[paulg]

RMB1, on 2013-September-20, 03:26, said:

But (as far as I can tell) no one is prepared to apply the regulation in that way, and the only players capable of such disclosure do not play their strong bids to include these hands.

Or are trying very hard to make their wife give them up and play weak twos instead, as in my case.

[gnasher]

RMB1, on 2013-September-20, 03:26, said:

But (as far as I can tell) no one is prepared to apply the regulation in that way

Don't you apply it in that way when you direct, and if so why not?

[nige1]

campboy, on 2013-September-19, 13:33, said:

The problem is that there are a great many pairs who write "Benjamin, 21-22 or 8PT" and actually require the high-card strength normally associated with a strong two. If "subject to proper disclosure" means anything it is surely that the onus is on this pair to make it clear that their agreements are different.

IMO it is the pair who who have extra requirements who should disclose them. For example, "8PT" would be incomplete and inadequate if 2♣ also promised at least 15 HCP.

iviehoff, on 2013-September-20, 02:12, said:

To my mind the "proper disclosure" referred to in the regulation means explicitly saying "including hands where the 8pt are all or mainly in one long running suit". Unless it is made clear to opponents in this manner, opponents cannot realise that they might be facing this kind of hand.

The OP pair did write "21-22 or 8PT any suit". No doubt, had they agreed any additional requirements (high card or other), they would have disclosed them.

campboy, on 2013-September-20, 03:25, said:

...In my experience almost all pairs who play "Benji, 21-22 or 8PT" require more high-card strength than this.

Long ago, a 2-opener promised a hand of quality but not nowadays. Fashions also vary from place to place. Provided your agreement is legal and you fully declare it, why should you have to research what local TDs consider "normal"?

[RMB1]

gnasher, on 2013-September-20, 05:40, said:

Don't you apply it in that way when you direct, and if so why not?

I don't think I have had a ruling myself where the hand met the "clear-cut tricks" requirements; so I have been able to rule the agreement illegal without worrying about the HCP or disclosure requirement.

But there have been cases where I have been consulted (but not TD i/c) where I have said that I thought the (lack of proper) disclosure did not meet the requirements of the regulation, and the TD has dismissed my concerns.

I think the regulation can only be met if the system card and the answer to a question at the table say something to distinguish a potential ER25 hand from a rule-of-25/16+ HCP hand.

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2013-September-20, 06:04, said:

Long ago, a 2-opener promised a hand of quality but not nowadays. Fashions also vary from place to place. Provided your agreement is legal and you fully declare it, why should you have to research what local TDs consider "normal"?

If you look back to textbook descriptions of a (not-quite game-forcing) Acol two you would indeed find alongside "at least eight playing tricks" such terms as "a hand of quality" (Reece and Dormer, if I remember correctly), and I think it was Crowhurst who recommended the hand should provide at least two defensive tricks along with all the offensive potential so that partner can make an informed decision if the opponents interfere at a high level. All this wisdom has unfortunately become distilled into "8PT" for the sake of brevity on a convention card, and also in the minds of the majority of Benjamin Acol players.

Those who formulate the regulations (not local TDs, Nigel) have decided that since the term "8PT" is traditionally associated with a strong hand then it will not do as a description of a pre-emptive hand. They have relaxed the regulations to allow players to open semi-pre-emptive hands with an artificial two bid if that's what they want to do, but they haven't relaxed the requirement for proper disclosure.

You may disagree with the regulation, and think it's out of date, but it's what we have to work with.

I decided it did have eight clear-cut tricks and the points normally associated with a one-level opener, but that it was not being adequately disclosed, and as that disclosure is part of the regulation permitting its use, it was not a permitted call.

As I was on my way back to the table I found they had finished the hand and collared another TD for a ruling rather than wait for me. I overhead them read from the Blue Book and then say "Yes, that's fine, it's got eight clear-cut tricks". I left them to it.

I did consider approachng the EW pair at a later round and warning them that they needed to disclose their methods more fully, but I decided against it. It might stoke the idea that the ruling you get depends on which director happens to answer your call.

[blackshoe]

VixTD, on 2013-September-20, 07:36, said:

I did consider approachng the EW pair at a later round and warning them that they needed to disclose their methods more fully, but I decided against it. It might stoke the idea that the ruling you get depends on which director happens to answer your call.

As it clearly did in this case. A more dangerous precedent would be that it might stoke the idea that if you don't like one director's ruling, you should go find another director.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2013-September-19, 07:52, said:

The relevant regulation states that opening bids from 2♣ to 3♠ that don't promise an anchor suit or an unspecified suit of at least five cards must conform to the "extended rule of 25" as follows:

It seems to me that this is only a requirement if the bid is described as strong and artificial. As far as I can see one can open 2 of anything, showing, much as you suggest, under 7C1B(iv): Any combination of meanings that show either or both of 1) at least five cards in an unspecified suit which may not be the suit opened <snip>

So, playing 2♣ or 2♦ to show an unspecified five-card suit of defined strength appears to be legal. The putative infraction is describing it as "Benjamin" or "strong".

If all the Benjy players started putting something like "unspecified five-card or longer suit, 7-22 HCP" on their CCs, then opponents would be less informed, I fear. On another note, the use of "may not" in the above clause 7C1B(iv) is ambiguous, in that "may not be" can mean "need not be", but could also mean "must not be". I presume the former meaning is intended, in which case "need not be" should be substituted in the next edition.

[StevenG]

VixTD, on 2013-September-20, 07:36, said:

Those who formulate the regulations have decided that since the term "8PT" is traditionally associated with a strong hand then it will not do as a description of a pre-emptive hand.

I can't see that this is stated anywhere in the (brand-new) Blue Book. Are players expected to be psychic?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 08:05, said:

As far as I can see one can open 2 of anything, showing, much as you suggest, under 7C1B(iv): Any combination of meanings that show either or both of 1) at least five cards in an unspecified suit which may not be the suit opened <snip>

So, playing 2♣ or 2♦ to show an unspecified five-card suit of defined strength appears to be legal.

Almost, but you seem not to have taken account of the words "which may not be the suit opened".

You are allowed an ER25 strong option as well, so it's legal to play 2♣ as a non-ER25 hand with diamonds, hearts or spades, or an ER25 hand with clubs. Similarly, you can play 2♦ as a non-ER25 hand with clubs, hearts or spades, or an ER25 hand with diamonds.

In the OP they opened 2♣ holding diamonds, so I agree that it's permitted to agree to open 2♣ on this hand.

Quote

The putative infraction is describing it as "Benjamin" or "strong".

That's not the only possible infraction. If they agreed to play an illegal method and then used it, they have broken the rules, regardless of whether the hand fell within the parameters of a method that would be permitted.

If we agree to play a 2♥ opening as a weak two in a major, and then I open it on a hand with spades, that's still against the rules, even though it's legal to play a 2♥ opening as showing spades only. This is no different.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-20, 10:10, said:

Almost, but you seem not to have taken account of the words "which may not be the suit opened".

I did, and commented on the wording. On reflection I think it is intended to mean "must not be the suit opened". But people may not realise that and may not think the Blue Book will contain an ambiguous phrase. VixTD did not seem to realise that it could not include the suit opened in his précis of what was permitted. And I guessed wrong too.

And yes, an illegal method will be punished even if the bid is not illegal. But they can certainly agree to open this hand 2♣ if properly described.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 10:18, said:

I did, and commented on the wording. On reflection I think it is intended to mean "must not be the suit opened". But people may not realise that and may not think the Blue Book will contain an ambiguous phrase.

Well, they might not think the phrase is ambiguous. But they will probably realise that if the suit is "unspecified" it can hardly be necessary to add that it isn't always the suit opened. They might even be familiar with the preamble to the laws in which "may not" is defined to be a strong prohibition.

[VixTD]

gnasher, on 2013-September-20, 10:10, said:

In the OP they opened 2♣ holding diamonds, so I agree that it's permitted to agree to open 2♣ on this hand.

It's not permitted just because they happened to have diamonds in this instance. The meaning of the opening bid encompassed a strong two in clubs and so it is not allowed unless it meets the requirements of ER25. (I'm sure this is what you meant - i.e. it would be permitted to open 2♣ on this hand, so long as there was no possibility the long suit was clubs.)

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 10:18, said:

On reflection I think it is intended to mean "must not be the suit opened". But people may not realise that and may not think the Blue Book will contain an ambiguous phrase. VixTD did not seem to realise that it could not include the suit opened in his précis of what was permitted.

No, I did realise that, but it clearly didn't apply in this case as the EW pair include the suit bid as one of their possible suits.

I did wonder for some time whether "which may not be the suit opened" should be understood as "which doesn't have to be the suit opened" or "which must not be the suit opened". I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be the latter. At least it's an improvement on the ghastly "has a specification that does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid...." of OB12G7(b)(2).

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2013-September-20, 07:36, said:

Those who formulate the regulations (not local TDs, Nigel) have decided that since the term "8PT" is traditionally associated with a strong hand then it will not do as a description of a pre-emptive hand.

StevenG, on 2013-September-20, 08:40, said:

I can't see that this is stated anywhere in the (brand-new) Blue Book. Are players expected to be psychic?

VixTD, on 2013-September-20, 07:36, said:

I decided it did have eight clear-cut tricks and the points normally associated with a one-level opener, but that it was not being adequately disclosed, and as that disclosure is part of the regulation permitting its use, it was not a permitted call.
As I was on my way back to the table I found they had finished the hand and collared another TD for a ruling rather than wait for me. I overhead them read from the Blue Book and then say "Yes, that's fine, it's got eight clear-cut tricks". I left them to it.

I agree with StevenG's implication that EBU rulings should comply with explicit rules in the Blue Book. The director seems to have done the necessary homework and ruled straight from the new book.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2013-September-20, 11:29, said:

I did wonder for some time whether "which may not be the suit opened" should be understood as "which doesn't have to be the suit opened" or "which must not be the suit opened". I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be the latter. At least it's an improvement on the ghastly "has a specification that does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid...." of OB12G7(b)(2).

Given that it is relatively easy to make it unambiguous, it is not that much of an improvement. Overall, however, the Blue Book does seem simpler and clearer.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-September-20, 10:18, said:

But people may not realise that and may not think the Blue Book will contain an ambiguous phrase.

The thought-police strike again IMO the rule-books should simply describe procedures, using "must" or "should" where necessary (not both -- one or the other -- consistently).

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-September-20, 10:10, said:

You are allowed an ER25 strong option as well, so it's legal to play 2♣ as a non-ER25 hand with diamonds, hearts or spades, or an ER25 hand with clubs. Similarly, you can play 2♦ as a non-ER25 hand with clubs, hearts or spades, or an ER25 hand with diamonds.

I presume one can play 2C as game-forcing, or a weak two in a suit other than clubs, and 2D as strong balanced, weak with a major, or a club pre-empt. That looks harder to defend against than normal multis, and I am surprised that I have not come across it at level 4. One can, instead, include pre-emptive "Benji" hands with the 2C or 2D bid, except that one cannot include the suit bid there.

[mycroft]

I believe the argument is "this agreement is legal, as this hand has 8 clear-cut tricks, and also the described 8 playing tricks" - but calling it "Benjamin" is misleading because the 8PT hand doesn't have any defence.

Given I just said that "NF Stayman" with a hand that LHO would never have considered bidding Stayman on isn't misexplaining, I would be on shakier ground than others if I gave that argument. But I have issues with this in the ACBL as well (more so, I would assume).

It's not the Blue Book ruling of "ER25" that is (mostly) in issue - of whether this is legal; it's whether it was adequately explained. The third leg of that stool is "is it good bridge?" but (if you search my history) that also isn't relevant to whether it's legal or whether it's adequately explained.

[FrancesHinden]

campboy, on 2013-September-20, 11:09, said:

Well, they might not think the phrase is ambiguous. But they will probably realise that if the suit is "unspecified" it can hardly be necessary to add that it isn't always the suit opened. They might even be familiar with the preamble to the laws in which "may not" is defined to be a strong prohibition.

This is certainly a hint.

Those who haven't learned the law book but have read the Blue Book might have continued on the same page to read the notes to what 2-level bids are permitted, to find (my emphasis)
"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."

This follows on from the para saying that any ER25 hands are allowed, although the quoted sentence would have been improved had it specified 'non-ER25' hands.

[jallerton]

gnasher, on 2013-September-19, 17:31, said:

It doesn't say "enough high card strength to make the hand a one-level opening". It says "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening". Does xxx xxx AKQJ Jxx have the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening? If it doesn't, then nor does the hand in the original post. Maybe I'm reading the rules too literally, though.

No, you are not reading the rules too literally. Readers should be entitled to assume that regulations mean whatever they say. I agree that "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" could be anything between 8 and 12 HCP. A few years ago I wrote to the L&EC, requesting that they define what they considered to be "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" in this context. They refused to provide an answer! It's hard to see why they bothered going into so much detail as to what constitutes "8 clear cut tricks" when it's not clear whether even the example hands they quote meet the "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" criterion.

paulg, on 2013-September-20, 01:53, said:

You can often check their CC for this. Many put 11+ or 12+ as their minimum opening range for an opening bid and, if they put nothing, then they are subject to the director's whim (I probably mean assessment).

Yes, but the phrase "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" does not have the same meaning as "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening for this pair".

[paulg]

jallerton, on 2013-September-20, 15:31, said:

but the phrase "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" does not have the same meaning as "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening for this pair".

As you point out, only one of these may be defined.