Overbidding
I was asked about a player opening a Benji 2clubs on the following hand:
Ax
J10x
Qx
AKQxxx
This just about meets the strictures of Blue Book 7C1 (16HCP) but woefully short of most people's idea of 8 playing tricks. However, it can't be described as a psyche as it's not a _gross_ misrepresentation. There are no rules to prevent reckless bidding. If the partner's explanation is "21,22 balanced or 8 playing tricks" is there any comeback when this proves not to be the case?
I would say the pair need to update their description if a player regularly opens 2C on such weak hands but how is the director to know whether it's regular because it's not a psyche so won't get recorded?
Ax
J10x
Qx
AKQxxx
This just about meets the strictures of Blue Book 7C1 (16HCP) but woefully short of most people's idea of 8 playing tricks. However, it can't be described as a psyche as it's not a _gross_ misrepresentation. There are no rules to prevent reckless bidding. If the partner's explanation is "21,22 balanced or 8 playing tricks" is there any comeback when this proves not to be the case?
I would say the pair need to update their description if a player regularly opens 2C on such weak hands but how is the director to know whether it's regular because it's not a psyche so won't get recorded?
Comments
I think it makes most sense to record it regardless – just because it isn't an outright psyche doesn't meant that you can't take a note to see if players are consistently going beyond the range they say they will. (One advantage of online play is that it might even be technically possible to record this sort of thing automatically.)
The real test, though, is whether their partner seems to be allowing for that sort of bidding. If they're consistently getting too high after this sort of opening, there isn't a problem. If they aren't, then maybe something is wrong; if a player is repeatedly opening weaker than they claim their agreement is, and yet they seem to find the right spot anyway, the partnership is probably allowing for the tendency and should specify a lower range for the call.
Frances Hinden has a very good paper on 2 club openings (see https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/articles/BlueBook-section-7C.pdf).
The hand has 16 HCPs and has 5+ cards in one suit. So maybe you might need to suggest that they call it "strong" rather than 8 playing tricks. As has been discussed here before "playing tricks" are not defined in any regulations. I do agree with ais523 that maybe "comparing" bidding these type of hands might show inconsistancies. However, I suspect that on the whole it might prove unsuccessful (for the partnership) for many hands of 16 HCPs and only 5 cards in the suit.
However, what do I know. I have seen some very wierd bidding on-line and sometimes I think people play with abandon on-line when they know that partner can't give them the "death" stare. Strangely it comes off. So I do wonder whether bidding F2F will resume in the same bizzare way as on-line. We live in interesting times!
Throat
I think the only potential problem here is disclosure.
If the opponents expect 8 playing tricks when 2C is described as Benji, then the 'offenders' should describe 2C as '16+ with a long suit'.
The battle to have players understand what others think constitute sound opening 2C or 2D bids has been lost.
Most of the time a partnership do not agree on what constitutes a 2C opening so ensuring that their agreements are permitted or ensuring that they describe their agreements to the opponents are both very difficult.