Crockfords Final 1 (EBU)

[AlexJonson]

Is that true though? I think this is the crux of the matter; my impression of most people I've come across playing something they call Benji is that they think 2C is X-Y balanced, or an acol two in any suit. That is, "a hand of power and quality", or whatever the commonly quoted phrase is.

If opposition is accustomed to that use of the name Benji, they will not be expecting to see a solid pre-empt opened 2C, whichever of "8-9 playing tricks", "strong", or "meeting the requirements of OB10.4" you use to describe it.

I assume that is why, in permitting this style of intermediate+ multi 2C, the EBU include a phrase asking its practitioners to take even more care of full disclosure than normal, precisely because it tends to involve the unexpected use of a convention's name.

 

It would be nice if this principle could be extended to the use of "Michaels" on semi-balanced hands, or "we play normal take-out doubles" from someone who doubles a natural 1S opening on KJxx Ax Kxxx Qxx. The difference is that those who play either of these "treatments" tend to know no better; in my experience, those who play a Benji 2C as promising only offensive strength have a tendency to be decent (or better) players, and understand the disclosure issues at least a little.

 

Of course, it would all be much easier if we could drop all but the most uncontroversial convention names, and revert to descriptions. The most astounding misuse of a convention name I've come across recently happened as we sat down at one pair's table for a 2-board round:

Them: "We play Benji Acol"

Us: "OK, we play 5cM, weak NT, 3 weak twos"

Them: "But you might want to look at our 2C, it could be a weak two in diamonds"

Me to partner (raised eyebrow): "OK, we'll play 2D as X, double as Y"

Them: "Oh, and our 2N opening is a bad pre-empt in either minor"

Me: "..."

 

 

I was brought up in the land of ACOL 2 bids (power and quality). I bought into it.

 

Can recall the first time I encountered a pair playing the 'Benjamin' 2C/2D bids, and they opened 2C on a 14 count.

 

I was a bit shocked and had a friendly debate with them - power, quality, defensive tricks... They were unimpressed - 8 playing tricks etc, better than 1x rebid 3.

 

The fact that I, in 19xx and Burn or Bluejak in 2011 disapprove of these 2 bids strikes me as a historical curio and otherwise doesn't strike me at all.

 

But I do wonder what all your Benji encounter opponents, fordy, do bid with the hand posted, because I doubt they open other than 2C.

[campboy]

Of course, it would all be much easier if we could drop all but the most uncontroversial convention names, and revert to descriptions. The most astounding misuse of a convention name I've come across recently happened as we sat down at one pair's table for a 2-board round:

Is that better or worse than the pair I encountered playing "Benji Acol with a multi 2♦"?

[f0rdy]

I was brought up in the land of ACOL 2 bids (power and quality). I bought into it.

 

Can recall the first time I encountered a pair playing the 'Benjamin' 2C/2D bids, and they opened 2C on a 14 count.

 

I was a bit shocked and had a friendly debate with them - power, quality, defensive tricks... They were unimpressed - 8 playing tricks etc, better than 1x rebid 3.

 

The fact that I, in 19xx and Burn or Bluejak in 2011 disapprove of these 2 bids strikes me as a historical curio and otherwise doesn't strike me at all.

 

But I do wonder what all your Benji encounter opponents, fordy, do bid with the hand posted, because I doubt they open other than 2C.

Maybe so; hands like this are clearly sufficiently infrequent that I only get to see what a very small fraction of my opponents do with them.

 

Is that better or worse than the pair I encountered playing "Benji Acol with a multi 2♦"?

 

 

Hmm, not clear. My version did have the addition of a brown-sticker convention to Benji, but they did at least leave the same hands opening 2C and 2D as would have in Benji.

Your version presumably had them with a very wide-ranging 2C as their only strong forcing opening?

[Finch]

Is that true though? I think this is the crux of the matter; my impression of most people I've come across playing something they call Benji is that they think 2C is X-Y balanced, or an acol two in any suit. That is, "a hand of power and quality", or whatever the commonly quoted phrase is.

If opposition is accustomed to that use of the name Benji, they will not be expecting to see a solid pre-empt opened 2C, whichever of "8-9 playing tricks", "strong", or "meeting the requirements of OB10.4" you use to describe it.

I assume that is why, in permitting this style of intermediate+ multi 2C, the EBU include a phrase asking its practitioners to take even more care of full disclosure than normal, precisely because it tends to involve the unexpected use of a convention's name.

Sort of, although 'unexpected' is in the eyes of the beholder, not the committer.

The reason the EBU permits this style of intermediate+ multi 2C is that so many people want to play it. Simple as that.

 

in my experience, those who play a Benji 2C as promising only offensive strength have a tendency to be decent (or better) players, and understand the disclosure issues at least a little.

 

We obviously have completely different experience. Perhaps it depends what you mean as 'decent' or 'better' (all things are relative, after all)

In my experience, those who play Benji as intermediate+ as the more experienced players. Those who have recently been to a good course of beginners' lessons know better.

Over all, Benji is an unusual convention as it is one of the very few that is both very popular in this country and not played by any of the top players by choice. (If you are offended by that statement, consider yourself the exception, I haven't checked the convention cards of every pair in the country.)

[lamford]

In my experience, those who play Benji as intermediate+ as the more experienced players. Those who have recently been to a good course of beginners' lessons know better.

I agree that most good players have just one strong bid, 2C (or 1C of course). So, if one has a game-forcing 2D, it makes sense to play 2C as quite a bit weaker. I think that most courses run by EBUTA are good, but I disagree with the claim that they know better: (from the Standard English system)

 

Opening bids of 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ show at least eight playing tricks and a hand that would be concerned about missing game if partner were to pass an opening bid at the one level. These opening bids are forcing for one round and should also have at least two defensive tricks. A useful guide is the Rule of 25. <snip>

 

Indeed, they would not open the West hand in our example, but their system is hopelessly inefficient in that they get to open less than 1% of hands with a strong two in a suit. And note that the Rule of 25 is even in the beginner's manual.

 

And the issue here is disclosure. I agree that "strong" on its own is not adequate for these wide-ranging two bids. The presence or absence of a stronger bid is important. So, what is needed is a form of wording, in the OB, that gives full disclosure. If that gets misunderstood, so be it.

[Finch]

And the issue here is disclosure. I agree that "strong" on its own is not adequate for these wide-ranging two bids. The presence or absence of a stronger bid is important. So, what is needed is a form of wording, in the OB, that gives full disclosure. If that gets misunderstood, so be it.

 

I don't understand this insistence on a 'form of wording'. The OB gives no form of wording at the moment for disclosing your style of 2-bids, other than tell you that you have to give full disclosure. The important thing is that your opponents understand your methods. The form of wording required may well depend on your opponents.

 

There are some people against whom I would be giving full disclosure by saying "we play it the same way as you" and that is the most accurate and quickest way of describing the method.

 

Also, there are so many different ways of playing these that mandating forms of wording would take the resources of a special 'wording committee' which would need a lot of time. Once we get beyond 2-bids, there are many ways to play a potentially 2-card 1C opening. Here are some of them:

 

- 1D opening promises 4, we open 1C on 3 with 3-3 in the minors, and it is only 2 cards if exactly 4=4=3=2 and 12-14 or 18-19 balanced

- .....if exactly 4432 and 15-19 balanced

- .....if exactly 4432 and 11-13 or 17-19 balanced

- We open 1C on all weak NTs without a 5-card major, but if we are18-19 balanced 1C won't have 4 diamonds

- We open 1C only on weak NTs without 4 diamonds, but on all 18-20 balanced hands

- We open 1C on all weak NTs including those with a bad 5-card major, but not with a good 5-card major

- We open 1C on all weak NTs, but 18-19 balanced opens 1D

{there are more - all the above forms, and more, I have seen played}

 

How is it anyone's interested to start defining a form of wording for each and every one of these.

Just alert it, say "could be a doubleton" and then give more detail if/when asked.

[lamford]

How is it anyone's interested to start defining a form of wording for each and every one of these.

Just alert it, say "could be a doubleton" and then give more detail if/when asked.

Because the form of wording that is currently used by most people is unacceptable to some. And some announcements have an exact form of wording.

Are you saying that one should "just alert the 2C," say "strong" and then give more detail if/when asked? If so, I agree with you and this antipathy to the word "strong" is ridiculous. But here, the player who explained it as "strong, 8-9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" is deemed to have given "inadequate disclosure".

[AlexJonson]

So Lamford

 

You are saying that if a player meets the requirements of the Laws,

 

and the local requirements of the EBU,

 

and provides full information on their SC, and provides full information when asked after an alert,

 

that the player should be immune from criticism, censure, recording etc.

 

This has to be one of your least strange or controversial assertions.

[lamford]

So Lamford

 

You are saying that if a player meets the requirements of the Laws,

 

and the local requirements of the EBU,

 

and provides full information on their SC, and provides full information when asked after an alert,

 

that the player should be immune from criticism, censure, recording etc.

 

This has to be one of your least strange or controversial assertions.

I am not one to shirk controversy!

[bluejak]

But then the SB will claim MI because it should have been described as "strong". A keen student of the OB, he will argue that he would not have bid, and gone for 1100, except the term "intermediate" made it seem safer to come in. And it is ridiculous to include intermediate in a hand that can be 23-24 balanced.

B****r. MultiQuote seems to have given up.

 

It is not ridiculous to describe tmethodsds that you play. If you play that you open hsameme thing with a hand that could have 12 HCP or 24 HCthenne you are required to tell topponentsts so. The single word "strong" doenotto do so.

 

The above paragraph was written by my Spellchekka with some input from me. Grrrr. :(

 

It is not ridiculous to describe the methods that you play. If you play that you open the same thing with a hand that could have 12 HCP or 24 HCP then you are required to tell opponents so. The single word "strong" does not do so.

[lamford]

It is not ridiculous to describe the methods that you play. If you play that you open the same thing with a hand that could have 12 HCP or 24 HCP then you are required to tell opponents so. The single word "strong" does not do so.

Yes it does.

[bluejak]

Well, I know oyu to be an ethical player, so I just do not believe oyu. If oyu play a hand may be strong, or highly distributional and somewhat pre-emptive, I do not believe that you, Paul, woudl merely tell th eopponents "strong".

 

:ph34r:

 

I have given up spellchecking for the moment.

[lamford]

Well, I know oyu to be an ethical player, so I just do not believe oyu. If oyu play a hand may be strong, or highly distributional and somewhat pre-emptive, I do not believe that you, Paul, woudl merely tell th eopponents "strong".

 

:ph34r:

 

I have given up spellchecking for the moment.

I will buy you a Chambers Dictionary for Xmas! I would indeed strain to be as complete as possible, while not wanting the opponents to doze off. For our 2C I state 20-21 balanced or any game force. That stops them coming in when I have a bad pre-empt in clubs and later pass partner's five-card puppet Stayman. :) I even get to play it!

 

So I would say more than the minimum, but the average player can only be expected to get as far as the Tangerine Book. And they will think strong is an adequate description, so they should not be punished.

[gnasher]

I will buy you a Chambers Dictionary for Xmas!

Wouldn't it be better to buy him a dictionary? David is having trouble with his spelling, not the height of his monitor.

[lamford]

Wouldn't it be better to buy him a dictionary? David is having trouble with his spelling, not the height of his monitor.

Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal is the best for raising the height of the monitor, and it doesn't matter that it is in Dutch. Sadly it is currently out of print.