Benji Acol with multi-2[clubs]?

[oberiko]

I play Benji Acol and, on reading some of the pros and cons of the system, one of the biggest complaints is the loss of the weak-2♦. Has anyone ever introduced a multi-2♣ to address this? Here's what I'm thinking 2♣ could viably represent:

 

• A strong suited hand, which could be one of the following:
  
  • 19-22 HCP (unbalanced)
    
  • 16+ HCP and either 8 quick tricks in major OR 9 quick tricks in minor
    

  [*]21-22 balanced

  [*]Weak-2♦

The responder will always respond with a simple 2♦ relay (or pass in the case of an overcall). In the first three cases opener will rebid with their suit preference, while in the last, they simply pass.

 

At the moment, I can't really see any major downsides:

• If opener is strong, the bidding will proceed as per normal 2♣
  
• If opener is weak and partner is weak, then opener proceeds as per normal weak-2 (raising above overcalls if possible etc.)
  
• If opener is weak and partner is strong, then one of the opponents will almost certainly overcall and opener will pass; this passes the torch to responder
  

 

The only downside I can see is in the following scenario where opener is weak and responder is strong:

2♣ - (2x) - pass - (pass)

pass

 

Even this is, I think, fairly mild:

1. Opponents do not have trump-fit
   
2. Opponents bidding space was chewed up, fulfilling the goal of the preempt
   
3. As with weak-2s, responder likely couldn't have changed the suit anyway
   
4. If the responder has a sufficiently beefy hand (say, 19+ points), he will be able to discern the weak-two immediately and respond appropriately
   

 

Thoughts?

 

Edit: Corrected that it's to show 19-22 unbalanced and cleaned up the suit of strength option

Edited September 26, 2012 by oberiko

[32519]

How does responder differentiate between your first two options and the third option? With 22+ HCP it is considered standard for the auction to be forcing up to at least 3 of opener’s real suit.

 

So the auction goes –

2♣-P-2♦-P

2♠-P-?

 

The 2♠ bid = 8 quick tricks in a major (16+ HCP)

Forcing the auction to level 3 on a poor fit may be 1-level too high. What now? So how do I end the auction in 2♠ with these sorts of hands?

[manudude03]

How does responder differentiate between your first two options and the third option? With 22+ HCP it is considered standard for the auction to be forcing up to at least 3 of opener’s real suit.

 

So the auction goes –

2♣-P-2♦-P

2♠-P-?

 

The 2♠ bid = 8 quick tricks in a major (16+ HCP)

Forcing the auction to level 3 on a poor fit may be 1-level too high. What now? So how do I end the auction in 2♠ with these sorts of hands?

 

22+HCP is opened 2D in benji acol (showing the same hands as a standard 2C opener). The biggest problem seems to be if responder has diamonds. Say responder was 5-5 in the minors, are you really happy to bid 2D and watch the opponents find their major suit fits? Yet pre-empting more could screw the opener with a big hand.

[wank]

unsurprisingly many people play a multi 2♣.

 

opening 2♣ just because you have 19-22 points is stupid though, whatever other options are involved.

[brian_m]

I play Benji Acol and, on reading some of the pros and cons of the system, one of the biggest complaints is the loss of the weak-2♦. Has anyone ever introduced a multi-2♣ to address this?

 

If you're going to play a multi, then why not go the whole hog and play four of them? :) That's assuming Tartan Twos are still legit for you if you're playing offline.

 

2♣ = weak 2♦ or the usual game forcing or big balanced

2♦ = weak 2 in a major or Acol 2 in a minor or some balanced range

2♥ = weak 5-5 ♥ and a minor or an Acol 2♥ or some other balanced range

2♠ = weak 5-5 ♠ and another or an Acol 2♠

 

With three ways to show strong balanced in there you should be able to spare the 2NT opener to show something else, e.g. the minor two-suiter that's not covered in the above scheme.

[32519]

I play Benji Acol and, on reading some of the pros and cons of the system, one of the biggest complaints is the loss of the weak-2♦. Has anyone ever introduced a multi-2♣ to address this? Here's what I'm thinking 2♣ could viably represent:

 

• 19-22 HCP (any shape)
  
• 21-22 balanced
  
• 16+ HCP and either 8 quick tricks in major OR 9 quick tricks in minor
  
• Weak-2♦
  

 

Thoughts?

 

If your 2♣ bid can include a 21-22 balanced hand, then what are you using the 2NT bid for?

[Zelandakh]

It is a common idea and used at very high levels. Gerben (Dirksen) used to have a good write-up of this on his site but I am not sure if it is still there. Many schemes that include this also use other multi-way transfers at the 2 level. Another possibility (eg Myxo) is to additionally bundle a weak hand with both majors into the 2♣ opening. Yet another option (eg Wicked) is to bundle a weak 2 in spades into 2♣ along with the weak 2 in diamonds.

 

However, it should be noted that your assertion of no downside is misplaced. As fourth seat, which auction would you prefer to meet holding a big hand?

 

A. (2♣) - P - (2♦)

or

B. (2♦) - P - (4♦/5♦)

 

Similarly, Responder needs to have at least one forcing bid available. The cost of this is small but nonetheless present.

 

One final note, if you do go ahead with this I would suggest you do it in combination with Reverse Benji. That is a 2♣ opening shows a weak 2 in diamonds or a game force (possibly also 23-24 balanced if you are using an artificial 2NT opening), with a 2♦ opening covering the strong twos and the missing balanced range. Notice also that if you play the "2♥ = bust" response to the 2♣ opening then you can also bundle a strong two in hearts into it and thereby remove it from the 2♦ opening. Of course your 2♦ opening is now only a strong two in clubs, diamond or spades and the limited usefulness of that might lead you back to the idea that perhaps forgetting Benji and simply playing 3 weak twos was simpler and better after all.

[oberiko]

If your 2♣ bid can include a 21-22 balanced hand, then what are you using the 2NT bid for?

 

I'm following the recommendation of Bernard Magee and using the following ranges:

• 2NT: 19-20
  
• 2♣ - 2♦ - 2NT: 21-22
  
• 2♦ - 2♥ - 2NT: 23-24
  

[Zelandakh]

I'm following the recommendation of Bernard Magee and using the following ranges:

A lot of Benji players like to use some variation of this and I personally think it is a really bad idea. Rather than stuffing up your strong bids at the same time as getting too high on some 19 counts I much prefer just to make the 1NT rebid 15-17 instead of the traditional 15-16 - it is not like you do not have space for an invite here. Now your 1x - 1y - 2NT rebid shows 18-19, a 2NT opening is 20-21 and 2♣ followed by 2NT 22-23. Obviously you reverse that (22-23) to 2♦ followed by 2NT if playing Reverse Benji.

[oberiko]

I play Benji Acol and, on reading some of the pros and cons of the system, one of the biggest complaints is the loss of the weak-2♦. Has anyone ever introduced a multi-2♣ to address this? Here's what I'm thinking 2♣ could viably represent:

 

• 19-22 HCP (any shape)
  
• 21-22 balanced
  
• 16+ HCP and either 8 quick tricks in major OR 9 quick tricks in minor
  
• Weak-2♦
  

...

How does responder differentiate between your first two options and the third option? With 22+ HCP it is considered standard for the auction to be forcing up to at least 3 of opener’s real suit.

 

So the auction goes –

2♣-P-2♦-P

2♠-P-?

 

The 2♠ bid = 8 quick tricks in a major (16+ HCP)

Forcing the auction to level 3 on a poor fit may be 1-level too high. What now? So how do I end the auction in 2♠ with these sorts of hands?

 

I'm far from an expert on Benji, but I would think this would follow the same bidding rules as the current standard 2♣ (or Acol-2) no? Using Bridge Bum's guidelines:

• New suit: 5+ card suit, 8+ points and game-forcing
  
• 2NT: The negative response, showing 0-7 points
  
• Single raise: 3+ card support, with 5+ points. Game-forcing
  
• Double raise: Weaker than a single raise. Usually represents a weak hand with at least 4-card support.
  
• 3NT: Natural, balanced, 8-11 points.
  

[MickyB]

I was recently asked to play Benji, with 2C showing 20-21 NT or 8 playing tricks. I came to the conclusion that it's a big improvement to play 2C-P-2M as 5+cards, non-forcing, as now you can stop low opposite 20-21 NT, and find your fits when opener is unbalanced - bidding 2C:2H, 3D:P or 2C:2H, 4H:P when you would otherwise bid 2C:2D, 3D and have to guess whether to pass or bid 3H.

 

This wouldn't work as well if you include a weak 2D in the opening bid.

[oberiko]

I was recently asked to play Benji, with 2C showing 20-21 NT or 8 playing tricks. I came to the conclusion that it's a big improvement to play 2C-P-2M as 5+cards, non-forcing, as now you can stop low opposite 20-21 NT, and find your fits when opener is unbalanced - bidding 2C:2H, 3D:P or 2C:2H, 4H:P when you would otherwise bid 2C:2D, 3D and have to guess whether to pass or bid 3H.

 

This wouldn't work as well if you include a weak 2D in the opening bid.

 

I think that sounds more like a weakness with the 2♦-relay bid more then including weak-2♦ as part of 2♣, no?

[oberiko]

It is a common idea and used at very high levels. Gerben (Dirksen) used to have a good write-up of this on his site but I am not sure if it is still there. Many schemes that include this also use other multi-way transfers at the 2 level. Another possibility (eg Myxo) is to additionally bundle a weak hand with both majors into the 2♣ opening. Yet another option (eg Wicked) is to bundle a weak 2 in spades into 2♣ along with the weak 2 in diamonds.

 

However, it should be noted that your assertion of no downside is misplaced. As fourth seat, which auction would you prefer to meet holding a big hand?

 

A. (2♣) - P - (2♦)

or

B. (2♦) - P - (4♦/5♦)

 

Similarly, Responder needs to have at least one forcing bid available. The cost of this is small but nonetheless present.

 

One final note, if you do go ahead with this I would suggest you do it in combination with Reverse Benji. That is a 2♣ opening shows a weak 2 in diamonds or a game force (possibly also 23-24 balanced if you are using an artificial 2NT opening), with a 2♦ opening covering the strong twos and the missing balanced range. Notice also that if you play the "2♥ = bust" response to the 2♣ opening then you can also bundle a strong two in hearts into it and thereby remove it from the 2♦ opening. Of course your 2♦ opening is now only a strong two in clubs, diamond or spades and the limited usefulness of that might lead you back to the idea that perhaps forgetting Benji and simply playing 3 weak twos was simpler and better after all.

 

Hi,

 

I should clarify that I don't doubt that using 2♣ as a multi to potentially have weak-2♦ is indeed inferior to an opening bid of 2♦ right out of the gate in that situation. Off-hand, there are no advantages and it has the following disadvantages:

• As you said, it allows 4th chair more room to bid
  
• Exposes the "better" hand (the opener) as the dummy
  

What I'm thinking is that, assuming one is playing Benji, it's better to have the weak-2♦ option within the 2♣ then not.

 

In terms of responder having a forcing bid, I haven't thought much about it (just playing with the idea of multi-2♣ recently), but I think I covered it (roughly) by stating that responder can bid appropriately if they have a "beefy" hand; i.e. any bid other then 2♦ would imply that responder wants opener to play on, even if all he has is a weak-2♦. I reckon in that case, opener would rebid 2NT for Acol-2 strong diamonds and 3♦ to signify a weak diamond holding (other suits and 3NT would be natural).

[kenrexford]

Another possibility has been discussed before, but the idea is for 2C to be one or both majors (responder bids 2D,to preference spades) weak, of strong options, 2D multi but if weak then Muiderburg, and then 2M Roman (stronger Muiderburg) or something else you like (maybe ACOL twos).

[oberiko]

If you're going to play a multi, then why not go the whole hog and play four of them? :) That's assuming Tartan Twos are still legit for you if you're playing offline.

 

2♣ = weak 2♦ or the usual game forcing or big balanced

2♦ = weak 2 in a major or Acol 2 in a minor or some balanced range

2♥ = weak 5-5 ♥ and a minor or an Acol 2♥ or some other balanced range

2♠ = weak 5-5 ♠ and another or an Acol 2♠

 

With three ways to show strong balanced in there you should be able to spare the 2NT opener to show something else, e.g. the minor two-suiter that's not covered in the above scheme.

 

It is a common idea and used at very high levels. Gerben (Dirksen) used to have a good write-up of this on his site but I am not sure if it is still there. Many schemes that include this also use other multi-way transfers at the 2 level. Another possibility (eg Myxo) is to additionally bundle a weak hand with both majors into the 2♣ opening. Yet another option (eg Wicked) is to bundle a weak 2 in spades into 2♣ along with the weak 2 in diamonds.

 

However, it should be noted that your assertion of no downside is misplaced. As fourth seat, which auction would you prefer to meet holding a big hand?

 

A. (2♣) - P - (2♦)

or

B. (2♦) - P - (4♦/5♦)

 

Similarly, Responder needs to have at least one forcing bid available. The cost of this is small but nonetheless present.

 

One final note, if you do go ahead with this I would suggest you do it in combination with Reverse Benji. That is a 2♣ opening shows a weak 2 in diamonds or a game force (possibly also 23-24 balanced if you are using an artificial 2NT opening), with a 2♦ opening covering the strong twos and the missing balanced range. Notice also that if you play the "2♥ = bust" response to the 2♣ opening then you can also bundle a strong two in hearts into it and thereby remove it from the 2♦ opening. Of course your 2♦ opening is now only a strong two in clubs, diamond or spades and the limited usefulness of that might lead you back to the idea that perhaps forgetting Benji and simply playing 3 weak twos was simpler and better after all.

 

Another possibility has been discussed before, but the idea is for 2C to be one or both majors (responder bids 2D,to preference spades) weak, of strong options, 2D multi but if weak then Muiderburg, and then 2M Roman (stronger Muiderburg) or something else you like (maybe ACOL twos).

 

I should clarify my situation. Right now I only really play socially (at work) with a smallish group of people, some of whom rotate in and out. Simplicity thus needs to be one of the key factors in our conventions. The other main consideration is that one of the players is used to playing Acol with strong-2's, and Benji was the compromise we were able to reach to get my weak-2's in ♥'s and ♠'s.

 

My question, therefore, should have been worded if there is any disadvantage to using 2♣ to signify a potential weak-2♦ when playing Benji vs. having it restricted to simply "Acol-2 or high-NT". Yeah, it gives me a pretty shabby weak-2♦ bid, but I'm thinking it's better then foregoing it entirely.

 

For example, with the hand ♠XXX ♥XX ♦KQXXXX ♣QX (or something), I think the following scenarios are entirely possible:

 

Regular Benji

p - (1x) - 1y - (2x)

p

 

Benji w/ multi-2♣

2♣ - (p) - 2♦ - (p)

p

 

Does anyone see something that I'm missing?

[P_Marlowe]

Including a weak two in a strong (game forcing) 2C opening is playable

and gets played.

 

The defence against such an opening is to assume, that the 2C bid is

based on a weak two, which means, you could play X as T/O for diamonds.

 

With regards to your given seq. - If they would have opened 1H / 1S, they

would overcall 2H / 2S, because they would have overcalled a 2D opening

bid.

 

The probability to shut them out is low, as long as they know, how to handle

multi style opening bids.

 

You make it also harder for them, if they happen to hold a weak NT opening

bid, there are defences to multi, that allow you to double with a weak NT

... those defences try to use the additional round, that the delayed preempt

opening is giving to the opponents.

 

An alternative suggestion is to open 3D, with hands you seem worth while to

open with 2D.

The choosen sample hand

xxx xx KQxxxx Qx

 

would be ok ... at least green vs. red, or in 3rd seat, but you could say, you

will try to stretch.

Following this approach may also be ok with your main consideration ...

simplicity.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[32519]

Here’s the deal.

 

These forums are filled with plenty of different members experimenting with new ideas. New ideas are always welcomed and encouraged. For the benefit of all, test you new gadget and then come and post the full hands, actual bidding and actual results in these forums. No cheating now! We want you to post both your gains as well as your losses. When everyone can see in which direction the results are predominantly falling, your gadget will receive either the thumbs up or the thumbs down.

[bluecalm]

At the moment, I can't really see any major downsides:

 

The biggest downside by far is that you lose negative double/forcing pass if they bid something and opener is strong.

Say normally with K8xx xx xxx Qxxx if it starts:

2C - 3H - ? you have comfortable double here but now you have to pass and the auction will come back at 4H level partner facing a guess and probably needing to double with every strong hand.

Same goes for 2C - 3S - ? etc.

 

It seems to me that this is severe downside not giving much in return (you can't raise diamond preempt anyway so they don't lose that much space).

 

Overall: probably not worth it, just play normal strong 2C.

[fromageGB]

If you are in England, think twice before making a weak 2 in diamonds part of the 2♣ open. At one time I used to do this until a club I played in decided to change from being a "level 4" to a "level 3" club. EBU level 3 allows a weak 2 in diamonds only if it also guarantees 4 clubs, which rather defeats the object. At least, that's how I understand it.

 

Of course, in your work environment anything goes. But it it not a good idea when beginning to use methods that might hinder you when you move beyond that sphere.

[f0rdy]

The biggest downside by far is that you lose negative double/forcing pass if they bid something and opener is strong.

Say normally with K8xx xx xxx Qxxx if it starts:

2C - 3H - ? you have comfortable double here but now you have to pass and the auction will come back at 4H level partner facing a guess and probably needing to double with every strong hand.

Same goes for 2C - 3S - ? etc.

 

It seems to me that this is severe downside not giving much in return (you can't raise diamond preempt anyway so they don't lose that much space).

 

Overall: probably not worth it, just play normal strong 2C.

 

When we played this (but with just GF or 22+ bal as the strong options), we found it was usually pretty easy to tell which hand partner had; if 2nd seat asks about the 2C opening, partner has a weak 2 in diamonds. If they call without asking, partner has a strong hand.

 

Less facetiously, it's a question of frequency. If you lose accuracy on some fraction of strong openers (which are rare to start with), but gain much more frequently by being able to open 2D, you're winning.

 

Particularly at matchpoints, one nice pickup which came up surprisingly often was how keen people are to bid over your 2C openings (once they know what they are).

 

When the field are playing 2N after 2C - P - 2D - P - 2N (or a 2N opening), there are plenty of ways it can go well: they overcall and you pass the re-opening double to pick up a penalty against +120; they overcall and turn 2N-1 into 2M-1 the other way. Obviously some of the time they pick up +140 against +100 or whatever, but it felt like competitive auctions worked out well for us on the whole.

 

 

(On level 3 issues, that did come up with us, but we just dropped the weak 2 when necessary; it doesn't affect system, just decisions)

This may be different with more strong options; in our 2C, the probability of having wk2D >> 22+ bal >> GF unbalanced, so it's simpler.

[bluecalm]

I don't think you win much (or anything) by being able to open 2C with diamonds if partner can't raise that.

You know, preempts make it easier for them in many situations (some bidding decisions, many declarer play decisions) so if suddenly they got one more bid to begin with and your partner can't raise then it's not very attractive proposition imo.

 

I mean, it's not stupid and probably playable I just don't like it. I feel it's based mainly on picking on unprepared opponents and much worse vs good ones.

[f0rdy]

I don't think you win much (or anything) by being able to open 2C with diamonds if partner can't raise that.

You know, preempts make it easier for them in many situations (some bidding decisions, many declarer play decisions) so if suddenly they got one more bid to begin with and your partner can't raise then it's not very attractive proposition imo.

 

I mean, it's not stupid and probably playable I just don't like it. I feel it's based mainly on picking on unprepared opponents and much worse vs good ones.

 

Sure, it's not the best convention in the world. My feeling was that, particularly given partner can't raise you most of the time, it made sense to open it a lot more undisciplined than I would want to with a natural weak 2.

 

In the end we concluded the whole 2-level structure, (2C strong or wkD, 2D multi, 2M lucas, 2N another multi) was based on "picking on unprepared opponents and much worse vs good ones" (particularly the multi) and retired it after the junior camrose, I've just played 3 (or 4) weak twos for the last few years.

 

I think it's a slightly tricky situation; the majority of people I play against count as "unprepared" for slightly unfamiliar things, either because they're not very experienced or because they're in a relatively scratch partnership. Even if the good players in unpractised pairings will get to the right game most of the time when you open some random pre-empt in 3rd, you don't need many mid-auction system disagreements after eg 2D* x 2S* x to pick up a bunch of IMPs. Maybe the winning strategy would be to bring two cards every time you sit down for a teams match and give them one depending on your guess of how well-prepared they'll be... it would probably be disapproved of.

[Vampyr]

If you are in England, think twice before making a weak 2 in diamonds part of the 2♣ open. At one time I used to do this until a club I played in decided to change from being a "level 4" to a "level 3" club.

 

I wouldn't worry about this too much. My experience suggests that the majority of clubs (and virtually all tournaments) are level 4 or higher.

[paulg]

I have never been a fan of this particular multi, whatever the strong options, despite the fact that it is played by some top pairs and a team mate. It is becoming more popular in Scotland but I see more disasters than successes.

 

At the European Team Championships in Dublin earlier this year, only seven of the Open pairs played a multi 2♣ that was a weak 2♦ or their very strong bid (there were 97 pairs, of which 28 played a natural two clubs).