Benji

[Vampyr]

The Laws and Ethics Committee have apparently been so busy creating their laughable definition of "strong" that they have neglected to mandate different standards for players' strongest and second-strongest bids. The committee members do not play much club bridge: they don't know that a fair number of people do play Benji and they do not care. Well, it's these players' own fault. If they want their needs and desires to be taken into account by the EBU they should play a better system. Of course they might instead continue to play the same system, but do it round friends' houses instead of the local club.

[StevenG]

Actually, they will carry on playing bridge, but in non-EBU clubs. Around here, non-affiliated clubs are thriving, but most of the newer players (who are not young) find the atmosphere in an affiliated club far too intimidating. Inane regulations do not help the situation.

[weejonnie]

Well, I don't like the arbitrary definition of 'strong' - maybe the EBU should allow the phrase "Strong offensively" to allow those hands that are game-forcing but weak defensively. e.g. hands that have game without any support for partner (or, to be generous, hands that can make game when partner has much less than a normal response to a 1-level call e.g. the perfect 3 points or less).

[The_Badger]

I've never liked Benji. Haven't played it since the old king died. Tutankhamun :)

[Vampyr]

I've never liked Benji. Haven't played it since the old king died. Tutankhamun :)

 

I played it one day and didn't particularly like it. That's not the point.

[lamford]

I played it one day and didn't particularly like it. That's not the point.

I would expect 90% of Benjy players to be still opening all hands with 8 clear-cut tricks, or meeting the extended rule of 25, with 2C. They will usually be unaware of the new Blue Book changes. I shall do a survey at the North London club and report back.

[Tramticket]

Despite the snobbish snearing, I'm prepared to admit that I've played a lot of Benji and find it perfectly playable.

 

My preferred system with my regular partner is a multi. But Benji is preferable to "three weak twos" in my book. The main problem with Benji is not the 2C bid - it is the 2D bid when you hold a heart suit.

 

When I play a Benji, the 2C bid is the equivalent to an old-fashioned strong Acol two bid.

[Vampyr]

I would expect 90% of Benjy players to be still opening all hands with 8 clear-cut tricks, or meeting the extended rule of 25, with 2C. They will usually be unaware of the new Blue Book changes. I shall do a survey at the North London club and report back.

 

They will also be unaware of the EBU's definition of 8 clear-cut tricks, not that that matters anymore. Anyway, it is really only a disclosure problem; you can agree what you like.

[gnasher]

I would expect 90% of Benjy players to be still opening all hands with 8 clear-cut tricks, or meeting the extended rule of 25, with 2C. They will usually be unaware of the new Blue Book changes. I shall do a survey at the North London club and report back.

 

I would expect that almost everyone who has any access to any social media site would know about it. Or did you miss one out?

[Vampyr]

I would expect that almost everyone who has any access to any social media site would know about it. Or did you miss one out?

 

Only his Facebook friends. That does not include "almost everyone"! Perhaps a few more if he has posted on BW.

[The_Badger]

Despite the snobbish snearing, I'm prepared to admit that I've played a lot of Benji and find it perfectly playable.

 

My preferred system with my regular partner is a multi. But Benji is preferable to "three weak twos" in my book. The main problem with Benji is not the 2C bid - it is the 2D bid when you hold a heart suit.

 

When I play a Benji, the 2C bid is the equivalent to an old-fashioned strong Acol two bid.

 

Trust me, Tramticket, no snobbish sneering, but I did find Benji/Reverse Benji - when I did play it - unwieldy for quite a few hands, especially strong two suiters. Preferred a general 2♣ opener that isn't game forcing, but could stop in 3M/4m if needs be (as per original SAYC), with a multi, etc. I also agree the other problem with Benji is the 2♦ bid when you hold a ♥ suit.

 

What interests me is StevenG's post that non (EBU)-affiliated clubs are thriving in some areas. If we go down the road of making bridge unattractive to the masses, by more rules and regulations that may intimidate and alienate players, it ultimately becomes less of a social game or hobby - which bridge is to many - and more of a game for purists.

 

I admit it is very difficult juggling the needs of amateur and professional players under one set of rules, but I do believe at club level they should keep things as simple as they possibly can: tournament play is completely different. Let's face it, many players do break the rules unintentionally, for example, overvaluing hands for strong 2-level bids, mainly I believe as they are scarce and players get carried away a bit when they have, in their opinion, a strong-looking hand, but not strong in the way that experts define it. Throwing an over-complicated rule book at an average player every time will just put them off the game, in my opinion.

[Vampyr]

What interests me is StevenG's post that non (EBU)-affiliated clubs are thriving in some areas. If we go down the road of making bridge unattractive to the masses, by more rules and regulations that may intimidate and alienate players, it ultimately becomes less of a social game or hobby - which bridge is to many - and more of a game for purists.

 

Here in London there are a lot more player/sessions at unaffiliated clubs. The trouble is, affiliation doesn't offer a lot. Mainly you get to enter teams in the NICKO and Garden Cities, but not everyone plays in these, not by a long shot; similarly you get auto-membership in the EBU so you can play in tournaments. .If you play enough, you get a diary and a magazine, but you could buy a diary at a pound shop and subscribe to the Bridge World.

 

So although I play only at affiliated clubs (apart from the rare temptation of Sunday roast and curry) I don't really see what the incentive is for a club with few tournament players - who can, anyway, be a member of an affiliated club as well. Most people I know are members of two or more affiliated clubs. Many non-affiliated clubs do not charge for or record membership, but lots of people are "members" of these too, at least in the sense that they attend.