Brighton 8 (EBU)

[VixTD]

This also occurred in the Seniors Pairs Consolation Final:

[hv=pc=n&w=s3h83dakqj9652cj5]133|100[/hv]

South passed as dealer, and West opened this hand a Benjamin 2♣, alerted. I was called when the hand went down as dummy to determine whether it was permitted to open this hand with a strong artificial call. I told them that they should play the hand out while I looked into it, and that I'd be back with my decision.

 

Their convention card entry stated: "Benjamin, 21-22 or 8PT any suit".

 

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:

5 C 3 Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any one or more of:

(a) any hand of at least 16 HCP, or

(b) any hand meeting the Rule of 25, or

(c) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains at least the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks.

Clear-cut tricks are defined as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand with the second best suit break.

A K Q J x x x x x x x x x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks

A K Q x x x x x x x x x x does not

Hands conforming to the ‘Extended Rule of 25’ are described as ‘ER25’.

Further examples:

AKQxxxxx (7CCT), KQJxxxx (5), AQJ98xx (5), KQJTx (3), KQJTxxx (6), AKT9xxxxx (8), KJTxxx (2)

What would you say when you returned at the end of the hand?

[Trinidad]

I don't understand. This hand has 8 clear cut tricks. Doesn't that mean that:

 

1) It is allowed to have the agreement to open this hand with 2♣

2) "8PT" is an accurate description of the hand?

 

What is the problem?

 

Rik

[gnasher]

It has eight clearcut tricks, but I'm not sure that it has "at least the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening". Does that mean (a) sufficient high cards to justify a one-level opening, regardless of distribution, or (b) sufficient high cards to justify a one-level opening on this particular hand?

 

It's also not clear that it has been disclosed correctly. The rule quoted defines what you're allowed to agree to play, but not what a "playing trick" is.

[billw55]

© subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains at least the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks.

Seems obvious to me that the hand meets this criterion, unless maybe the "normal high card strength" is more over there.

 

[StevenG]

Almost everybody opens a 11 count if it's 5-5. I don't think the ten cards being 8-2 should make a (negative) difference. Everyone would open this hand 1♦ if a strong bid was unambiguously forbidden.

[campboy]

Well they're certainly permitted to include this in their strong bid. I do not think they have disclosed it very well, though, since "Benjamin" normally means a hand that would open an Acol 2 in the suit (which is often also described in terms of "playing tricks", but also traditionally requires much more defensive strength than this). I would advise them that both their CC and their description (if asked) should explicitly say that it could be weaker than a normal Benjamin 2♣.

[ahydra]

Doesn't look like any foul here. It's described as 8PT and has 8PT, and meets the ER25.

 

ps. I like how when you quoted the ER25 regulations it suggests a 13-card suit :)

 

ahydra

[pran]

subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains at least the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks.

Clear-cut tricks are defined as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand with the second best suit break.

A K Q J x x x x x x x x x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks

A K Q x x x x x x x x x x does not

If this quotation from the regulation is correct I am really puzzled. I thought 13 Cards in a single suit would count as 13 Clear-cut tricks? There is probably a bit too many x'es in the samples above?

[campboy]

If this quotation from the regulation is correct I am really puzzled. I thought 13 Cards in a single suit would count as 13 Clear-cut tricks? There is probably a bit too many x'es in the samples above?

The suit symbols have fallen off. In my paper copy it says

♠ A K Q J x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x

(and the same distribution for the other hand).

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that if a player isn't sure what "PT" means, he should ask. Abbreviations are an absolute necessity on a system card, in order to fit everything in. If the player knows that "PT" means "playing tricks", but doesn't know what "playing tricks" means, again he should ask. So I don't think what's on the card is inadequate disclosure.

 

The real question seems to me to be "what constitutes a 'normal' one level opening bid in modern Acol?" It's been a long time since I played the system, but ISTR 9 HCP and appropriate distribution is "normal". This hand fits that. Someone else pointed out that just about anyone in North America would open that hand 1♦ if 2♣ were not available. I suspect the same is true in England, and probably the rest of the world as well.

[lamford]

I think that proper disclosure means that one does not just describe it as strong, and 8 PT in a suit seems fine. To require the expression "clear-cut tricks" is overly pedantic. I would guess a 10-count with a six-card or longer suit is the normal minimum strength for an opening bid in England.

[campboy]

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.

[nige1]

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.

This hand satisfies local regulations. Providing a pair accurately describe their agreement, there is no legal requirement for them to research what their opponents regard as "Normal"

[StevenG]

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.

Things change. I'm not aware that I know anyone who expects a Benji 2♣ with 8 playing tricks to equate to an Acol strong two. Shouldn't it be the people with extra requirements (even if they are implicit in an historic context) who need to disclose their methods accurately?

[gnasher]

Almost everybody opens a 11 count if it's 5-5. I don't think the ten cards being 8-2 should make a (negative) difference. Everyone would open this hand 1♦ if a strong bid was unambiguously forbidden.

 

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.

[nige1]

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.

IMO gnasher is reading the regulation correctly. Players routinely open at the one level with a flat 11-count, particularly when the partnership employs a nebulous diamond or mini-notrump. EBU "rule of 18" regulations specifically permit partnerships to agree that opening 11 counts with 4333 shape is normal for them.

[paulg]

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.

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).

[iviehoff]

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.

[campboy]

Things change. I'm not aware that I know anyone who expects a Benji 2♣ with 8 playing tricks to equate to an Acol strong two. Shouldn't it be the people with extra requirements (even if they are implicit in an historic context) who need to disclose their methods accurately?

There are several reasons why I don't agree in this case.

 

1. Regulations make it clear that it is pairs who do open on weaker hands (<R25 and <16HCP) who need to take particular care over disclosure.

 

2. Any pair using a specific name ("Benjamin") should be aware that opponents may have expectations about its meaning.

 

3. In general (in the EBU) where the extra requirement is strength, it is the pairs who don't require it who have the responsibility to make this clear: see BB 2B4.

 

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

[RMB1]

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". ...

I agree.

 

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.

[paulg]

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]

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]

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.

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.

...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]

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]

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.