[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2014-January-16, 07:45, said:

Depends where you are, "Acol with a multi" and strong 2s in the majors with a multi to cover major weak 2s and some strong options is quite common round here.

It's fascinating how much regional variation there is in the UK, especially given how small it is geographically. Accents are similar. You could fit one, a few, or many Englands into regions in the US where they all have the same accent, yet England has more variation than that entire country. And if you extend to the UK, well...!

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-16, 08:13, said:

It's fascinating how much regional variation there is in the UK, especially given how small it is geographically. Accents are similar. You could fit one, a few, or many Englands into regions in the US where they all have the same accent, yet England has more variation than that entire country. And if you extend to the UK, well...!

You are now entering Norfolk, please set your bridge clocks back 20 years.

[Zelandakh]

You are now entering England; please set your bridge clocks back 20 years.
You are now entering Norfolk; please set your bridge clocks back an additional 20 years.
You are now entering London; please expect your bridge clocks to waver uncontrollably between these 3 time zones.

[barmar]

The way I see it, system names are useful as a shortcut when establishing partnership agreements. If you sit down with a new partner, and agree "2/1" or "Acol", that should provide you with a default set of conventions that you can assume, absent specific discussion. But then you can tack on additional changes, like Multi, Flannery, various different checkback schemes, etc. And if there are regional variations, and the partners are not from the same area, they should make sure they confirm that their basic understandings of the system constituents are consistent. I can recall discussions when sitting down with a 2/1 partner, where the first thing we confirmed was "Hardy or Lawrence?"; I think the two schools have since converged, so this question doesn't seem to come up these days (there's a checkbox on the ACBL CC for "GF except when suit rebid", so it's easy to dispatch that issue when filling out the CC).

But if an opponent is looking at your convention card, and they see "2/1" on the General Approach line, they can't assume all the default agreements -- they still have to scan the rest of the card to find the significant exceptions.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2014-January-16, 10:33, said:

But if an opponent is looking at your convention card, and they see "2/1" on the General Approach line, they can't assume all the default agreements -- they still have to scan the rest of the card to find the significant exceptions.

I don't think Vamp wanted to enter the realm of disclosure on this thread. But, I would never assume there were any default agreements other than 2/1 g.f. means when we respond 2/1 in a suit lower than Opener's suit it is forcing to game unless some exception is spelled out. NMF doesn't even related to 2/1 auctions. A forcing NT, though integral to our style, is not considered necessary by everyone. J2N is not required to make 2/1 bidding work. The structure after a NT opening, whether weak or strong, is not relevant to 2/1 auctions.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2014-January-16, 10:51, said:

I don't think Vamp wanted to enter the realm of disclosure on this thread. But, I would never assume there were any default agreements other than 2/1 g.f. means when we respond 2/1 in a suit lower than Opener's suit it is forcing to game unless some exception is spelled out.

IMO, that's what the "2/1 Game Forcing" checkbox is for. The "General Approach" line is supposed to be more encompassing than just describing this one convention. Putting "2/1" there is analogous to putting "Standard American", "Precision", or "Acol" there. In all cases, it's the name of a system that includes a number of conventions by default.

It's unfortunate that this system happens to be named the same as one of its conventions, that leads to this confusion. But I don't find it that difficult to distinguish them by context. In ACBL territory, 2/1 versus Standard American essentially means "2/1 is game forcing plus a suite of popular advanced convention" versus "traditional 5-card majors with relatively few conventions"; and in both cases, you can then discuss additions and exceptions (e.g. 2/1 includes forcing 1NT by default -- you have to have a specific discussion to change this). I've never run into a situation with a pick-up partner where this general understanding was not there. At worst, I think people may not necessarily be on the same wavelength over whether RKCB is the default in 2/1, or whether 4th suit is forcing to game or just one round.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-January-16, 12:52, said:

IMO, that's what the "2/1 Game Forcing" checkbox is for. The "General Approach" line is supposed to be more encompassing than just describing this one convention. Putting "2/1" there is analogous to putting "Standard American", "Precision", or "Acol" there. In all cases, it's the name of a system that includes a number of conventions by default.

Well, Acol includes a strong artificial 2♣ opening and Stayman by default. I don't think there is anything else. Maybe Blackwood. Negative doubles possibly. Up to 2♠.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-16, 08:35, said:

You are now entering England; please set your bridge clocks back 20 years.

Will we have caught up once we all start playing 2/1 GF?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-16, 13:24, said:

Well, Acol includes a strong artificial 2♣ opening and Stayman by default. I don't think there is anything else. Maybe Blackwood. Negative doubles possibly. Up to 2♠.

Weak NT, right? What about Acol 2-bids (if it doesn't include them these days, it presumably did at one time).

The point is that a "system" is a name for a collection of agreements; it might be a large collection, or it could be relatively small. When you agree to play that system, that's your default starting point, then you salt and pepper to taste.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-January-16, 15:54, said:

Weak NT, right? What about Acol 2-bids (if it doesn't include them these days, it presumably did at one time).

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.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-16, 18:22, said:

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

[paulg]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-16, 18:22, said:

... 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?

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-16, 13:24, said:

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.

[gnasher]

fromageGB, on 2014-January-16, 05:24, said:

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.

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-16, 13:24, said:

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 minor
Of 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.

[MickyB]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-16, 13:24, said:

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?

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-16, 18:22, said:

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.

[Vampyr]

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.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-17, 09:46, said:

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.

[aguahombre]

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.