[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2011-May-18, 08:06, said:

2♣ was artificial and strong, one- or two-suited with eight or nine playing tricks or 23-24 hcp balanced. They have a stronger opening bid available in 2♦, which is artificial and game-forcing.

lamford, on 2011-May-19, 09:41, said:

The problem with Burn's description is that a hand something like KQJ10xxx AKxx xx none would certainly qualify, on the ground that it has 8-9 playing tricks, and it seems that dealing with the rare case of eight solid is certainly not full disclosure. 23/24 balanced or 8/9 playing tricks with opening values seems to be correct, if you believe "strong" is deceptive, although I don't - players have a duty to familiarise themselves with the definition of strong therein. The implication of the OB is that strong is qualified by adding "8/9 playing tricks" to show that it is a 10B4(a) hand, so I think you will find those that just peruse the OB using this form of wording. And it is very clear that all of (a), (b) and ( c) are subsets of "strong". Do you disagree with this?

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 06:35, said:

Yes. To a lot of people strong implies top cards. The EBU regulation allows "strong" 2-bids without the top cards subject to adequate disclosure. Not mentioning the lack of top cards strength is not adequate disclosure.

It doesn't happen too often, but I agree with Paul on this one. The Orange Book expressly defined the word "strong" in the context of 2-level opening bids. If a player describes as "strong" an agreement which meets this Orange Book definition of "strong", how can that be misinformation?

Note that the 2♣ bid was not described as showing a "strong Two" which might be interpreted as having a more specialised meaning.

Of course, some people might have different ideas of what different words mean. If someone tells me that they are playing "intermediate" jump overcalls then I always ask then what their definition of "intermediate" is; most answers differ. The same goes for "strong" jump overcalls.

In the case in this thread, if South had wanted to know what was meant by "strong", she could have asked. Her statement to the TD: "had she known it could have been as weak as this she would have made the obvious double of the final contract" is probably more accurately replaced by: "had she known all four hands she would have made the obvious double of the final contract".

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2011-May-20, 09:59, said:

In the case in this thread, if South had wanted to know what was meant by "strong", she could have asked. Her statement to the TD: "had she known it could have been as weak as this she would have made the obvious double of the final contract" is probably more accurately replaced by: "had she known all four hands she would have made the obvious double of the final contract".

Actually South argued further that had she known it could have been as strong as both EW agreed it should have been (i.e. the same hand with another suit stopped) she would also have doubled. So her idea of "strong" is even further removed from this.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-May-20, 09:59, said:

It doesn't happen too often, but I agree with Paul on this one.

Actually, I think I agree with your opinion well over half the time on here (and no, I have not kept records); and the same in EBU appeals booklets. So I suppose the reverse must apply.

[kevperk]

Some people here use "strong" to refer to meeting the requirements in the OB. Some use it to refer to the high card strength of the hand. Since the meaning being referenced may not be clear to the recipients, full disclosure dictates that more be done to insure the correct meaning is understood.

[dburn]

One of the less desirable consequences of announcements - indeed, one of the less desirable consequences of any regime that requires disclosure to conform to some rule set, rather than to some notion of telling the opponents what your methods are - is that the principle of full disclosure will fail to be implemented within the rule set.

This would not matter very much if players were encouraged to follow the principle of full disclosure, rather than to conform to the rule set. Unfortunately, in England players are not only encouraged to conform to the rule set, but are actively discouraged both from telling the opponents what their methods are and from finding out what their opponents' methods are. If the guy to my left can open eight solid and a king with a bid that will be described by the guy to my right as "strong", then I (well, not I personally, for I've seen their sort before, but "I" as someone who might be cowed into not bidding when I ought to bid) would have a legitimate grievance if it turns out that I failed to bid when I ought to bid on some marginal hand.

It is not even enough as a practical matter for my RHO to say "strong within the parameters of OB X.Y.whatever". The very fact that he has uttered the word "strong" will place my partnership, unless very experienced, on the back foot - any overcall we make will be considered obstructive rather than constructive, and we may well fail to realise the full potential of our hands just because someone told us that his partner's 13-hcp opening with no sure defensive tricks was "strong".

That is why I said (and still say, despite lamford's objection) that if a partnership can make an opening that will be described as "strong" despite the absence of very much strength at all outside the long suit, it is proper for that possibility to be disclosed despite the "fact" that full disclosure would "focus on the wrong hand type". The very fact that the opener might have the wrong hand type is precisely the point on which full disclosure should cast light.

I had better stop here, for otherwise I might be compelled to agree with bluejak twice in one evening. Mind you, he is the guy who thinks that disclosure should be implemented by rule sets, while I think it should be implemented conversationally. East is East, and...

[PeterAlan]

dburn, I agree that the problem arises in the nature of the regulatory regime and in the expectations generated by the word "strong", but I'm not sure that the answer lies in anything other than adapting one's expectations.

The traditional Acol strong 2 (in a suit, as opposed to the conventional 2♣) was a "hand of power and quality", which implied both strength in offence and (reasonable) strength in defence. The OB definition of "strong", by way of contrast, embraces a much wider spectrum, ranging from hands such as the one in question (which has plenty of offensive strength, but very little defensive) to some balanced 16 counts, which could well have little offensive strength but considerable defensive.

I agree that this is a consequence of the introduction of announcements, which mean that every announceable (ie natural) 2-suit opening bid has to be categorised one-dimensionally as "weak", "intermediate" or "strong". The boundaries delineating the hands defined in OB 10B4 as "strong" were presumably settled where they were because it was felt that to describe the borderline hands as "intermediate" would be more misleading, and more descriptive two-dimensional announcement categories weren't feasible let alone practical. The real problem is that an agreement to open any 8+ PT hand in this way is very wide-ranging, so if one is opened against you then you have no real indication of its defensive strength; all you can assume (where, as here, the bid also embraces 23-24 balanced) is that it's strong in offence. In that respect, it's a bit like a Multi without any weak options, but if we manage to cope with full-blown Multis why can't we cope with more limited, better-defined ones?

Suppose that a pair's agreement is that all such 8+ playing trick hands [meeting OB 10B4(a)] are opened with a natural 2-bid in the suit in question. Then each would have to be announced under OB 5D1 as "strong" (together with whatever "forcing" agreement applied). Now consider the case where all such hands, as here, are bundled into one artificial opening 2-bid (2♣), which is alerted rather than announced. Surely consistency requires that the same term is used when the SC / partner of the opening bidder is required to describe the bid [delineating "the range into which the bid falls"]?

This leads me reluctantly to the view that what has to change is the expectation of what "strong" means, to bring it into line with whatever the OB says it is from time to time. Maybe it's because I've not been playing very long, and have grown up with essentially the current OB and its announcements, but I don't think that I have a problem with this. And it strikes me as slightly odd that one is expected to know the requirements of sections 4, 5 & 10 of OB in their fullest possible detail when making one's own side's announcements, alerts, disclosures and explanations, but can not be assumed to have the same knowledge when receiving them. (I realise that you only need to be fully aware of the sections applicable to your own agreements, but these are the general rather than the agreement-specific ones.)

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-20, 18:32, said:

It is not even enough as a practical matter for my RHO to say "strong within the parameters of OB X.Y.whatever". The very fact that he has uttered the word "strong" will place my partnership, unless very experienced, on the back foot - any overcall we make will be considered obstructive rather than constructive, and we may well fail to realise the full potential of our hands just because someone told us that his partner's 13-hcp opening with no sure defensive tricks was "strong".

Are you not really arguing that the inclusion of hands in the "strong" section of the OB that are not viewed by some people as strong is an error, and "intermediate to strong" is perhaps a better description of them? One cannot expect players to explain their methods other than succinctly after a wide-meaning opening bid.

[mjj29]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-20, 19:52, said:

Suppose that a pair's agreement is that all such 8+ playing trick hands [meeting OB 10B4(a)] are opened with a natural 2-bid in the suit in question. Then each would have to be announced under OB 5D1 as "strong" (together with whatever "forcing" agreement applied). Now consider the case where all such hands, as here, are bundled into one artificial opening 2-bid (2♣), which is alerted rather than announced. Surely consistency requires that the same term is used when the SC / partner of the opening bidder is required to describe the bid [delineating "the range into which the bid falls"]?

If this includes 8 tricks hands with only opening strength I would expect them to be announced 'intermediate to strong' and not just 'strong'. OB 5D1 does not specify which hands should be announced as 'strong' and which should be announced as 'intermediate'. The new 5D2 does allow for 'intermediate to strong' etc for wide ranging openings, which I think this qualifies as.

Given that would be the announcement if it were natural I would hope for some mention of the "intermediate to ..." in the description of the artificial 2 clubs.

[lamford]

mjj29, on 2011-May-21, 02:59, said:

Given that would be the announcement if it were natural I would hope for some mention of the "intermediate to ..." in the description of the artificial 2 clubs.

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.

[f0rdy]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-19, 10:27, said:

Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, ...

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: "..."

[AlexJonson]

f0rdy, on 2011-May-21, 11:07, said:

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]

f0rdy, on 2011-May-21, 11:07, said:

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]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-21, 13:00, said:

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.

campboy, on 2011-May-21, 17:10, said:

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?

[FrancesHinden]

f0rdy, on 2011-May-21, 11:07, said:

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.

Quote

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]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-22, 02:11, said:

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.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-May-22, 04:01, said:

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]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-22, 09:00, said:

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]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-22, 13:35, said:

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]

lamford, on 2011-May-21, 03:24, said:

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.