is immaterial. There seems to be something distinctive about some agreements, or classes of agreements, that warrants giving names to them. What other word do we have to refer to these other than "convention"? Blackwood is a convention, which encompasses a series of artificial bids. And I would maintain that "Strong NT", 'Weak NT", and "Mini NT" are conventions, referring to a set of NT opening ranges, and by implication the ranges of other bids, and the likely shapes implied by other bidding sequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 And I would maintain that "Strong NT", 'Weak NT", and "Mini NT" are conventions, referring to a set of NT opening ranges, and by implication the ranges of other bids, and the likely shapes implied by other bidding sequences. Every bid indicates range and a shape different from all other bids. If it pleases you to call them all conventions, by all means do so. But don't be surprised if misunderstandings arise due to other people's use of the more popular meaning of the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cthulhu D Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 I think Australia has more system variation, and 'standard Australian' is much more ill defined. Unlike Vampyr even when I play pretty good players, I regularly have all the following systems described to me as 'standard' and all of the systems people play with 5 card majors haven even more hilariously been described as 'standard american' 5 card majors, strong NT, 3 weak twos. 5 card majors, strong NT, 2D = Multi, 2H & 2S = M+m 2NT = C + D (repeatedly referred to as 'standard american' and 'SAYC' despite the fact that I think a big chunk of that is banned in many US tournaments) 5 card majors, weak NT, various random 2 level openings 4 card majors, weak no trumps with benjaminized twos or an artificial 2C and 3 weak twos or with a multi or with other random stuff People shouldn't call things names that range from unhelpful to blatantly misleading, so I try and avoid using any system names when saying what I play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 The dictionary definition of "convention" is "agreement as to meaning". Since the language of bridge is a constructed language, rather than a natural one, all calls are technically conventions. Unfortunately, that's not very helpful in distinguishing between certain groups of calls. So we tried a "bridge" definition of "convention" - which, again unfortunately, boils down to "I can't really define it, but I know one when I see one". Also not helpful, so now we're trying something else. Maybe someday we'll come up with a satisfactory solution, maybe not. Personally, I'm not holding my breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted January 21, 2014 Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 Every bid indicates range and a shape different from all other bids. If it pleases you to call them all conventions, by all means do so. But don't be surprised if misunderstandings arise due to other people's use of the more popular meaning of the word.OK, then what do you call agreements about natural bids that are worthy of being named? 5-card Majors, Weak NT, Inverted Minors, for instance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted January 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2014 OK, then what do you call agreements about natural bids that are worthy of being named? 5-card Majors, Weak NT, Inverted Minors, for instance? See post 58. Although "agreements" or "methods" would work too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.