[VixTD]

This also occurred in the Seniors Pairs Consolation Final:

---

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:

Quote

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]

Quote

© 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]

VixTD, on 2013-September-19, 07:52, said:

Quote

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]

pran, on 2013-September-19, 10:18, said:

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]

campboy, on 2013-September-19, 13:33, said:

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]

campboy, on 2013-September-19, 13:33, said:

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]

StevenG, on 2013-September-19, 09:05, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2013-September-19, 17:31, said:

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]

gnasher, on 2013-September-19, 17:31, said:

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]

StevenG, on 2013-September-19, 14:29, said:

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]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-20, 02:12, said:

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.