[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2016-January-10, 19:45, said:

That's how the phrase is practically always misused in my experience.


In England, a Lucas or Muiderberg two would be alerted and not described as a weak two, but described as a two-suiter with a stated point range.

True, nut I guess that's not what barmar means.

I think he means that the phrase "a weak two" is also used to describe a hand type rather than a bid. A bid that by agreement shows a 6 card suit and about 6-10 HCPs is described as "a weak two", even if it isn't a weak two.

Examples:

1♠-(2NT)-3♥: "Non forcing, something that looks like a weak two in hearts"
1NT-Pass-4♦ (Texas): "Transfer to hearts, 6+ hearts, typically something that looks like a good weak two in hearts"

I guess that Blackshoe is fine with the idea of the opponents explaining: 2♥-Dbl: "An opening without an alternative bid" and then show up with ♠x♥xx♦xx♣KJxxxxxx (fine according to partnership agreement). After all, in his view "a four level opening is also an opening".

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2016-January-11, 04:48, said:

I think he means that the phrase "a weak two" is also used to describe a hand type rather than a bid. A bid that by agreement shows a 6 card suit and about 6-10 HCPs is described as "a weak two", even if it isn't a weak two.

Exactly. For instance, the explanation for Multi-2♦ is often "a weak 2 in one of the majors".

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-January-10, 19:45, said:

That's how the phrase is practically always misused in my experience.

If a word/phrase is "misused" in the same way enough, and everyone understands that misuse, that's what it actually means. That's how language works.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2016-January-11, 04:48, said:

I guess that Blackshoe is fine with the idea of the opponents explaining: 2♥-Dbl: "An opening without an alternative bid" and then show up with ♠x♥xx♦xx♣KJxxxxxx (fine according to partnership agreement). After all, in his view "a four level opening is also an opening".

Hm. I don't recall saying that, though I agree with it. But that has nothing to do with the explanation with which you suggest — incorrectly — that I would be fine. "Opening bid" is not a valid part of an explanation. It's too vague and too subject to misinterpretation. I would describe that double as "probably short in hearts with support for the other three suits and at least about 12 points, but he might be a little off-shape, say a doubleton heart or only 3 card support of one of the suits, or possibly a hand too strong for a simple overcall". If the call is more wide-ranging than that, I'd explain what the limits are.

[helene_t]

campboy, on 2016-January-11, 03:15, said:

If someone explains an opening bid as showing an opening hand, they presumably don't merely and unhelpfully mean a hand which would open the bidding in their own methods. They must be saying something about how the hand would be treated in standard methods. And clearly that is not an opening hand (at any level) in standard methods. Nothing about the one level required here.

I would take "opening strength" as meaning "the strength required for opening at the 1-level in standard methods" and I would think that should be non-controversial.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2016-January-12, 05:43, said:

I would take "opening strength" as meaning "the strength required for opening at the 1-level in standard methods" and I would think that should be non-controversial.

Too many undefined terms.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-12, 14:31, said:

Too many undefined terms.

Yet somehow most people manage to understand it just fine.

BTW, no dictionary actually provides satisfactory definitions of words, unless the user already knows the language. Because they just define each word in terms of other words, which you might not know, either. If you keep following the definitions, in many cases I think you'll find yourself back at the word you started with.

[blackshoe]

<sigh> We're talking about a game here.

[Zelandakh]

helene_t, on 2016-January-12, 05:43, said:

I would take "opening strength" as meaning "the strength required for opening at the 1-level in standard methods" and I would think that should be non-controversial.

It certainly should not given that this is an ACBL thread and the phrase is used in the Conventional Wisdom series (Part 14 - Opening Preempts).