[lamford]

---

The above hand was opened with a "Benjy" 2C, showing "8 playing tricks in an unspecified suit", sometimes with a balanced option, at several tables in the last round of the End of Year Congress in London, none of them my table. On four occasions the player was a member of one of my clubs, and the agreement was to play the popular method of "Benjy Acol". Under the current Blue Book, it is illegal to "agree" to open 2C on this hand, because it does not comply with the rule of 25, in that it has 13 points plus 11 for the two longest suits, and it does not have 8 clear-cut tricks, in that one is obliged to assume that partner has a void spade for that purpose, when we only have six spades and one ace, a total of seven. I can, however, open the Liggins 3NT showing SAT in a major, even at the now rare Level 3.

Furthermore, there is an absolute and express Law which states:
40A3. A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

On at least one occasion when 2C was opened, the opponents were awarded 3 IMPs, once by a TD on here, mamos, but it would appear that one is quite entitled to open 2C on this hand, showing 8 playing tricks or meeting the so-called "extended rule of 25", provided that the agreement is that one's Two Club opener meets the requirements of the Blue Book. The "deviation" can indeed be recorded by the TD and he can apply 40C1 at his discretion:

"Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty."

Note the word "Repeated". And note the phrase, "has damaged the opponents". Both are necessary for a PP or adjustment. In this case, even someone from the national newcomers' pairs should reach 4S without the 2C opener.

If the player opened, on one or perhaps even two occasions, 2C, on AKQJxxx Axx xxx none, then he would be "deviating", as opposite none xxxx xxxx xxxxx he would only have 7 clear-cut tricks (as someone might well have Txxxx in spades), and his hand does not meet the extended rule of 25. The EBU is quite entitled to specify what agreements the pair can have for any call, but they should not abuse their power by preventing the player from making any call he or she likes, unless they deem there is an undisclosed agreement. Both the EBU and ACBL however, have decided that they are entitled to ignore Law 40A3 when it suits them.

Another issue that jars is that even playing two different strong bids of 2C and 2D, as is customary with Benjy, one can open one's strongest bid of 2D on AKQxxxxx none Tx AJT, but cannot open the weaker 2C on AKJ98xxx none Tx AJT. Surely there should be different minimum requirements for the strongest and second strongest calls.

[nige1]

Given the regulations in force, I think the director was right to rule against the 2♣ opener.

System regulations create unnecessary problems.

If you accept Lambert's interpretation, then you would hardly ever rule against such deviations. Even if the director records them, opportunities for them occur too rarely to prove a partnership agreement.

Alternatively, I suppose the director could ask the partnership if the given hand fell within partnership understandings but then truth-tellers would be at a disadvantage.

I hope that Lambert is wrong about the necessity to show damage before imposing a procedural penalty. I feel that a reason for the existence of procedural penalties it to discourage wilful infractions that cause no damage.

Under some regulating authorities, similar anomalies arise with

• weak third-hand openers and
• 1N openers with a singleton.

The fairest solution is to scrap all such regulations. They're sporadically enforced and disadvantage the few players who try to comply with them.

[StevenG]

I have always detested the application of ER25 to a Benjy 2♣ bid. As Lamford points out, it is the second strongest bid for a Benjy player, and should not be subjected to the same rules as a 2♦ opener.

The objection always seems to be that "it is difficult to defend against". This is not something I ever hear in clubs - a multi 2♦ is difficult to defend against for a club player, but that is not banned. (Of course a multi is far more likely to be played by players who have influence with the L&EC than a Benjy 2♣, but surely that would in no way influence their decision.) A Benjy 2♣ is a nice simple constructive method for club players - partner has 8 tricks, I have two Aces, therefore we have game. Trying to stop borderline cases shows how little the EBU understands or cares about ordinary club bridge.

[Vampyr]

As far as a partnership agreement is concerned, the pair in question had never discussed a 2♣ opener or seen one from their partner, as they had never played together. Opener was unfamiliar with Benji, and didn't think that the second strongest bid was subject to the Rule of 25, as it makes no sense. Strong club players are only subject to the rule of 24. It seems terribly unfair that some pairs need only meet the rule of 24 for their strongest opening, while others must comply with the rule of 25 for two opening bids! It's not as if people are playing some strange unusual system. There were loads of Benji players and loads of 2♣ openers on this hand. At one table the four players agreed that it was illegal (though maybe not, since there was no agreement to open this hand) and moved on. Only one player thought that reporting the hand was a reasonable thing to do, although another pair, after hearing the story, decided to ask for their three IMPs, which I imagine will be more of a hassle for the directors now that the event is over!

I suppose that Benji players could just call their 2♣ bid a modified multi -- e.g. An (almost?) Acol Two and whatever the strong balanced hand is. If a Multi is not permitted without a weak option, the single suited hand could be defined as a good 4-level preeempt, or a super heavy Weak Two. Or I suppose you could add in a very bad Weak Two in diamonds if you had to.

As for the EBU, one sensible regulation would be to categorise the 2nd Benji bid as requiring Ruke of 24 at most -- really less is better, because a one-trick disparity is silly, and there might still be a situation like at present where changing a J to a Q qualifies a hand for the strongest opening, while change back to a J and the hand doesn't qualify for the second-strongest opening. Is this bonkers or what? And/or the HCP requirements could be dropped to a standard opening bid.

But as noted above, the L&EC have little regard for club players, among whom Benji is very popular. It might even be that they regard Benji as an inferior system (which I will concede, but so what) and are taking the piss. This would not surprise me at all.

The increasing cronyism among the EBU decision-makers is, I think, a matter for another thread, or no thread, because why bother.

[blackshoe]

What is the EBU's requirement for an Acol 2 opening? I ask because I seem to remember learning Benji some 25 years ago and being told that a Benji 2♣ is "an Acol 2 in some suit".

Crowhurst suggest a "multi-purpose 2♦" in conjunction with Acol 2♣. The 2♦ bid shows, iirc, an Acol 2 in some suit or a strong balanced hand, though I don't remember the HCP range for the latter. I wonder how that fares under current regulations.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2016-December-31, 06:47, said:

Strong club players are only subject to the rule of 24. It seems terribly unfair that some pairs need only meet the rule of 24 for their strongest opening, while others must comply with the rule of 25 for two opening bids!

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.

[PeterAlan]

lamford, on 2016-December-30, 19:33, said:

If the player opened, on one or perhaps even two occasions, 2C, on AKQJxxx Axx xxx none, then he would be "deviating", as opposite none xxxx xxxx xxxxx he would only have 7 clear-cut tricks (as someone might well have Txxxx in spades), and his hand does not meet the extended rule of 25.

On a detail, AKQJxxx counts as 7 clear-cut tricks (CCTs), since CCTs are defined (Blue Book 2016 5C3 p20) for this purpose as what the suit will make opposite a void in partner's hand and the second-best break (here 4-2) of the other cards in the opponents'. The hand is therefore 8 CCTs, and meets the Extended Rule of 25, subject to proper disclosure, under 5C3(c).

[Vampyr]

One detail that is worth mentioning is that the players in question had not so much as uttered the words 2♣ opening before this hand came up (it was, after all, their first time playing together, and they had had limited time to prepare). Nor had they ever opened a Benji 2♣ together or playing against each other, nor did they play Benji with a partner in common (they have one or two partners in common, but the 2♣ opener does not play Benji with them. So if it is actually the agreement that falls foul of the regulation, well, there wasn't one.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2016-December-31, 06:47, said:

I suppose that Benji players could just call their 2♣ bid a modified multi -- e.g. An (almost?) Acol Two and whatever the strong balanced hand is.

That wouldn't quite work, because a non-strong option in a two-bid can't have the suit you've opened.

However, I think you could play it as
- a one suiter in clubs with eight sure tricks, or
- a one-suiter in diamonds, hearts or spades, or
- a two-suiter where one of the suits is clubs, with eight sure tricks, or
- a two-suiter where neither of the suits is clubs, or
- strong balanced

Maybe the pair should have argued that this was, in fact, their agreement. If two law-abiding players agree to play "Benjy" in an EBU event, presumably they both intend to have an agreement that is allowed in EBU events. If they also know the rules, then their implicit agreement must be a legal one.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2017-January-01, 09:12

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

But as noted above, the L&EC have little regard for club players, among whom Benji is very popular. It might even be that they regard Benji as an inferior system (which I will concede, but so what) and are taking the piss. This would not surprise me at all.

The increasing cronyism among the EBU decision-makers is, I think, a matter for another thread, or no thread, because why bother.

The internet's great, isn't it? You can assert whatever you like without any need to prove it.
So can I

When it comes to writing regulations, the L&E are driven almost entirely by club and lower level tournament players. The current rules on strong openings are a consequence of complaints from club players about 'light' benji openings keeping them out of their own games. I happen not to like the current rule either, but that's because it doesn't achieve what it wants to anyway.

As for the 'increasing cronyism', rather than say 'why bother' perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you mean? Or not, because after all it's easier just to make random accusations on the internet.

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2017-January-01, 09:14, said:

The internet's great, isn't it? You can assert whatever you like without any need to prove it.
So can I

When it comes to writing regulations, the L&E are driven almost entirely by club and lower level tournament players. The current rules on strong openings are a consequence of complaints from club players about 'light' benji openings keeping them out of their own games. I happen not to like the current rule either, but that's because it doesn't achieve what it wants to anyway.

As for the 'increasing cronyism', rather than say 'why bother' perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you mean? Or not, because after all it's easier just to make random accusations on the internet.

Very noble of you to take the trouble to insist on enforcement of rules you don't like. I don't think the pair broke the rule, by the way, as they had no agreement on the hand-type. Therefore it was a deviation. Anyway it looks like gnasher has come up with the solution. As I suspected, a lot can be achieved if you simply ditch the name "Benji". I myself will not agree to playing Benji until the regulation makes more sense.

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-01, 10:31, said:

Very noble of you to take the trouble to insist on enforcement of rules you don't like. I don't think the pair broke the rule, by the way, as they had no agreement on the hand-type. Therefore it was a deviation. Anyway it looks like gnasher has come up with the solution. As I suspected, a lot can be achieved if you simply ditch the name "Benji". I myself will not agree to playing Benji until the regulation makes more sense.

I don't think it matters what you call it. The key is that you have an agreement that is allowed. So just agree with partner "Benji; if we've got clubs it will have eight sure tricks."

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2017-January-01, 09:14, said:

As for the 'increasing cronyism', rather than say 'why bother' perhaps you'd like to explain exactly what you mean? Or not, because after all it's easier just to make random accusations on the internet.

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.

[helene_t]

lamford, on 2016-December-30, 19:33, said:

Another issue that jars is that even playing two different strong bids of 2C and 2D, as is customary with Benjy, one can open one's strongest bid of 2D on AKQxxxxx none Tx AJT, but cannot open the weaker 2C on AKJ98xxx none Tx AJT. Surely there should be different minimum requirements for the strongest and second strongest calls.

Why? The purpose of the regulation is to ban weak openings that may or may not have length in the suit opened, as such preempts are difficult to defend. The regulation defines what a weak opening is for this purpose. Obviously it is irelevant whether the system contains other stronger openings with the same shape.

I find the regulation reasonable. Not my favorite: I would have preferred a simple "X Walrus points", where X could be 13 or 15 or whatever the committee could agree on. The reason why I prefer walrus points is that they are related to defensive strength, which is what is relevant when one considers the risk that opps get preempted out of their game.

As for the actual case, it is of course impossible to enforce the regulation if the offenders get the benefit of the doubt.

[lamford]

I have spoken to four players who opened a Benjy 2C on this hand, two of whom lost 3 IMPs as a result. In the case of the other two, one of the opponents thought that this hand was not a Benjy 2C, but did not call the director. Perhaps the EBU should have announced that all pairs who faced a Benjy or strong 2X opening should go to the EBU desk to collect their 3 IMPs.

The best "break" of spades (when partner is void) on this hand is any 3-2, when the hand has 8 "clear-cut" tricks. This occurs about 68% of the time. The "second-best" "break" is when the suit breaks 4-1 with an opponent having a singleton honour. This occurs about 11% of the time, and the hand now has 8 clear-cut tricks . The "third best" "break" is when the suit breaks 4-1 with neither opponent having a singleton honour. This occurs about 17% of the time. The hand then has 7 clear-cut tricks. The two "breaks" cannot therefore be concatenated, and it could be argued that the second-best break is 8 clear-cut tricks. Nothing in the Blue Book defines what a "break" or "sub-break" is, and no example is given of AKJ9xxxx opposite void for illustrative purposes.

The players I spoke to all agreed to play "Benjy Acol" with the Internet "defining" a 2C bid as containing 8 playing tricks. None of the four players were aware of Blue Book 5C3. I was, as it had occurred on a different hand when I was on an AC some years ago, but even so I regarded this hand as containing 8 clear-cut tricks when asked, as I regarded the second best "break" to be 4-1 with a singleton honour, with the best break being any 3-2. I am quite prepared to accept that the number of clear-cut tricks when the suit breaks 4-1 is only 6, as one is obliged to assume that the singleton is a small card.

The main reason why I, and pretty much every bridge player I have spoken to about this issue, disagree strongly with any adjustment on this hand is that none of the players in question had an agreement to do anything other than to play Benjy Acol. Where they had discussed it, they had agreed that 2C would show 8 playing tricks in a suit. If they wrote on their card "Benjy Acol, with 2C always conforming to Blue Book 8C2 and 5C3" then that would have been their agreement, and opening 2C on this hand would just have been a deviation, which the TD would record. He would require a "repeated deviation" (and equally importantly, damage) for an adjusted score or PP. The complete misconception is that one has to follow one's agreements at any time and it is also a myth that one is not "allowed" to open a Benjy 2C on this hand. One is not allowed to have an agreement to open a Benjy 2C on this hand, but that is a completely different issue.

As I pointed out in the OP:
40A3. A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

The award of 3 IMPs in this case against two pairs was therefore a breach of the Laws of Bridge, and should have been appealed to the National Authority. Whatever the White Book may say. The EBU is not empowered to ignore the Laws, just as the ACBL is not empowered to prevent the psyches of natural bids.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2017-January-01, 09:10, said:

If two law-abiding players agree to play "Benjy" in an EBU event, presumably they both intend to have an agreement that is allowed in EBU events. If they also know the rules, then their implicit agreement must be a legal one.

All they have to write on their card is "Blue Book compliant Benjy". Then they can open an Acol 2C, a Benjy 2C, or anything else they like for that matter on this hand. Of course, anything other than 1S or some SAT bid would probably be a deviation. In practice, players often have better hands when the suit is a minor, and best maybe to write "Good hand with a major, or 8 clear-cut tricks with a minor." That allows us to steal from the club player without falling foul of the regulations.

And there is an absolute requirement for "damage" for an adjusted score (unless, as weejonnie says, there is an illegal agreement). Where was that on this hand?

[weejonnie]

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)

In fact '5+ cards in an unspecified suit (not clubs) any strength, or 10+ HCP and 8 clear-cut tricks' passes the test.

I understand what the OP is saying but if players want there to be a minimal difference between the meanings of their 'strongest' and '2nd strongest' calls then that is up to them. I would agree that I am surpised that the TD awarded 3 Imps - but have to assume that they asked the opener's partner whether they agreed that the hand was a Benji 2♣ call. Absent that then there is no problem (other than recording it to detect possible illicit partnership understsandings). The White book clearly states that there is no longer an automatic penalty for 'psyching' the strongest call.

(Note that playing Benji Acol, I suspect that an opening 4NT call, not to mention 6NT or 7NT are probably stronger hands.)

The EBU do not have a requirement for an 'Acol 2' opening. Instead the definition is basically - Any meaning as long as they all show an ER25 hand (7C1A)

The definition of an ER25 hand has been given above. (sum of HCPs and longest 2 suits OR subject to explicit notification, 10+HCP and 8+ CLEAR CUT tricks (which means opposite a void and the 2nd best suit break)

Now we have to be careful here. The example given in the blue book is AKQXXXXX does NOT count as 8 Clear cut tricks (will lose one to JXXX) but AKQJXXXX does (wont lose to TXXX). However the Actual hand AKJ98752 IS going to win 7 tricks opposite omitting 3-2)

Q : T643
T : Q643

Is one of these the second best break? (AQJ98XX is shown as 5 - this hand is both 1 card longer AND has a stronger honour combination)

The reason for the definitions is to prevent players being 'scared' of bidding when an opponent's hand is announced as being 'strong'. In the original hand it looks as if EW may have a profitable save in 5♥ or 5♦ - they would had the hearts not been 5-0. Certainly East might have considered an UNT.
---------------
8.40.1.7 Misbidding a strong artificial opening

A psychic strong artificial 2♣ opening is permitted but a player who makes a strong call on an unsuitable hand with no intention to deceive has not psyched. However, if the hand is not ‘strong’ by the definitions of permitted agreements in the Blue Book but is understood by the player to be a 2♣ opening then the player may have used an illegal agreement.
:
Example A player opens 2 because they have eight semi-solid spades and no other high cards saying that they want to be in game. If the player and their partner consider this the correct opening then it is not an ‘Extended Rule of 25’ hand (as defined in the Blue Book). The player has not psyched but has an illegal partnership understanding, and will receive AVE- (unless they do worse than that on the board – see §2.8.3.3)

[lamford]

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

If the player and their partner consider this the correct opening then it is not an ‘Extended Rule of 25’ hand (as defined in the Blue Book). The player has not psyched but has an illegal partnership understanding, and will receive AVE- (unless they do worse than that on the board – see §2.8.3.3)

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!

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2017-January-01, 15:53, said:

I have spoken to four players who opened a Benjy 2C on this hand, two of whom lost 3 IMPs as a result. In the case of the other two, one of the opponents thought that this hand was not a Benjy 2C, but did not call the director. Perhaps the EBU should have announced that all pairs who faced a Benjy or strong 2X opening should go to the EBU desk to collect their 3 IMPs.

Indeed, a pair who heard what had happened did just that, well after the end of the event. The 3 IMPS caused them to win the match.

[nige1]

A problem with rules about

• Benjy without 8CCT
• Weak 3rd in hand openers,
• 1N openers with a singleton,

Is that players don't know the rules, or they think these bids are "just Bridge". For example

• In the OP case, many players opened a Benjy 2♣ without 8CCT -- with no explicit agreement. It was undiscussed, so If they had any implicit agreement, it was "everybody does this -- just normal practice"..
• In the Spain-USA controversy on BBO, many commentators couldn't recognize the problem because they themselves regularly open sub-minimum hands in 3rd seat, without explicit agreement. Typical comments were "If I failed to open that hand, I'd expect the captain to bench me". Again it was just Bridge. Similarly, In a Bridge Magazine Bidding Competition, holding ♠ x x x ♥ A K Q J ♦ x x x ♣ x x x, in 3rd seat, competitors opened 1♥. This was when the EBU frowned on agreements to open with less than "rule of 19". Obviously, competitors had no explicit agreement -- they judged this to be "just Bridge",
• Players who opened 1N with a singleton honour, justified their practice because opportunities for the bid arose too infrequently to demonstrate an explicit agreement. That argument seems flawed but the fact that top players are prepared to rationalise is still worrying.

In general, such rules handicap the few who know them and try to comply with them.