StevenG

I don't think a Benji 2♣ is really meant to be a semi-GF hand, at least in the sense of having defensive values. If I turn to my copy of "All About Acol" (Cohen & Lederer, 1985 revised 1989) which was my bible when I started playing club bridge, and look up the chapter on strong 2s (the authors are very sniffy about the idea of club players managing weak 2s), three types are listed, one being "Prospective game hands with one long and powerful suit with eight playing tricks in the suit bid" - the others are powerful two-suiters (because in traditional Acol, you can show both suits), and hands that are too strong to risk partner passing. The latter two types don't really work so well in Benji as you haven't been able to show a real suit on the first bid, so the eight PT single-suited hand is by far and away the most common. "All About Acol" also says "A hand with eight trumps to the top four honours, even with nothing whatsoever outside, fulfils this requirement. Such a hand not only may, but should, be opened with a strong two, particularly third-in-hand after two passes, if only on account of the pre-emptive value of the bid", and then point out the merits of pre-empting opponents out of a possible game. Perhaps B/I texts from other eras say something different (can anyone help, please), but that's what I think of as an Acol strong 2, and, by analogy, a Benji 2♣. This may not be so easy to understand if you didn't learn your bridge in an (English) Acol environment, but I suspect it's how nearly all club players of a certain age instinctively think, certainly those who came in to club bridge from social bridge, rather than as precocious juniors. Trying to regulate out the bid's pre-emptive value does seem to me to be an assault on traditional Acol styles, even if they have now been modified to weak twos, etc..

I don't understand your point. The whole purpose is to show only eight PTs (nine will elicit a jump rebid and ten is a 2♦ opener), so of course you don't raise if you have 0 PTs. This is the same whether or not it is Blue Book compliant.

The hesitation could suggest a nothing special two-suiter - which two-suiter depends on what their defence to 1NT is. It could also suggest a fairly weak single-suited hand (in a suit not covered by an artificial bid). I wouldn't feel contrained in my lead (playing Asptro) as the UI is too vague.

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.

Yes, you are constrained by UI. That has nothing to do with bridge logic; the laws define it as what playes would consider, and what they would actually do, given the sequence without the UI. This is an English club matchpoints game. My experience (having played a lot of English club bridge) is that the number of players who would consider a diamond contract here is essentially zero. We are not talking about experts totally secure in their system. In practice, everyone (yes, everyone) would bash out a major suit. So I don't believe, however strong your bridge argument is, that anything other than a major suit bid is a LA. And, therefore, the only possible infraction in this case is the rather strange choice of major to bid.

No infraction, therefore no rectification.

Is playing in a minor at matchpoints when there are other options ever really sensible?

So partner has seen the 2,3,4 and 5 - and doesn't think the 6 is a small card?

I think there is a problem, in that there are fields in which some scientists have been suppressed. John Yudkin, in the field of nutrition, is a good example. Practical science invariably overlaps with industry and politics, meaning that there will always be vested interests.

Haven't you asked this before? Yes - it's not just bad form, it's illegal for dummy to interfere in the play in any way.

Because the consequences of not doing so mean you get a president like Donald Trump.

RIP Mose Allison

I'm not quite sure what the point of that throwaway remark is, but I would guess that you could count the number of Bedfordshire club players under the age of 50 on the fingers of one hand.

Here in England, most clubs only have older members.

deleted

"It's a card he/she doesn't want"

I think you need to know whether their double is an orthodox distributional takeout double, or merely any 12+ count. (Having both majors might just be a coincidence.)

Don't! That is the single worst bid in traditional Acol. It eats space and often leaves partner with nowhere to go. If you can bid a four-card suit without lying, bid it. If you are 3433 and partner opens 1♠, bid 2♣. The only time to consider bidding 2NT is if partner opens a minor and your only four-card suit is that minor.

Thanks, that does work after a fashion. You have to move and resize it though and it still obscures other parts of the screen you might be interested in. It's a shame that you can't combine options - open+friends is my usual setting (ususally a small enough number in the Acol club).

I just had a look at the web version to see how I will be affected when the Windows client is no longer available. It appears to be impossible to replicate my experience while kibbing. 1) It is impossible to rotate the deal so that declarer is South. I find it difficult to follow the hand without this feature. 2) GIB seems to be single card only. I like to watch interesting deals with GIB on, so as to see (if I'm lucky!) whether my proposed endplay or squeeze might actually work. This isn't realistic if you have to click GIB on every card. These are minor compared to ... 3) There is no option to bring up the table list when you're kibbing. I often kib to pass the time while I'm waiting for a worthwhile table. If I want a reasonable game, it is really the case that there is no other choice than to sit with the open tables screen in front of me? In the Windows client, I can see the open tables while kibbing. If I can't kib while looking for a game, there doesn't seem to be any point in coming in at all. If you're going to kill the Windows client for some reason you haven't explained, can you at least please try to replicate the important functionality in the web version.

Thoroughly bad news

I didn't think the 2♠ was alertable and I can't quickly see anything in the 2015 Blue Book (the last I downloaded) to suggest it might be. As for the 3♠ rebid, it seems to me normal to rebid a 7-card major over a partial fit in a minor, at least at pairs.

I still puzzled, because I don't see any value in preempting after 1NT (12-14) - pass - pass. Surely it just risks getting too high for no reward.

Well, I like this hand after the jump, so I would accept. (I seem to be in a minority of one again.) Landy limits what West can bid over 1NT and a lot of pretty good hands (that would bid if playing something Astro-ish) don't have any other option than to pass. I'm assuming that this is a casual partnership, else Jinksy would have zillions of complicated agreements, and casual partnerships don't usually have detailed agreements (actually, they usually don't have any agreements at all) about how to proceed over Landy, so I'm discounting any negative inferences.

The non-offenders' team-mates misbid to a failing contract. Surely that doesn't mean you have to manipulate the ruling at this table.