[Pig Trader]

On another forum on the subject of natural Weak 2 openings ...

Quote

"According to the Orange book, where, for example an agreement is that the range is 6-12, this should be announced as 'weak to intermediate'. Whether 6-11 should be so described - I don't know."

Neither do I. I consider 11 HCP to be Intermediate in this context but have no basis for doing so as I can't find any definition in the OB for where Weak finishes and Intermediate starts. Any advice on what folks playing 6-11 should announce in EBU-land?

TIA
Barrie

[aguahombre]

IMO, no matter what the jurisdiction, bids should be described in terms of range and/or shape...not labelled; and that should be the rule.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-16, 13:35, said:

IMO, no matter what the jurisdiction, bids should be described in terms of range and/or shape...not labelled; and that should be the rule.

Normally an announcement is more succinct than that though. Announcements are, in fact, usually one word.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-16, 13:36, said:

Normally an announcement is more succinct than that though. Announcements are, in fact, usually one word.

Am not familiar with jurisdictions where natural opening bids are announced rather than alerted. But if EBU is one of those, my statement stands as to my opinion of what "should" happen.....I have no idea what does happen over there.

[gordontd]

Since for many EBU players 10hcp is too strong for a weak two, I think 6-11 should probably be announced as weak-to-intermediate. After all, for most players an 11 count and a six-card suit is a one-opener. In any case, making the wider announcement seems less likely to cause problems or mislead.

[Pig Trader]

Thanks, Gordon. That sounds very sensible advice. Cheers,

Barrie

[jillybean]

(ACBL land) When I open a 2x and the opponents ask, is that weak? My partner always responds with 'it is preemptive , 5-10' rather than simply responding with 'yes, it's weak'.
At times an opponent will continue with 'so it's weak?' and again, my partner will repeat "it is preemptive, 5-10, you may consider it weak but I don't define it that way"

I usually respond to the question with a yes, but I would be better describing the bid.

[Cyberyeti]

Opening odd weak 2s that can be 4 card suits and having taken instruction on these boards on what needs announcing for those, in this case I'd announce it as "Weak but up to 11 points" or "Weak 6 to 11".

[WellSpyder]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-16, 13:36, said:

Normally an announcement is more succinct than that though. Announcements are, in fact, usually one word.

I've used the one word "weakish" when playing this sort of weak 2 (specifically 7-11), which I think has got the message across reasonably well, but perhaps I will try to use Gordon's suggestion of weak-to-intermediate when playing against people who I think may be less familiar with the idea of constructive 2s.

[mycroft]

I would think that "constructive weak" might fit well. I wonder about "weak-to-intermediate" when what I mean is "Schenken weak 2s" - some 11s (12s) aren't the same as other 11s (12s), though. It might give the wrong impression - but if "W-I" is becoming the standard explanation for "1960s weak 2s", now, then there won't be any confusion.

Jillybean - when asked, you are required to give full disclosure, no matter what the question was (ACBL Alert Procedure). Yes, I know nobody does that. So what your partner is doing is correct (even if infuriating to some opponents). When I'm asked, I also discuss my partnership style (because it can be *very different* - I've said on more than one occasion "I've had hands I'd go to game with <partnerA>, but pass 2M with <partnerB> and hope she makes it." - but "5-10" is correct for HCP with both). "Weak 2, highly undisciplined" "Standard weak, but could be a good 5-card suit, a bad 7-card suit, or any 6".

I will admit to some guilty pleasure when they ask when I open 2♦, as explained in the other thread.

[aguahombre]

I grew up within a Bridge environment where "intermediate" meant somewhere between a minimum opening bid and a jump shift. That means nothing to the context of this thread, other than a further example of why I dislike labels being used in disclosure.

Also, I don't have nearly the aversion to "Is it weak?" because when they ask I don't assume they are conveying UI (over here, anyway). 2♦, in particular, is so commonly something other than a weak two, that I admit taking an extra second to make sure there isn't going to be an alert. I suspect others just jump in and ask because of that. No big deal.

[bluejak]

Of course Announcements do not provide Full Disclosure. But they have proved an effective and popular solution to the natural 2-bid problem, so complaining because they are not Full Disclosure seems pointless. Players know to ask or consult the SC if they want Full Disclosure.