[paulg]

lamford, on 2017-January-01, 16:24, said:

That is clearly what happened. The wrong question is probably being asked by the TD. The correct question is "Did you and your partner have an agreement to open 2C on this hand?" The answer to that would have been "No". Playing Benjy Acol many people would consider that the "correct" opening on this hand is 2C. If one did not play SAT, but had agreed to play Benjy, I would open 2C and rebid 4S. That is perfectly ok, but it is illegal to have an agreement to open 2C on this hand!

"Did you and your partner have an agreement to open 2C on this hand?" The answer to that would have been "No".

"Would you always open 2C with this hand?" The answer to that would probably be "Yes".

The challenge for the TD is does this constitute a partnership agreement? Or does it have to happen once, twice, or more times before it becomes one?

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2017-January-02, 03:00, said:

"Did you and your partner have an agreement to open 2C on this hand?" The answer to that would have been "No".

"Would you always open 2C with this hand?" The answer to that would probably be "Yes".

The challenge for the TD is does this constitute a partnership agreement? Or does it have to happen once, twice, or more times before it becomes one?

In the OP case there was no agreement and no partnership experience. Others should just define the agreement differently, as noted above.

Naturally in the general case this question is not easy.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-December-31, 11:23, said:

I'm not familiar with Benjy, but isn't it the case that its strong openings are generally expected to be stronger than the that of most strong club systems? E.g. Precision 1♣ shows 16+ HCP. http://skybridgeclub...ontract-bridge/ says that Benjy 2♣ is 20-22 unbalanced (the rule of 25 is how the regulation adds points for distribution), 2♦ is 23+. So these bids are supposed to be at least a king stronger than strong club openings, but the regulation only requires one more HCP or length card -- is that really "terribly unfair"?

Maybe another justification for the higher requirement is that these bids prevent the opponents from competing on the 1 level.

Well, a strong club is unlimited, while a Benji 2♣ is limited. So it is arguable which one is "stronger".

In any case, I know how I will describe the methods in force if anyone ever asks me to play Benji again, and will give advice to those Benji players I know.

[gordontd]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-01, 16:08, said:

Interestingly - had the explanation been

"8 Probable tricks in a suit that isn't clubs or 10+ HCP and 8 clear-cut tricks in clubs"

then it would have been allowed. (7C1biv1)

I must confess that I cannot see how.

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2017-January-03, 01:24, said:

I must confess that I cannot see how.

Strong option includes a strong hand with clubs conforming to ER25 7C1(a)
and the non-strong option is a single-suiter which is not clubs, as in 7C1(b)(iv)

The non-strong option could certainly be an intermediate hand with 6+ suit, and the strong option could include strong hands with suits other than clubs; with no gap between the non-strong single-suiter and the strong single-suiters if the suit is not clubs.

[lamford]

paulg, on 2017-January-02, 03:00, said:

"Did you and your partner have an agreement to open 2C on this hand?" The answer to that would have been "No".

"Would you always open 2C with this hand?" The answer to that would probably be "Yes".

The challenge for the TD is does this constitute a partnership agreement? Or does it have to happen once, twice, or more times before it becomes one?

The right question, it would seem, is to ask "What is your agreement to open with the same hand with the clubs and spades transposed?" If the answer is 2C, then this could be argued to be an illegal agreement, although the second best break is probably Qxxx opposite T or Txxx opposite Q, when there are 8 clear-cut tricks, so it would seem to still be legal. David Burn suggests that the best break is Qx opposite xxx while the second best break is xx opposite Qxx, so he regards this hand as 7 clear-cut tricks under a literal interpretation of the Blue Book.

Importantly, in suits other than the suit opened, there is no requirement whatsoever for 8 clear-cut tricks. Of course there might be MI if one states "8 playing tricks in a suit or strong balanced", although that does not use the phrase clear-cut tricks, and this is certainly 8 "playing tricks" by all methods of evaluation that I have found. My view is that the adjustment was just a mistake, and should be corrected by the EBU as director error.

The other aspect of this case which is unsatisfactory is that a Benjy 2C was opened at quite a few tables and the only player "pigged" was where the opponents had a detailed knowledge of the minutiae of the Blue Book, and one had been involved in agreeing the wording! One other pair jumped on the bandwagon to collect their +3 IMPs.

[gordontd]

RMB1, on 2017-January-03, 03:42, said:

Strong option includes a strong hand with clubs conforming to ER25 7C1(a)
and the non-strong option is a single-suiter which is not clubs, as in 7C1(b)(iv)

Ah, the original just referenced the second of these.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2017-January-03, 04:08, said:

The right question, it would seem, is to ask "What is your agreement to open with the same hand with the clubs and spades transposed?" If the answer is 2C, then this could be argued to be an illegal agreement, although the second best break is probably Qxxx opposite T or Txxx opposite Q, when there are 8 clear-cut tricks, so it would seem to still be legal. [....]

Importantly, in suits other than the suit opened, there is no requirement whatsoever for 8 clear-cut tricks. Of course there might be MI if one states "8 playing tricks in a suit or strong balanced", although that does not use the phrase clear-cut tricks, and this is certainly 8 "playing tricks" by all methods of evaluation that I have found. My view is that the adjustment was just a mistake, and should be corrected by the EBU as director error.

Paul, the players you are trying to defend are trying to use a 2♣ opener to show a hand with eight playing tricks in any suit, they are not trying to make distinctions between hands with one particular suit rather than another, so this is irrelevant. If they made such a distinction between the suits their explanation and convention card would attest to this. Of course, there are clever ways of getting round the regulation by having different rules for clubs than for any other suit, but your players have no interest in adopting this sort of agreement, they just want to play "Benjy".

lamford, on 2017-January-01, 16:24, said:

The correct question is "Did you and your partner have an agreement to open 2C on this hand?" The answer to that would have been "No". Playing Benjy Acol many people would consider that the "correct" opening on this hand is 2C. If one did not play SAT, but had agreed to play Benjy, I would open 2C and rebid 4S. That is perfectly ok, but it is illegal to have an agreement to open 2C on this hand!

I agree that the way TDs question players in this situation is tricky, and I take Nigel's point that devious players could prepare answers that would get them off the hook which would catch honest players, but I would ask both members of the partnership what they would open on this hand. If either or both admitted that they would routinely open it 2♣ (as you admit you would do) I would rule that that is part of their methods and therefore of their (implicit) agreements and award an adjusted score if I considered the opponents had been "damaged" (in this case, if they had scored worse than +3 IMPs on the board).

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2017-January-03, 08:39, said:

Paul, the players you are trying to defend are trying to use a 2♣ opener to show a hand with eight playing tricks in any suit, they are not trying to make distinctions between hands with one particular suit rather than another, so this is irrelevant. If they made such a distinction between the suits their explanation and convention card would attest to this. Of course, there are clever ways of getting round the regulation by having different rules for clubs than for any other suit, but your players have no interest in adopting this sort of agreement, they just want to play "Benjy".


I agree that the way TDs question players in this situation is tricky, and I take Nigel's point that devious players could prepare answers that would get them off the hook which would catch honest players, but I would ask both members of the partnership what they would open on this hand. If either or both admitted that they would routinely open it 2♣ (as you admit you would do) I would rule that that is part of their methods and therefore of their (implicit) agreements and award an adjusted score if I considered the opponents had been "damaged" (in this case, if they had scored worse than +3 IMPs on the board).

One of the players does not "routinely open" anything, as she plays Benjy once in a blue moon. Furthermore, the pair had neither discussed a 2♣ opener or had a 2♣ opener in their partneship experience. I do not know what "your players" are interested in, but i am going to warn Benjy players I know. They can take the advice on board or not. I know several who will.

[Vampyr]

The discussion on the YC facebook page is pretty lively, to say the least.

[WellSpyder]

I don't remember getting much sympathy from forum-ites a few years ago when having exactly the same problem opening a strong 1♣ with a nice-looking 4450 15-count or something. I'm surprised some Benjy players are only just realising now the problems that strong club players had with the regulations for years.

[IanPayn]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-01, 13:04, said:

I am certainly not going to name names and describe behaviours, but the fact that London members, at least, have no control over who their delegates to the EBU are or how they vote for board and committee members is one example that shows that the system is not particularly democratic.

This is simply not true. The London Metropolitan Bridge Association (LMBA) is properly constituted, and has an AGM each year at which committee members are elected. Appointments (Chairman, Secretary, Shareholders etc) are made from within the committee. What more control could you reasonably expect? I suppose you'd have a bit more if you actually turned up to the AGM, which you haven't in my memory (note to those who haven't nodded off yet: I'm Chairman of the LMBA). Come to think of it, you were actually on the committee, weren't you? But you didn't come to any committee meetings, either, because they were held on a day which clashed with something obviously more important to you. I seem to recall that we changed one meeting to a day you could make at some inconvenience to others, but you didn't come to that, either. You arranged a Gold Cup match instead, despite knowing the date of the meeting some months in advance.

So please stop complaining outrageously that London members have no control over everything. If you don't engage, you get no control. If you do, you do.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2017-January-03, 08:39, said:

Paul, the players you are trying to defend are trying to use a 2♣ opener to show a hand with eight playing tricks in any suit, they are not trying to make distinctions between hands with one particular suit rather than another, so this is irrelevant. If they made such a distinction between the suits their explanation and convention card would attest to this. Of course, there are clever ways of getting round the regulation by having different rules for clubs than for any other suit, but your players have no interest in adopting this sort of agreement, they just want to play "Benjy".

As RMB1 and gnasher clarify, all of those players ARE allowed to open 2C to show eight playing tricks in any suit other than the one opened, but in the suit opened, they are only allowed to agree that they are showing eight clear-cut tricks. It is not a clever way of getting round the regulation. It is full and complete compliance with the wording and spirit of the regulation. I shall certainly be advising all my Benjy Acol friends how to word the CC to be fully Blue Book compliant. I think the following is enough, but no doubt RMB1 and gnasher will correct me if I am wrong.

General Methods: Modified Benjy Acol
Two Bids: 2C = artificial single-suiter or [20-22] balanced. If clubs, eight clear-cut tricks and 10 or more HCP as defined by the Blue Book. [If other suits, 7-9 playing tricks and at least 10 HCP.] 2D = any game force.

They can amend the balanced range and the second sentence above as they choose. And they will be able to show their license when the Blue Book police arrive with blue lights flashing.

[wank]

IanPayn, on 2017-January-04, 06:24, said:

This is simply not true. The London Metropolitan Bridge Association (LMBA) is properly constituted, and has an AGM each year at which committee members are elected. Appointments (Chairman, Secretary, Shareholders etc) are made from within the committee. What more control could you reasonably expect? I suppose you'd have a bit more if you actually turned up to the AGM, which you haven't in my memory (note to those who haven't nodded off yet: I'm Chairman of the LMBA). Come to think of it, you were actually on the committee, weren't you? But you didn't come to any committee meetings, either, because they were held on a day which clashed with something obviously more important to you. I seem to recall that we changed one meeting to a day you could make at some inconvenience to others, but you didn't come to that, either. You arranged a Gold Cup match instead, despite knowing the date of the meeting some months in advance.

So please stop complaining outrageously that London members have no control over everything. If you don't engage, you get no control. If you do, you do.

lol

[helene_t]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:44, said:

They can amend the balanced range and the second sentence above as they choose. And they will be able to show their license when the Blue Book police arrive with blue lights flashing.

They want to keep it simple. What exactly 8-9 PT means, what the follow ups are etc is not something they think much about, let alone make agreements about. They don't want to be put in a situation where they need to consult their solicitor when filling out their (non-existing) CC. Distinguishing between clubs and non-clubs is beyond their level of sophistication.

OK, I am stereotyping. But I am sure that this applies to a significant number of Benji-playing pairs.

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2017-January-04, 06:53, said:

They want to keep it simple. What exactly 8-9 PT means, what the follow ups are etc is not something they think much about, let alone make agreements about. They don't want to be put in a situation where they need to consult their solicitor when filling out their (non-existing) CC. Distinguishing between clubs and non-clubs is beyond their level of sophistication.

OK, I am stereotyping. But I am sure that this applies to a significant number of Benji-playing pairs.

They are only distinguishing between clubs and non-clubs because the Blue Book forces them to do so; otherwise it is true they would not bother. At least they will avoid losing those 3 IMPs around three-quarters of the time.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 06:44, said:

It is not a clever way of getting round the regulation. It is full and complete compliance with the wording and spirit of the regulation.

I wasn't trying to suggest it was in any way unfair or underhand, just that it is something that the majority of Benjy players will not think of for themselves, or want to take up if someone thinks of it for them.

My experience of Benjy players is similar to Helene's.

[gordontd]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-04, 05:13, said:

I don't remember getting much sympathy from forum-ites a few years ago when having exactly the same problem opening a strong 1♣ with a nice-looking 4450 15-count or something. I'm surprised some Benjy players are only just realising now the problems that strong club players had with the regulations for years.

But the regulation for strong-clubbers was adjusted in response to the matter you (and others) brought up.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2017-January-04, 08:02, said:

I wasn't trying to suggest it was in any way unfair or underhand, just that it is something that the majority of Benjy players will not think of for themselves, or want to take up if someone thinks of it for them.

My experience of Benjy players is similar to Helene's.

If they are given a choice between changing their card or running the risk of losing 3 IMPs every time they open a non-compliant 2C, I think they will choose the former. Certainly the first few I have asked have already adopted my wording (subject to a request to the L&E as to what the Benjy Acol players should put on their cards). It makes sense anyway. When you have eight playing tricks in clubs, you probably want to kick-off with 5 clubs. With Tx none AJT AKJ98xxx, this is what I would do.

Ideally there should be a clarification in English Bridge, and other magazines, of what they can and cannot play!

[helene_t]

lamford, on 2017-January-04, 08:53, said:

Ideally there should be a clarification in English Bridge, and other magazines, of what they can and cannot play!

I think this has been clarified many times.

The murky part is to what extent you can get away with calling things like this a "deviation". My impression from Yorkshire/Lancashire club bridge is that players very often "deviate" in this way.

And also that partners seem to cater to it by not expecting anything beyond 8 PTs from opener, i.e. with two queens or so they don't raise to game.

In other words, if you just agree "Benji" with a pick-up you basically assume that you have an illegal agreement.

Again, I am stereotyping, of course. And I am not suggesting that many people are aware that their implicit understanding is illegal.

I don't think this is a big issue, though. The illegal de facto standard of Benji is not more difficult to defend than a multi 2♦. There are of course disclosure issues but I think that generally, if the Benjimists leave us in the dark it is just because they are in the dark themselves.

I would be entitled to my 3 IMPs but I wouldn't bother to collect them unless I am playing for very high stakes (as The Hog would say), or if I really hate these opps.