[blackshoe]

I find the suggestion that simply changing what is written on one's system card can change the legality of one's agreement rather bemusing. If an agreement is in compliance with regulation, it seems to me, then it should never be ruled illegal, and a call made in accord with the agreement should never be ruled a deviation of any kind. Yet it seems players are falling afoul of rulings because... what? They can't articulate their agreement "properly"? They don't make it very clear on the system card what they're doing? Some Secretary Bird wants to screw with them? What are we doing to our game?

Perhaps the change is just to change the TD's perception of one's agreement. Why should we need to do that? Isn't it his job to find out what the agreement actually is, rather than to make assumptions?

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-04, 09:16, said:

I find the suggestion that simply changing what is written on one's system card can change the legality of one's agreement rather bemusing.

It sounds to me as if you are assuming that these players have a well-defined agreement and they only thing they need to decide is how to word it on the CC.

But usually it is so that pairs have agreements that are much less elaborate than what would fit on their 15x20cm (one-sided) CC if they had one. Once they start filling in the CC, they actually start thinking and/or talking about what their agreements are, and things like this become clearer.

So how they fill in their CC influences their de facto agreements, in particular it influences whether they play legal or illegal agreements.

[Vampyr]

IanPayn, on 2017-January-04, 06:24, said:

So please stop complaining outrageously that London members have no control over everything. If you don't engage, you get no control. If you do, you do.

I did attend committee meetings for many years, but anyway voting for board and committee members should be on the basis of one man one vote.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2017-January-04, 09:22, said:

It sounds to me as if you are assuming that these players have a well-defined agreement and they only thing they need to decide is how to word it on the CC.

But usually it is so that pairs have agreements that are much less elaborate than what would fit on their 15x20cm (one-sided) CC if they had one. Once they start filling in the CC, they actually start thinking and/or talking about what their agreements are, and things like this become clearer.

So how they fill in their CC influences their de facto agreements, in particular it influences whether they play legal or illegal agreements.

To be fair, the CC is 4 sides of A5, and you can add additional pages if you wish.

[StevenG]

helene_t, on 2017-January-04, 09:02, said:

And also that partners seem to cater to it by not expecting anything beyond 8 PTs from opener, i.e. with two queens or so they don't raise to game.

I don't understand your point. The whole purpose is to show only eight PTs (nine will elicit a jump rebid and ten is a 2♦ opener), so of course you don't raise if you have 0 PTs. This is the same whether or not it is Blue Book compliant.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2017-January-04, 09:22, said:

It sounds to me as if you are assuming that these players have a well-defined agreement and they only thing they need to decide is how to word it on the CC.

But usually it is so that pairs have agreements that are much less elaborate than what would fit on their 15x20cm (one-sided) CC if they had one. Once they start filling in the CC, they actually start thinking and/or talking about what their agreements are, and things like this become clearer.

So how they fill in their CC influences their de facto agreements, in particular it influences whether they play legal or illegal agreements.

I don't think I made any assumptions about how well-defined their agreement is. I do agree that many players don't think about what it means to adopt some particular agreement, especially if it's common or popular in their area. I also agree that talking about how to fill out the card can help clarify things.

I was not aware that the EBU has a one-sided system card. Or maybe I was and have just forgotten about it. :-)

[barmar]

helene_t, on 2017-January-04, 09:22, said:

So how they fill in their CC influences their de facto agreements, in particular it influences whether they play legal or illegal agreements.

So the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis holds for bridge?

[mycroft]

Well, it is a slight change to their agreement - they can no longer open the club hands that don't fit. Not that *that* will ever happen right?

Having said that, it is interesting that the same game that I get to jump through here (for a while more, anyway) exists in the much more precisely regulated EBU. There is nothing - NOTHING - more fun than explaining "strong" per a SAF 2♣ opener to a National level player who just got burned by the opponents ("But he has no defence - we can make 5♥, with a likely pseudo for 6!"). It's another one of "my judgment is obvious, if you regulate against it, you're stifling innovation/making illegal what 'everyone' plays (and when they do it against a lesser player who doesn't fit in their 'everyone', it's Just Bridge when it causes them to misdefend); their judgment is just stupid, what do you mean it's legal (especially when they misdefend/misbid as a result)" blinker games that are endemic to the bridge community.

One of the things I suggested to the "rewrite the convention charts" people is that they make very clear how "bright-line" the regulations are, so the TDs have something to point to. The EBU does that, with 5A3. I actually suggested that if they want to allow judgment, that the test should be "there are no LAs to this call, provided you ignore 'it's illegal, so I can't do it'." 'Everyone' (or 'everyone who can play') would make the same call? Okay, I'm going polling; if the poll proves you right, we'll allow it.

[helene_t]

StevenG, on 2017-January-04, 09:57, said:

I don't understand your point. The whole purpose is to show only eight PTs (nine will elicit a jump rebid and ten is a 2♦ opener), so of course you don't raise if you have 0 PTs. This is the same whether or not it is Blue Book compliant.

My point is that if you have a rule of 25 hand then two queens by partner will typically promote some kings or jacks to sure tricks. I suppose you could have the agreement which is BB compliant while at the same time meaning that partner needs aces or ruffing value for game. But when I see people passing the 2M rebid with a flat hand it seems to me like they expect a somewhat thin opener, way short of what I would personally call a semi-GF hand.

[IanPayn]

Vampyr, on 2017-January-04, 09:52, said:

I did attend committee meetings for many years, but anyway voting for board and committee members should be on the basis of one man one vote.

You have said this before, about the EBU, and I told you that if you produced a proposal as to how it would work, and how much it would cost, then I would ensure that the proposal was put before the Board (note in the unlikely event that anyone is interested: I am Vice-Chairman of the EBU. Imagine the power]. This was about three years ago: I'm still waiting. I believe a couple of people at the time agreed with you. Surely between the three of you, you could have come up with something? Or did you expect me to do it for you? That would be a bit presumptuous, wouldn't it?

At county level it is one man one vote - turn up or register a proxy, each easy to do. Have you done this in, say, the last five years? Don't claim a system doesn't work if the problem is that you don't use it.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-04, 10:01, said:

I was not aware that the EBU has a one-sided system card. Or maybe I was and have just forgotten about it. :-)

There is a two-sided one that is rarely used; also on the outside of most scorecards there are two sides on which you can write very rudimentary agreements.

[StevenG]

helene_t, on 2017-January-04, 10:32, said:

My point is that if you have a rule of 25 hand then two queens by partner will typically promote some kings or jacks to sure tricks. I suppose you could have the agreement which is BB compliant while at the same time meaning that partner needs aces or ruffing value for game. But when I see people passing the 2M rebid with a flat hand it seems to me like they expect a somewhat thin opener, way short of what I would personally call a semi-GF hand.

I don't think a Benji 2♣ is really meant to be a semi-GF hand, at least in the sense of having defensive values. If I turn to my copy of "All About Acol" (Cohen & Lederer, 1985 revised 1989) which was my bible when I started playing club bridge, and look up the chapter on strong 2s (the authors are very sniffy about the idea of club players managing weak 2s), three types are listed, one being "Prospective game hands with one long and powerful suit with eight playing tricks in the suit bid" - the others are powerful two-suiters (because in traditional Acol, you can show both suits), and hands that are too strong to risk partner passing. The latter two types don't really work so well in Benji as you haven't been able to show a real suit on the first bid, so the eight PT single-suited hand is by far and away the most common.

"All About Acol" also says "A hand with eight trumps to the top four honours, even with nothing whatsoever outside, fulfils this requirement. Such a hand not only may, but should, be opened with a strong two, particularly third-in-hand after two passes, if only on account of the pre-emptive value of the bid", and then point out the merits of pre-empting opponents out of a possible game. Perhaps B/I texts from other eras say something different (can anyone help, please), but that's what I think of as an Acol strong 2, and, by analogy, a Benji 2♣. This may not be so easy to understand if you didn't learn your bridge in an (English) Acol environment, but I suspect it's how nearly all club players of a certain age instinctively think, certainly those who came in to club bridge from social bridge, rather than as precocious juniors. Trying to regulate out the bid's pre-emptive value does seem to me to be an assault on traditional Acol styles, even if they have now been modified to weak twos, etc..

[weejonnie]

StevenG, on 2017-January-04, 11:20, said:

I don't think a Benji 2♣ is really meant to be a semi-GF hand, at least in the sense of having defensive values. If I turn to my copy of "All About Acol" (Cohen & Lederer, 1985 revised 1989) which was my bible when I started playing club bridge, and look up the chapter on strong 2s (the authors are very sniffy about the idea of club players managing weak 2s), three types are listed, one being "Prospective game hands with one long and powerful suit with eight playing tricks in the suit bid" - the others are powerful two-suiters (because in traditional Acol, you can show both suits), and hands that are too strong to risk partner passing. The latter two types don't really work so well in Benji as you haven't been able to show a real suit on the first bid, so the eight PT single-suited hand is by far and away the most common.

"All About Acol" also says "A hand with eight trumps to the top four honours, even with nothing whatsoever outside, fulfils this requirement. Such a hand not only may, but should, be opened with a strong two, particularly third-in-hand after two passes, if only on account of the pre-emptive value of the bid", and then point out the merits of pre-empting opponents out of a possible game. Perhaps B/I texts from other eras say something different (can anyone help, please), but that's what I think of as an Acol strong 2, and, by analogy, a Benji 2♣. This may not be so easy to understand if you didn't learn your bridge in an (English) Acol environment, but I suspect it's how nearly all club players of a certain age instinctively think, certainly those who came in to club bridge from social bridge, rather than as precocious juniors. Trying to regulate out the bid's pre-emptive value does seem to me to be an assault on traditional Acol styles, even if they have now been modified to weak twos, etc..

Pulled out "The complete book of Bridge" (Reese & Dormer 1973). Reese states "At least eight PT are required and this means a six-card suit will usually be present; but the bid can be made on two 5-card suits and, exceptionally, with 5-4 in the major suits. Most hands that warrant an opening two-bid contain between 16 to 19 HCPs" Examples given are:-

AKQJ873 9 AQ2 64
AQJ93 AKT92 6 A7
AKJ53 KQJ9 AJ8 3

(for a 2♠ opening). The guideline given is "If I open at the 1 level and this is passed out could I miss a game?" He recommends
;

A6 AQJ874 AK83 T as being suitable for an Acol 2♥ bid. (This only has 7 CC tricks, if that, but qualifies under ER25.)

Under pre-empts AQJT832 7 62 KQ9 is recommended as a vulnerable 4♠ instead of 1♠

[VixTD]

I think opinions on Acol strong twos have diversified since they were first conceived, so that there are now different schools of thought. A lot of people contributing to this discussion consider them to be strong, but below game-forcing strength, as described by Steven G, and as taught by Ron Klinger (in "Bridge Conventions, Defences and Countermeasures"). Crowhurst and Kambites (in "Understanding Acol") recommend a 2♠ opener on something like ♠AKQJxx ♥AQJxxx ♦A ♣- (to be followed up with 6♥ on the next round, a better route than starting with 2♦). This is another reason I don't like playing Benjy. Some people think a 2M rebid after opening 2♣ is forcing, and others don't. They rarely check that they agree on this sort of thing.

I also think a lot of bridge players have trouble with logic. They assume it naturally follows from "an opening two bid shows at least eight playing tricks with that suit as trumps" that "if you have eight playing tricks in a suit you must open two of that suit".

[Vampyr]

VixTD, on 2017-January-05, 12:02, said:

This is another reason I don't like playing Benjy. Some people think a 2M rebid after opening 2♣ is forcing, and others don't. They rarely check that they agree on this sort of thing.

Well, this is a problem for the Benjy players to work out or not. It needn't matter to you, because if someone asked you to play Benjy you would presumably agree things like this.

Quote

I also think a lot of bridge players have trouble with logic. They assume it naturally follows from "an opening two bid shows at least eight playing tricks with that suit as trumps" that "if you have eight playing tricks in a suit you must open two of that suit".

The real problem here is disclosure. They don't have to agree it is an Acol Two, if they haven't they must not describe it as such.