EarlPurple, on Jul 2 2004, 12:51 PM, said:
Benji Acol is the worst convention to hit the UK. In Benji Acol, 2♦ is a game-force while 2♣ is a strong hand with at least 8 playing tricks in any unspecified suit, and both can be used for strong NT ranges.
It is bad because it wastes two 2-level bids for sequences that rarely show up and can be integrated into one anyway.
In 1996, while I was doing my usual Brighton report, I was chatting to some ladies who were playing Benji Acol. I asked them how many times yet it had come up - not at all was the response, as expected. I told them that for a pairs tournament, it would be better if they made 2♦ a straightforward weak 2 bid, and combined all the strong hands into 2♣. I have generally found that a weak 2♦ bid comes up 1-2 times in a session of 24 boards, and can be quite effective when it does.
Another convention that is popular in the UK is the multi 2♦ opening. This gained popularity because players did not want to give up their strong twos in the majors. Of course in MP it is not good to play strong twos as they are unlikely to come up that often, and for it to be a bad board, you'd have to open with a bid of 1, have it passed out and miss game. My issue against the multi is that it is relatively easy to defend against - with an intermediate hand you just double, because it's unlikely the opps will play the hand in 2♦-X (or XX) with profit that often. Some players combine [2di] as a single-suit weak 2 with 2♥ and 2♠ showing two-suited hands. This is a much better treatment, though I still think the regular weak 2 is more effective on the hands where that is what you hold.
Someone has brought up here the law of total tricks. True, it is an inaccurate measure, but is the basis behind the safety of many conventions, such as interfering over strong club/diamond bids and 1NT openers. I think it is a reasonable guide to showing how far one should raise, but knowing partner will raise you to the level of the trump support is very very useful to know when making decisions. If I have a suit AKxxx and overcall and partner fails to raise at all, it is potentially useful to know that the ace and king are likely to stand up in defence.
And there is nothing worse than risking your neck to come in while partner sits there passing away because he refuses to raise you with "only 5 points", which happen to include Kxxx in one of your suits and Qx in the other.
Agree on all points raised by Earl:
1) 2C/2D as semiGF/GF are a waste of bidding space.
If the purpose is to limit 1-level opening bids, so that , for example, with 16/17 u can open 1H and jump rebid 3m without setting a GF, then when u do have a 18/19 two suiter u will have to open it 2C, and I hate boith 2C and 2D as strong undefined 2-suiter.
Bsides, strong 2C opening is already bad "per se", self-preemptive, and most experts do not have a really good followup for unbvalancced hands.
Why adding another bad opening which increases even nmore the same shortcomings ?
2) Multi 2D loses preemption in terms of a normal weak 2 (lose altogether weak 2 in D, preempts lower if ur suit is a major).
Yet, I am willing to accept this if this frees other preemptive bids (2H/S/NT). On balance, I'd pick the structures which will help me preempting more often.
3) Law of Total Trick: it's "adoration" and abuse may be bad, but so is the one of Goren point count. Good agreements with pard on policy of showing support and how high, can be very useful also for negative infgerences, as Earl mentioned.
"Bridge is like dance: technique's important but what really matters is not to step on partner's feet !"
Help
And I really really hope it is a Flannery deal that settles it hehehe.