Benjii 2C again

2»

Comments

  • That's why I don't call it strong, although to most people ten tricks is pretty strong. I would never call anything Benji or Acol, terms that are too variable to be meaningful.

    Alan

  • edited December 2019

    @gordonrainsford said:

    @ais523 said:
    I think there's some official guidance somewhere saying that for sufficiently weird hands, a partnership is expected to have no agreement, so they can choose whatever bid they think will go best regardless of what the agreement about it is.

    Not that I'm aware of. The Frances Hinden article linked in the first post in this thread is the best source of information about this regulation and its background.

    I knew I'd seen that guidance somewhere but searched the Blue & White books in vain. Then I remembered Frances' article and it's in there on page 2:
    "Where a hand is a true freak (such as with a double void or a 12-card suit), TDs should accept that
    few pairs would have agreements on how to bid it."
    How 'official' is this guidance and are we advised as TDs to follow it and allow 'improv theatre' for these very rare exceptional hands (there was one in the recent Middlesex Congress Teams - board 37)?

    Peter Bushby Suffolk

  • edited February 12

    Not a Benji 2C, but a pair play a for of Nottingham-like precision in the 1C is 16 - something, and 2 level bids include strong options.

    An opening 2h by West was described as "8 playing tricks in hears or 22-23 balanced":

    Given that 2h is the anchor (in the same way that 2C is with Benji and Acol hands), should this need to meet the requirement for "Strong" when showing hearts, i.e. 16+ or 12+/5+? Hence this hand does not meet the criteria.
    Incidentally not entirely convinced it quite has 8 playing tricks either.

  • It isn't quite 8 PT. I would call it a misbid.

    Alan

  • it is legal to play 2H as 4+ hearts with some strength or a strong balanced hand; 'some strength' can be anything. This is Blue Book 7C1: 7C1(a) + 7C1(b)(i).

    I don't think disclosure is much of an issue here: this hand as much strength and defence as many hands which are described as '8 playing tricks'.

    The one issue I would have is whether the bid is forcing or not - as an opponent I would like to know in response to my first question - the opponents should not be put in the position of having to ask this as a follow-up question.

  • Strong bids don't need an anchor, it's potentially weak bids that need an anchor.

    The 2!h bid here is semi-preemptive in hearts, and that's just fine because the all the non-strong options have a known suit (there's only one option, and its known suit is hearts).

    (That said, the West hand only has 7 playing tricks, so I suspect there's a misbid involved.)

  • @ais523 said:
    (That said, the West hand only has 7 playing tricks, so I suspect there's a misbid involved.)

    You may be right but I suspect that West's idea of "playing tricks" may be different from ours, so that there might be a disclosure issue. I would ask West "Why did you open 2!h?". If he thinks he has 8 playing tricks, I would see if East thinks so too.

    Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live

  • (... the West hand only has 7 playing tricks...)

    I'm not sure I'd even consider that to be seven. Without East's J10 of diamonds, West would only make 6 tricks on this hand.

  • .> @Mitch said:

    (... the West hand only has 7 playing tricks...)

    I'm not sure I'd even consider that to be seven. Without East's J10 of diamonds, West would only make 6 tricks on this hand.

    Yes - but people like to show 'strong' hands even when their hand is not strong - it helps dissuade the opponents from bidding. I am pretty sure West would rate the hand as 6 playing tricks in hearts and the KQ of diamonds to make 8 tricks. I mean usually when you have AKQXXX partner turns up with a couple or even three and the suit runs. Equally there is no reason why the Ace of diamonds might not lie right, or partner might have it, or he might have the jack and your KQ are then two certain tricks.

    Obviously the EBU had a more cautious line in their ER25 days - there is a great difference between 'possible' and 'clear cut' - and many people go for the possible, even if it is not probable.

  • @GrahamC said:

    Not really on-topic, but what's going on with that double-dummy table? It looks like if you can't make 7 tricks it puts you down for making just one.

  • @weejonnie said:
    Yes - but people like to show 'strong' hands even when their hand is not strong - it helps dissuade the opponents from bidding.

    If West knew that it wasn't strong, then this is either a psyche, or deliberate misinformation (depending on whether the partner also has a similar view). If the purpose is principally to dissuade the opponents from bidding, then this is more akin to a pre-emptive opening, and if that is the case then (it is nevertheless legal, but) it must be disclosed as such.
    I'm inclined to agree with 16248 that this is more likely to be a misbid - i.e. pure incompetence on West's part, if he considers this to be worth an "Acol Two". But again, if that is partner's valuation as well, then this is still misinformation.
    Whether or not you think this is worth a 2-level opening, it is misleading to describe something as "X" when it quite clearly is not "X".

Sign In or Register to comment.