Benji Two vs. Weak 2 Diamonds

[Dinarius]

Who here plays Benji Twos?

 

Is anyone aware of deal simulations that compare the relative frequencies of weak 2♦ vs. strong 2♦?

 

Even if the frequency of weak outweighs strong 2♦, there is the issue of the ability to differentiate between 2♣ and 2♦ when playing Benji Twos.

 

Normal Strong 2♣ can be a lot of things - many by prior agreement, obviously.

 

Benji 2♣ is more limited. Is it more useful as a result? Or can all possible responses to Strong 2♣ and the rebids take care of the problems?

 

Personally, I prefer Benji Twos. Back of the envelope, while I'm not sure which I would bid more often - weak or strong 2D, when I play Benji, I do find the limited range of the 2 Club bid useful fairly frequently.

 

Anyone for Benji Twos?

 

Thanks.

 

D.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

If freq. is your q, the weak variant most likely wins, not even close.

Putting all strong hands into one bids, makes bidding strong hands harder,

i.e. you loose some precision in game / slam auctios.

The effect assumes, you invest some energy in structures after your strong

openings, if not ..., the loss may not be really measureable.

 

The main thing: what is everyone else playing, at least with regards to potential

partners of yours?

 

usually 2D is used to fix whole in the opening structure of the system you play.

 

We play Ekren 2D, 2D showes a weak NT with both majors, because we dont open those

hands not with 1NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Cyberyeti]

Very few stromg players play benji.

 

Highest frequency I suspect is to play a multi and split your major suit weak 2s between the classical 6 card variety and 5M4other, with one in the multi and the other opened as a weak 2 and add some strong hand types into the multi.

 

I actually like a weak 2♦ and think it should be as variable as possible because it's tough to defend, what do you do with a (24)34 12-14 ?

[Tramticket]

I've played a lot of Benji.

 

It is very playable, but the 2C opening needs to be kept as genuinely strong. The weakness in the system is when you hold a strong hand with a heart suit and the bidding starts 2D-2H-3H you are a level higher than you would be after a 2C opening.

 

Personally I prefer to use 2D as a multi than either Benji or weak.

[dsLawsd]

probably not a USA thing? I am not familiar with Benji.

Today I might learn Polish. As a student I played a strong club with that old Schenken 2D asking for certain cards.

It seems like Multi has become popular especially at IMPS but it all comes down to how to get your system to have as few gaps as possible for your style of play.

 

I enjoyed reading about this...

[nullve]

probably not a USA thing? I am not familiar with Benji.

'Benji' is short for 'Benjaminised Acol'.

[nekthen]

Benji came about because of weak 2s. The idea was to replace Acol Strong 2s with 2♣ and the ultra strong 2♣ with 2♦. Standard French does something similar. I think it is better to open strong 2s at the one level, this does mean that you should respond with most 5 counts. I have recently started using an Ekren style 2♦ and it seems very effective and i prefer it to the multi lucas option. For me 2♦ is either a weak hand, at least 45 in majors or 19-20 balanced as this retains the option of having 4 ways to open strong balanced hands

2♦ 19-20

2N 21-22

2♣ 23-24

2♣ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠ (forced) 2N 25+

[helene_t]

The standard 2♣ opening is a bit overloaded. You need Kokish to distinguishe the 22-23 from the 24+ hands, and hands with primarily diamonds are awkward.

 

So it make sense to put some of the strong hands into the 2♦ opening. But I don't think that the distinction between 9 tricks and 10 tricks is the more useful distinction. For example, if it goes

2minor-4♠-p-p

dbl

then I would rather want to know if opener has a balanced or an unbalanced hand, than whether she has 23 or 24 points.

 

And with unbalanced hands with primarily a minor suit, it doesn't make much sense to distinguish between GF and almost-GF hands. An almost-GF hand can just open 1♣/♦.

 

So put different shaped in the two openings. For example 2♦ always 2-suited, 2♣ never 2-suited. Or some such.

[Tramticket]

So put different shaped in the two openings. For example 2♦ always 2-suited, 2♣ never 2-suited. Or some such.

 

This is an intriguing idea, which sound like it might have potential. You may want to swap the 2♣ and 2♦ openings, since it is the two suited hands which need most space to express.

 

But I can see problems of definition - what exactly is a 2-suiter? 5-5-2-1 is clearly two-suited, but 6-4-2-1? 7-4-1-1? 5-4-3-1?

 

Is this just a theoretical idea? Or are you aware of anyone trying such methods?

[pilowsky]

I would be very interested to know what people think about this treatment.

After reading several books on Benjaminised Acol and Benjamin 2's I arrived at the following, and was wondering if it made any sense:

2♦ weak 2 in diamonds or 22+ any shape. If no interference respond 2♥

 

If Interference 0-6HCP pass, Otherwise respond as appropriate for weak 2♦

 

2♣ Any strong hand not suitable for 15-17 1NT or 20-21 2NT not necessarily game forcing forces 2♦ until partner clarifies hand.

 

2♥/♠ weak 2 in hearts or spades

 

GIB treats 2♣ differently with a 2NT positive response.

 

Quite a few people use different ways of handling the response to 2♣. I like the forced 2♦ relay because it gives opener the opportunity to clarify their hand and right-side the contract.

 

The 2♦ preempt has a lot of detractors in Sydney so I would be interested in peoples views. If it's not much use preempting 2♦ then why not get forced up to 3♦ as suggested here and also have 2♦ available for that rare occasion when you definitely want to go to game. That leaves the 2♣ bid available for a wider range of hands that might be closed out at the 3-level.

 

 

[Cyberyeti]

Another idea that I've seen played is opening 2♣ as "Acol 2♣ or a weak 2 in diamonds", responder starts with 2♦ on any hand he'd pass a 2♦ opener

[nullve]

Another idea that I've seen played is opening 2♣ as "Acol 2♣ or a weak 2 in diamonds", responder starts with 2♦ on any hand he'd pass a 2♦ opener

That's so-called 'Multi 2♣'.

[helene_t]

This is an intriguing idea, which sound like it might have potential. You may want to swap the 2♣ and 2♦ openings, since it is the two suited hands which need most space to express.

 

But I can see problems of definition - what exactly is a 2-suiter? 5-5-2-1 is clearly two-suited, but 6-4-2-1? 7-4-1-1? 5-4-3-1?

 

Is this just a theoretical idea? Or are you aware of anyone trying such methods?

It is quite common in the Netherlands to put all strong hands with diamonds (whether 1- or 2-suited, for some pairs also 3-suited) in the multi 2♦ opening. In Boring Club the 2♦ contains all GF hands except for those with primarily clubs, but I think that is seriously overloaded.

 

Obviously, the multi 2♦ can't contain as many strong options a strong-only 2♦ can. I suppose if you play 2♦ as strong-only, you could add some more handtypes in addition to the diamond hands. But I don't know anyone who does that.

 

I think you're right that the 2-suited should open 2♣.

[GrahamJson]

I like to have the best of all worlds so with my regular partner we play multi 2 ♦ together with a form of Tartan Twos for the majors. So:-

 

2♣ is the traditional strong bid, usually balanced or semi balanced.

2♦ is a weak major, strong minor or balanced 20-22

2♥/♠are either weak 5-5 Mm hands or Acol Two with the bid major

2NT is a weak minor two suitor

 

It would be good to use the 2NT opener as it is in the Little Major system; a minor suit pre-empt or a strong minor two suitor. Unfortunately this method isn't licensed here.

[Cyberyeti]

I like to have the best of all worlds so with my regular partner we play multi 2 ♦ together with a form of Tartan Twos for the majors. So:-

 

2♣ is the traditional strong bid, usually balanced or semi balanced.

2♦ is a weak major, strong minor or balanced 20-22

2♥/♠are either weak 5-5 Mm hands or Acol Two with the bid major

2NT is a weak minor two suitor

 

It would be good to use the 2NT opener as it is in the Little Major system; a minor suit pre-empt or a strong minor two suitor. Unfortunately this method isn't licensed here.

 

One of the books I read as I was learning to bid was sally horton's where she said they used to play this multi, but found that pretty much every time they had the strong minor hand, they ended up in the wrong spot without doing anything anything obviously wrong, so they switched that option to strong 4441s. Also I much prefer 2 point ranges with Kokish.

[AL78]

I play Benji, not as frequently as I used too but I tend to play it with a pickup partner, as that is probably the most common systems an average club player will play in the UK. I have occasionally played three weak twos which leaves 2♣ as the only strong forcing opening bid. With that, I tended to open at the one level many hands I could open a Benji 2♣ and hope I get the chance next time to game force if partner responds (e.g. 1H - 1S/NT, 3m or 1H - 1S - 4H). The point of Benji two's as compared to basic Acol is that it is wasteful to have five strong opening bids for hands that come up once in a blue moon, so concentrating them into three bids and playing weak two's in the majors increases opening frequency and makes life a bit more difficult for opponents if it is their hand.

 

These days, with two regular partners, I play a 5 card major system with all openings from 2♣ to 4♦ as unusual:

 

2♣: Standard Acol game force or 23+ HCP bal or weak two in diamonds. 2♦ response enquiry.

2♦: Weak 2♥/♠ or strong two in ♣/♦ or 21-22 HCP bal. 2♥ response enquiry.

2♥: Weak 5♥-5 minor or strong two in ♥ or 19-20 HCP bal. 2♠ response enquiry.

2♠: Weak 5♠-5 minor or strong two in ♠. 2NT response enquiry.

2NT: weak, 7 card club or diamond suit.

3♣: Weak 5-5 shape both minors.

3♦: Weak, 7 card heart or spade suit.

3♥: Weak, 5-5 shape both majors.

3♠: Solid minor, no void, no outside A or K.

3NT: Weak, long clubs or diamonds, a playing trick better than 2NT.

4♣: ♥AKQxxxx(...) or one loser suit with outside ace. 4♦ response slam interest.

4♦: ♠AKQxxxx(...) or one loser suit with outside ace. 4♥ response slam interest.

4♥/♠: weak(ish), long suit, worse than 4♣/♦.

[JCSOM]

We use benji 2C to show 20-22 NT and no a 5+card suit or 8 ptricks. 2NT is then 20-22 with no 5 card suit. 2D stronger hands.

[akwoo]

2♦ weak 2 in diamonds or 22+ any shape. If no interference respond 2♥

 

I don't like it.

 

If you're going to have to play at the 3 level anyway, you might as well open 3♦.

 

Your opponents can pass 2♦ with up to around 15 balanced because they know you are forced; it takes a lot of pressure off them with the marginal hands. Or they could agree to pass with even stronger hands and double with 11-14.

 

Also, the weak 2♦ is most effective when partner has a fit and can bump to the 4 or 5 level immediately. They'll have trouble doing that with this system.

[Cyberyeti]

 

Also, the weak 2♦ is most effective when partner has a fit and can bump to the 4 or 5 level immediately. They'll have trouble doing that with this system.

 

We actually don't find this, our gains from the weak 2♦ are mainly where the next hand is 13-14 and say 4225 or 4234 and either on the first type

opts to bid 3♣ and it's the wrong spot or doubles and partner bids hearts, or passes and partner with a flat 12 with 3 dianonds doesn't bid..

 

Of course you lose these gains also.

[Vampyr]

The standard 2♣ opening is a bit overloaded. You need Kokish to distinguishe the 22-23 from the 24+ hands, and hands with primarily diamonds are awkward.

 

 

Or to distinguish the 20-21 hands from the 24+, if you prefer to split the ranges.

[Dinarius]

As I expected, a huge range of responses reflecting how rich a game bridge is. If there was a definitive answer, we wouldn’t be playing the game because it would be too boring. Heck, we can’t even agree on a single way to play each of Stayman, Transfers and Blackwood! :)

 

Re the first reply from P Marlowe: you say that if it’s simply a question of frequency, then weak 2♦️wins over strong 2♦️. Fair enough. But, the strong 2♦️ removes a lot of the burden from an all-embracing 2♣️ opening. So, I guess I was considering the issue of what’s gained by strong 2♦️, as well as the issue of frequency.

 

I play mostly MPs and I can say with absolute certainty, in my case, that far more MPs are lost through tricks slipped in play and defence than in the nuances of bidding theory. So, for me any discussion of bidding is a bit moot.

 

That said, there’s a lot of food for thought above.

 

Thanks.

 

D.