[VixTD]

Scoring: MP

2♣(1).P.2♦(2)..P
..2♥...P....P...3♥(3)
...X....P....P....4♦
...P....P....P

---

(1) 19-20 hcp or 8 playing tricks in any suit (alerted)
(2) relay (announced, but should just have been alerted)
(3) requesting partner to bid 3NT with a heart stop (alerted)

Lead: ♥A. Result: 4♦ (E) +2, NS -170 [corrected]

East called the director to query the Benji-two opener as soon as he saw dummy. (He was told this was not a good time to draw attention to the problem, but as his next move was to claim twelve tricks it didn't really matter.)

What should the director do?

[iviehoff]

What the director has to do is determine what range of strength NS intend their bid to show when they said "8 playing tricks". If that range of strength does not conforms to OB 10B4, then he rules that NS are are playing an agreement which is not permitted. If it does, then it is a misbid or psyche.

The hand shown falls well short of the 8 clear-cut tricks and high card strength of a 1-level opening, described in OB 10B4, so it is not considered a strong hand, and may not be described as such. If the partnership intend their description "8 playing tricks" to include such a hand, then they have a 2-bid which does not conform to OB 11G10, under which a weak meaning which can be a single suiter in any suit is not permitted.

It's all very well to say this, but often the situation is tricky. It can happen that one half of a partnership thinks this kind of hand is fair enough for the 8 playing tricks description, and the other doesn't. The question is then whether the second one is aware of his partner's foibles in this regard and caters for it, so that they are actually playing that as an agreement. An issue here is how forcing 2H is meant to be, so that we can say that N's pass of it indicates his understanding that partner may be weak.

I always find it odd that a partnership which, if they play traditional Acol 2-bids treats them as forcing, often seems to think that 2-of-a-major in a Benjamin sequence is non-forcing. Personally, I treat 2H as forcing in this sequence. But, nonetheless, N's pass of 2H isn't compelling evidence that he is aware of his partner's flaky 2-bids, because they may be genuinely playing the sequence as non-forcing.

[jeremy69]

I assume you mean the score is 170 for EW?

The TD should quiz NS to establish whether it is their agreement to open hands such as these 2C. Assuming it is(and I would take some persuading that it is not) then this is an ilegal agreement as it fails to meet any of the three criteria for agreeing to open a strong artificial two bid and NS should receive Av- unless they have already got less than this in which case they keep it. EW get Av+ (unless their board score score exceeds this). EW haven't bid this well but they would not have been in this position if their opponents had stuck to the rules.
With luck NS will rant about the iniquitous committee that has breached their human rights to open anything they like 2C and then you can hit them for a PP or two as well.

As we are now up to ruling number six perhaps with more to come is it time to comment on what a nice event this must have been?

[bluejak]

The caddy was lovely. Admittedly she let the TDs do the actual work, but since in the skirt she was wearing half the room was waiting to see what happened when she bent down to pick up a board it is perhaps better that she did not bother. My wife was worried she might have chipped a nail if she had done anything.

The event seemed very pleasant: the DIC seemed to spend his time fighting with the BridgeMates, and people enjoyed themselves generally.

[shyams]

bluejak, on Jul 8 2010, 02:39 PM, said:

The caddy was lovely.  Admittedly she let the TDs do the actual work, but since in the skirt she was wearing half the room was waiting to see what happened when she bent down to pick up a board it is perhaps better that she did not bother. My wife was worried she might have chipped a nail if she had done anything.

?? Event description ??

[Pict]

I'd just hate to think that EW get a result out of this.

Let's say South isn't ignorant of the local rules on the 2C any suit strong bid, and opens 4H. EW achieve what and why?

That's a question I'd be asking.

[bluejak]

One of the problems with many rulings is that a certain level of competence seems often to be assumed. This came from a Swiss Pairs, with about four or five top class players, twenty or so competent or so pairs, and a lot of very poor pairs.

It is easy to suggest players should protect themselves more, but if E/W were, let us say, one of the poor pairs, and they have been put in a difficult position by illegal means, ie by using an illegal method, why should we not have sympathy for them? There is a growing feeling that players whose opponents break the rules should suffer. Why?

Whether you approve or not of the rules for what you are allowed to play - and experience on these forums seems to suggest to me that 40% or so approve of their own countries' rules, and 25% or so approve of other countries' rules - they are there to be followed.

Of course, if you rule that it was a legal opening that is different, but if it is illegal, let us just rule for E/W and not worry about whether they could have done better.

[campboy]

Pict, on Jul 8 2010, 11:55 PM, said:

I'd just hate to think that EW get a result out of this.

Let's say South isn't ignorant of the local rules on the 2C any suit strong bid, and opens 4H.  EW achieve what and why? 

That's a question I'd be asking.

Looks routine for the auction to go 4h p p 5d out in that case. On the actual auction, though, East knows his partner is virtually broke and the CK is badly placed (even if he can get into dummy to lead up to it), so the chances of 5D making are virtually zero if South has a hand on which he would be permitted to open 2C by agreement.

[jallerton]

iviehoff, on Jul 8 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

What the director has to do is determine what range of strength NS intend their bid to show when they said "8 playing tricks".  If that range of strength does not conforms to OB 10B4, then he rules that NS are are playing an agreement which is not permitted.  If it does, then it is a misbid or psyche.

The hand shown falls well short of the 8 clear-cut tricks and high card strength of a 1-level opening, described in OB 10B4, so it is not considered a strong hand, and may not be described as such. If the partnership intend their description "8 playing tricks" to include such a hand, then they have a 2-bid which does not conform to OB 11G10, under which a weak meaning which can be a single suiter in any suit is not permitted.

I think you are 95% there, but the other 5% is important and is often overlooked.

EBU Orange Book 2006, on revised 2009, said:

Allowed at Level 4 only
11 G 9 Mixing types
These regulations do permit an opening bid to have a mixture of strong and other meanings at Level 4.
11 G 10 General
Two of a Suit openings may be played as any one or two of the following:
(a) Strong: Any combination of meanings provided that it promises a minimum strength of ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4).
{b} Any combination of meanings which either:
(1) includes one specified suit of at least four cards; or
(2) has a specification which does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid, and does not include two-suiters where the suit bid is the longer suit.
Notes:
(i) Responder is expected to explore game possibilities if his hand justifies it opposite the stronger types of his partner’s opening bid.
(ii) An example of item {b}(2) for clarification: it is permitted to play a 2♦ opening as ‘weak with Spades or Clubs’; this would not preclude a pair from opening such a bid on a hand that happened to have a second suit of Diamonds, since length in Diamonds is not part of the specification. But it is not permitted to play it as ‘Spades or Clubs with a second suit of Hearts or Diamonds’, since length in Diamonds is part of the specification.
(iii) Note that there is no limit to the number of types of strong hand included under (a), nor to the number of types included under {b} so long as the requirement (1) is followed, or alternatively so long as the requirement (2) is followed.

By virtue of 11G9 and 11G10{b}(2) above, it is perfectly legal at EBU Level 4 to agree to open 2♣ on:

♠ Q9754
♥ AK98532
♦
♣ 6

in addition to 19-20 balanced and other "strong" meanings.

However, what the TD does need to establish is what call North and South would expect each other to make on:

♠ Q9754
♥ 6
♦
♣ AK98532

and

♠ A4
♥ 6
♦ 84
♣ AKJ98532

If the TD establishes that there is an (explicit or implicit) agreement to open either of these hands with 2♣ as well as the 5710 hand South actually held, then N/S do indeed have an illegal agreement.

On the other hand, if the TD establishes that neither of these hands would be opened 2♣ by North/South then he should determine that the agreement is perfectly legal at EBU Level 4. The hand should then be treated as a misinformation case as "19-20 hcp or 8 playing tricks in any suit" would not have been an accurate description of the N/S methods.

[FrancesHinden]

jallerton, on Jul 9 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

The hand should then be treated as a misinformation case as "19-20 hcp or 8 playing tricks in any suit" would not have been an accurate description of the N/S methods.

...and this matters, because if they have an illegal agreement, the board is cancelled and replaced by 60/40 (or some 60/something else) assuming +170 was less than 60%-or-their-average; but if it is an MI case you have to decide how the auction might have gone with proper disclosure.

[mjj29]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2010, 04:13 PM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 9 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

The hand should then be treated as a misinformation case as "19-20 hcp or 8 playing tricks in any suit" would not have been an accurate description of the N/S methods.

...and this matters, because if they have an illegal agreement, the board is cancelled and replaced by 60/40 (or some 60/something else) assuming +170 was less than 60%-or-their-average; but if it is an MI case you have to decide how the auction might have gone with proper disclosure.

I think jallerton is saying that they might be playing "19-20 bal, 8 PT or a weak distributional hand with long hearts" - which is a perfectly legal agreement. As, for that matter, is "19-20 bal, 8 PT or a weak distributional hand with a long suit that isn't the suit bid".

[jallerton]

Indeed. For many pairs I suspect that the real implicit agreement is:

[a] 19-20 HCP balanced; or
[b] "Strong 2" in any suit conforming with the "Extended Rule of 25"; or
[c] A distributional hand with fair playing strength in one of the major suits.

As Bluejak once pointed out on another thread, hand types [c] are opened with a Benjamin 2♣ by some players who have an irrational fear that they might miss game by opening at the 1-level. These are not usually minor suit hands as (i) 11 tricks are needed for game in a minor suit and (ii) they cannot show their suit at the 2-level after opening 2♣.

[jallerton]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 9 2010, 10:13 PM, said:

jallerton, on Jul 9 2010, 07:58 PM, said:

The hand should then be treated as a misinformation case as "19-20 hcp or 8 playing tricks in any suit" would not have been an accurate description of the N/S methods.

...and this matters, because if they have an illegal agreement, the board is cancelled and replaced by 60/40 (or some 60/something else) assuming +170 was less than 60%-or-their-average; but if it is an MI case you have to decide how the auction might have gone with proper disclosure.

It's not quite that simple.

EBU Whte Book 2010 said:

40.3 Illegal agreements
If a pair uses an illegal agreement the board is scored as in #90.4.2. No attempt is
made to find other instances of use of the illegal agreement.
If a pair deliberately uses an agreement knowing it to be illegal this is considered very serious, and disqualification may be considered.
Suppose a pair uses an illegal agreement and does not describe it properly, and get a score of at least 40% on a board. The TD should consider the two infractions, namely misinformation and using an illegal agreement. If he would adjust because of misinformation to a score that gives the non-offending side greater than 60% he should do so: otherwise he gives them Ave+ per #90.4.2.

So if the agreement is illegal, the non-offenders get the best of three possibilities:

(i) the table result;
(ii) the assigned adjusted score after considering what might have happened had the call been explained correctly; and
(iii) average plus.


Of course, if the agreement is legal, the non-offenders get the better of:

(i) the table result; and
(ii) the assigned adjusted score after considering what might have happened had the call been explained correctly.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on Jul 10 2010, 08:01 PM, said:

Indeed. For many pairs I suspect that the real implicit agreement is:

[a] 19-20 HCP balanced; or
[b] "Strong 2" in any suit conforming with the "Extended Rule of 25"; or
[c] A distributional hand with fair playing strength in one of the major suits.

As Bluejak once pointed out on another thread, hand types [c] are opened with a Benjamin 2♣ by some players who have an irrational fear that they might miss game by opening at the 1-level.  These are not usually minor suit hands as (i) 11 tricks are needed for game in a minor suit and (ii) they cannot show their suit at the 2-level after opening 2♣.

I do not think people think that far at all. They pick up a seven card suit and now they have to find an opening bid. They immediately discard a one-bid because of the seven card suit.

So I think it is just as likely to be a minor as a major because that level of player is not thinking that the next bid will have to be at a round higher if it is a minor nor is he thinking about having to make eleven tricks: he is thinking "What do I open with lots of playing tricks?"

[jallerton]

I know that my experience does not always seem to be the same as yours, but in most light Benjamin rulings I have seen over the last few years, the Opener usually has a long major suit.

Anyway it doesn't really matter which implicit agreement is more common. As I said earlier, the TD should establish the agreement being played by the actual pair at the table, and rule on that basis.

[cloa513]

Is it valid to query why West passed 3♥X with so much high card strength, wouldn't redouble be a suitable bid?

[VixTD]

The ruling was that NS are playing an illegal system, so the score was adjusted to 60/40.

While I agree with Jeffrey that many Benjamin players will more readily open their (not so strong) eight playing trick hands with a major suit than a minor, if they say their agreement is to do this in any suit, I think the onus is on them to show they differentiate between the suits, and not really for the TD to speculate.

Had their agreement been that the 2♣ opener shows any one of: (1) 21-22 pts bal, (2) eight or more playing tricks in a major, not necessarily strong, not necessarily rule of 25, (3) eight or more playing tricks in a minor, strong, guaranteed to conform to rule of 25 or have 16+ pts I would have ruled that it was legal. But that is not what their card said.