Benji Explanation
When a Benji player alerts and his partner explains that the 2C bid shows 8 playing tricks and is non-forcing is this a sufficient explanation? If this is then what should an opponent take it to mean? Perhaps what is more important is what not to expect it to mean. The trouble is there is nowhere in the Blue Book that has a definition of playing tricks and to my knowledge there never has been. I don't think there is a definition of the number of losers in a suit although that is also often used when evaluating a hand using the losing trick count.
Comments
You can describe your agreements via any method your opponents will understand. Saying "playing tricks" (the actual agreement) is perfectly reasonable, in that case, but if the opponents ask for more information, you'll have to define it, e.g. "the average number of tricks I'd expect to win in hand if I get to choose which suit to play in".
However, there are a couple of related issues here that you might not have picked up on:
One is that you need to be clear as to whether the bid shows a particular suit; if you describe 2C as "non-forcing" without elaboration, people may assume that it shows clubs (even though that would technically be an announcement, not an alert). (Did you mean "forcing"? Or did you mean "artificial but can be passed with a weak hand and long clubs?")
Another is that you need to be clear whether the bid is strong or not; any 2C bid describes in terms that might imply strength (such as this one) is typically assumed to contain 16+ HCP, and if that isn't a requirement of your system, you need to ensure that your explanation doesn't mislead in that regard.
Finally, assuming you're using EBU rules for allowed systems, a bid that isn't necessarily strong, and doesn't show a suit, can't be made in the suit you actually bid unless the hand does happen to be strong.
So a good description of the typical Benji 2C bid would be along these lines: "A hand which has 8 playing tricks if it can choose the suit, but might be weak defensively unless the suit is clubs." I typically wouldn't mention the forcingness unless asked as that's a statement about your partner's follow-up, not your own (although I'd answer about the follow-ups after a pass if asked, e.g. one possibility would be "it's almost forcing but partner can pass if they have clubs and a garbage hand").
Hi Alan
Is 2C really not forcing? I assume that it would be forcing for at least 1 round, though perhaps not a game force?
Hi AlanB
Interesting topic. If it had been me I might have just asked for their system card and if I didn't understand it called the director.
The Blue book says that "Playing tricks" is easy understood, so I can only assume that it is based on the common "understanding" (see 5 A 3). The explanation should also provide information as to whether the suit is unspecified and whether the bid is based on 12+ HCPs and at least 5 "conrols" or 16+ HCPs. The bit that is worrying is that if the bid is "non-forcing" then partner can pass!! So I assume that they should also say that it is forcing for one round. It seems as if they have the "forcing" mixed up with "strong"(see definiton above). So probably you might need to supply details of the openers hand so that it can be considered futher. I think you might have the opening sentence the wrong way around in that the partner of the opener should alert and, when asked, explain what the bid means.
regards
CMOT_Dibbler
There was a lot of criticism over the old ER 25, which relied on 'clear cut' tricks. For the occasional bridge player when a hand held AKQXXXXX, this was regarded as 8 clear-cut tricks since the number of times they would lose a trick (To JTXX) meant that they would probably never experience a loss - and such players don't read the Blue Book and in a club a) The EBU guidelines may not apply and b) other players are likely to be similarly ignorant. Even expert players have been caught out.
Thus the EBU in their wisdom, went to a definition of strong that is based simply on counting high card points and aces/ kings. It isn't perfect (why should a singleton Jack change a hand from being 'not strong' to being 'strong',?) but the strength of bridge hands incorporate so many features (some subjective and depending on other calls made) that it is impossible to make any clear cut definition that would be readily understandable.
Note that it must be a partnership agreement that the hand (if showing clubs) must be strong. There is nothing to stop a player opening on a slightly weaker hand as long as partner is no more likely to be aware of the possibility than opponents. I think the standard question would be to ask the partner "what would you open with such a hand?" If they also opened a non-strong hand with 2C then this would be pretty indicative of an illegal (at least in EBU events) agreement.
Thanks for all your replies and yes I didn't explain the bidding and questions correctly. The hand on my right had opened 2C and the hand on the left alerted and explained it as 8 playing tricks not forcing. I overcalled 3 clubs which was doubled on the left and passed by opener who turned up with a fairly balanced hand and 20 points. This was all before the latest change to the Blue Book. I wasn't expecting a 20 point non-forcing 5431 hand on my right but more like a hand with 7 cards in a major headed by the AKQ and an outside A or KQ. So when the EBU says that 8 playing tricks is easily understood I'm not sure it is. Unless a definition can be made then I'm not sure the phrase 8 playing tricks should be allowed. It would be much better to have a hand described as strong (using the new EBU definition) with at least 5 cards in a suit headed by the AKQ and at most 5 losers - but then losers has to be defined. For the two club opening I use, I or my partner describes it as a hand in which partner wishes to be in game (NTs or a suit) with at most 2, 3 or 4 losers. I've never had this explanation queried. Unfortunately the hand that caused the problem has been lost in the mists of time.
Well, I occasionally play Benji, in which case my 2C is either 23/24 balanced or 8 winning tricks in some suit that wants to force partner to bid regardless - say 15+ points and looking for game if partner has anything to add. 2D being the game force with 23+ points in a distributional hand or 25 points (or 9 top tricks) for NT.
My preference is 3 weak 2's, in which case my 2C would cover all such possible bids where partner is not allowed to pass. Openers rebid clarifies and is forcing for 1 more round (such that 2C - 2D (relay) - 2S forces a response), except 2C - 2D - 2NT (23-24).
Following the change in the laws we now no longer announce this as strong and forcing, but rather alert. When asked, we describe it as our only forcing opening bid, may not be strong, but long in 1 or 2 suits.
if you opened 4NT (in (Benji)Acol demanding specific Aces) would you regard this as forcing?
I suppose (to comply with law 20F1) you should alert it as "Our only forcing regular opening bid, but not strong enough to demand a specific Ace reply from partner". I haven't heard of such a definition of course . . . .
Strong artificial opening were never announced. Announcemens only ever applied to natural opening 2-bids.
But What should we expect when someone says 8 playing tricks, non-forcing?
I might think it showed clubs.
If someone says
I would ask what 2C(P)P would show. Perhaps I have to wait until after responder has called, but the responses to 2C should be on the system card.
There was a debate on Bridge Winners recently that pointed out that you can't ask always people what responses to their bids would mean, because you can end up with a "system loop" where everyone's system depends on everyone else's system. (For example, if one side plays a natural NT defence against weak notrumps and an artificial defence against strong notrumps, and the other side plays weak NT against artificial defences and strong NT against natural defences…) So the only real resolution has to be for each players' bids to depend on the meaning of their opponents' previous bids, but not on any potential meaning of their opponents' future bids.
As such, if you ask "with what hands will responder pass the bid?", you may well end up hearing "it depends on what your intervening pass means". (This is unlikely over 2C, but in sequences like (1NT), X, (P), the meaning of a pass now by advancer is quite likely to depend on the meaning of the pass by responder.)
@weejonnie I dont play that with any of my partners
so 2C as the only forcing opening bid still applies :)
The problem is that most club Benji players will answer to a question about a 2C opener "8 playing tricks in one of the majors, forcing/non-forcing". Further questions won't be asked. If this is accepted as an explanation what should an opponent expect in the opener's hand particularly when they say 8 PTs in a major non-forcing? It's probably just as important to define what they should not expect eg a semi-balanced hand with 20 points.
Do people really say "non-forcing", because that makes no sense? Do you mean not game-forcing?
I've never heard "non forcing" in this context but I guess they mean a 2H/2S rebid is non-forcing; in the same way that opening 2H/2S can be announced as "strong, non-forcing".
With most of my Benji partners, we play that the sequence 2C-2D-2Maj is forcing for one round.
With the two who do not regard the sequence as forcing, my Convention Card starts off … "Modified Benjaminised Acol" and we explain the modification to those opponents we have not met before.
As others have mentioned, there did used to be a quite specific definition of clear cut tricks in the blue book. It didn't always tally with the expectation of taking 8 tricks. I think that is a reasonable explanation, but probably many people who use it also open any 20 count 2C, in which case the explanation really ought to be, for example, "8 PT, or 20+ HCP. Certainly there's almost always some kind of balanced option. So it isn't really a complete explanation I guess.
There was a definition - which required a reading age of about 17, and was not widely publicised (except on Bridge Forums) - opposite a void and second best distribution.
"Clear-cut tricks are defined as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand with
the second best suit break." BB-2016
If someone forgets the strong balanced option in their explanation then they should be encouraged to mention it.
I guess from the replies (for which thank you) there is not a definition of 8 playing tricks despite the suggestion in the Blue book that most Bridge players will understand it. In my experience they don't and I certainly didn't (or more correctly they didn't) when given the explanation of "8 playing tricks in one of the majors, non-forcing". Here's the Blue Book's statement:
"5 A 3
A partnership may define the strength of a hand using any method of hand evaluation that will
be understood easily by its opponents (High Card Points (HCP), Playing tricks, Losing Trick
Count, etc). Regardless, your understandings must meet the permitted minimums defined in
terms of HCP, controls and ‘Rule of 18/19’ (see 7B1 and 7B3)."
I think HCP and Losing Trick Count are well understood. It's just 8 playing tricks that is not.
Well understood until you discover that they're using new losing trick count or some variant.
8 playing tricks is easy. I say: "I expect to make 8 tricks most of the time opposite a balanced Yarborough". It's a bit less onerous than what was "Clear-Cut" tricks.
I don't know LTC, let alone any variant!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
That makes two of the definitions - PT and LTC - not well understood!
There are at least two common definitions of the original losing trick count (with New Losing Trick Count being somewhat different).
The simplest is "AKQ losers" which works like this: 1 for every suit with at least 1 card and no Ace; plus 1 for every suit with at least 2 cards and no King; plus 1 for every suit with at least 3 cards and no Queen. (These are cumulative, so a suit consisting of 3 small cards would be worth 3 losers.) This is at least simple enough to explain at the table to someone who doesn't know it.
The other commonly seen definition modifies this to take finesses into account, e.g. Kx is counted as 1½ losers because there's a 50% chance that the King could get finessed, but AQJx is counted as half a loser for the same reason. This is probably too complex to explain in response to a question.
Luckily, the two normally give fairly comparable numbers (as finesse adjustments can go both ways), so it's a similar situation to someone saying "12 HCP" for an opening bid without explaining all the adjustments they might use to, say, open a hand that only has 11 points on a strict AKQJ count.
This site gives a very comprehensive description of the New LTC
http://youth.worldbridge.org/new-losing-trick-count-nltc/