[Wackojack]

I would like to move on from Benji Acol with a particular partner who plays it locally (most do around here) but is not that keen on Benji. He plays EHAA in tournaments, but I don't like EHAA.

I would like to continue to play Acol style i.e. opening 1C guarantees 4 cards and 4-card majors.

So would this be an efficient and not too complicated system?

2C = Strong
2D = Multi (6-card M weak or balanced strong)
2H 2S = 5H(S) + 4m 7-11
2NT = 55 m
1NT= 12-14, rebid 1NT =15-17
1M may 4 card suit Acol style,
1M rebid 2m must be at least 5-4 12 points

After 2C opening what is a good response structure? How does this change after intervention?
If you play 2NT opening for minors or similar, what about the strength requirements? Or is it better to play 2NT as traditional 20-22 or similar?
1-level opening rebid 3 of same suit. What is its upper limit? What is the weakest that a 2C opening could be with say with a 6-card suit?
Instead of 2M opening 5M+4m, what about 4M+5m? Does this fit in better?
Are there benefits in adding 3-suited hands to the multi? or even strong (8-9 playing trick) single suited hands?

Your views would be much appreciated.

[david_c]

Wackojack, on Apr 30 2005, 05:56 AM, said:

After 2C opening what is a good response structure?  How does this change after intervention?

A lot has been written about this in various places ... you should certainly have a look at Chris Ryall's methods (www.cavendish.demon.co.uk/bridge/two/clubs.htm), which a lot of people around here are playing.

I used to play the traditional Acol responses, except with 2H and 2NT interchanged (so 2H shows a positive hand without a good suit) - that seemed to solve a few problems and was nice and simple.

Quote

If you play 2NT opening for minors or similar, what about the strength requirements?

Usually it's played as about 6-10HCP or so.

Quote

Or is it better to play 2NT as traditional 20-22 or similar?

In my opinion, yes, I prefer using 2NT to show a strong hand because it's not very effective as a pre-empt (compared to bids in a suit, which are much harder for the opponents to deal with).

Quote

1-level opening rebid 3 of same suit.  What is its upper limit?  What is the weakest that a 2C opening could be  with say with a 6-card suit?

A maximum for rebidding yorur suit at the 3-level would normally be about 17HCP with a 6-card suit. But depending on your system, it may be possible to have a stronger hand which is still not good enough for a 2-level opening.

Quote

Instead of 2M opening 5M+4m, what about 4M+5m?   Does this fit in better?

It's more risky. Normal Muiderberg fits in very well already, so I can't see any reason to change it.

Quote

Are there benefits in adding 3-suited hands to the multi? or even strong (8-9 playing trick) single suited hands?

Yes, these hands are difficult to bid if you have to start at the 1-level, so putting some of them into the multi is a good idea. You can have fun playing around with the various possible combinations.

The alternative is to play a multi which has no strong options at all - this makes it a more effective pre-empt. But if you have already decided to include some strong balanced hands, there's no harm in packing more strong options in.

[NickToll]

david_c, on Apr 30 2005, 09:43 AM, said:

Wackojack, on Apr 30 2005, 05:56 AM, said:

Are there benefits in adding 3-suited hands to the multi? or even strong (8-9 playing trick) single suited hands?

Yes, these hands are difficult to bid if you have to start at the 1-level, so putting some of them into the multi is a good idea. You can have fun playing around with the various possible combinations.

The alternative is to play a multi which has no strong options at all - this makes it a more effective pre-empt. But if you have already decided to include some strong balanced hands, there's no harm in packing more strong options in.

About strong 3-suiters, I would suggest giving a try to Kent Feiler's approach: when 15+, open 1♥ or 1♠, and next support partner's suit or rebid in notrump if he responds in the short suit o 1NT. In a weak notrump and 4card majors system, this approach is quite playable. Maybe you have to define something for very strong 3suiters, some 20 points or more: but giving the very low frequency of this kind of hand, it seems reasonable to ignore the issue, simply manufacturing a bid when it occurs (i.e., treat one of the 4-card suits as a 5-card one).

About packing strong balanced and 3suiters in the Multi, that's fine, provided that opener is able to show different ranges of suit qualities of the weak2 variety...

[whereagles]

Wackojack, on Apr 30 2005, 10:56 AM, said:

Instead of 2M opening 5M+4m, what about 4M+5m? Does this fit in better?

YES. 4M 5m is much better than 5M 4m. 5M 4m is basically a 5-card weak 2. To play that way, you might as well play 5-card weak 2s all around.

[Free]

Here's what many people play in my country:

2♣ = semi-GF any suit (8-9 tricks) or NT 20-22
2♦ = multi: weak 2M or GF any suit (10+ tricks) or NT 23+
2M = Muiderberg
2NT = weak 55+m

Many include weak with 44+M in the 2♣ opening. I've played this a while, and I must say it scores! Response scheme becomes (in function of the weak version):
2♦ = waiting bid, either invitational in one of the Majors, or equal length and let partner decide (he'll bid 2♥ with ♥>=♠ or 2♠ with ♠>♥)
2M = to play
2NT = relay, inv+, asks more about the hand

About changing Muiderberg to 4M-5+m: I have no idea if it's better or not, since I never played it. However, it would probably increase the frequency you open, since as whereagles said, you can play your weak two's (especially with ♥) from a 5 card. You'll need to adjust your reponse scheme over 2♦ obviously, but it's not much work...

I like 2NT as weak with both minors, what else do you want to do with such hand? Wait another turn?

[Echognome]

In the EBU we are not allowed to mix strong and non-strong type hands with the same bid, unless it is the multi. Hence the 2♣ bid you mention is not allowed. I think your idea is fine. In my opinion there's no need to have two bids for strong hands. You can either make the simple transition to three weak two bids, or if you wanted to add some more interest with bidding you can add dutch or Lucas 2's. One thing you can play is that 2♥ = 5 hearts and 4 of another, whereas 2♠ = 5 spades and 4 of a minor.

I currently play a version where 2♥ and 2♠ show 4/4 or better in that suit and a minor (but minimum 9 cards total). It is quite frequent, but I'm not convinced it is sound. The other thing is that you cannot 'bounce' the auction easily. So playing them as showing 5 cards is, in my opinion, better.

[Free]

Echognome: Muiderberg = dutch two (weak 5M & 4+m)

[MickyB]

As usual, David_C is right (well, we agree with each other - which I think makes him right!)

If you can play a weak only multi, then do. 2NT varies between almost useless and worse than useless as a preempt - at least, when playing against good opps. I'd *much* rather have the ability to pass partner's 2D opener when I'm very weak (NV only) or have diamonds. IIRC you are in the UK - it is level 4 here, so in level 3 events I'd suggest increasing the definition of your bad ranges (2N 20-21, 2D then 2N 22-23) or playing something else entirely - possibly a Frelling 2♦, showing 4+diamonds along with 4+cards (or maybe exactly 4 cards) in a major.

4M5m is riskier and less constructive, but slightly tougher for the opps to deal with. I'd prefer to play Muiderberg. 'Gnome may not be convinced that 5/4 either way is sound, but I'm convinced that it isn't If you want something aggressive and frequent, I'd suggest a Frelling 2♥ - 4+ hearts, along with either 4+spades or 5+clubs.

[Echognome]

Free - Yes, thanks. I knew that Dutch = Muiderberg. But Lucas which is often confused for the same thing is not.

MickyB - Although I am can be convinced that 5/4 either way may be unsound, I believe it to be as sound as Frelling 2♥. I am only judging sound by the percentage of time you will be able to abide by the Law. Any 4M and 5 minor will decrease that percentage. If 10+ cards between the suits, then you will increase that percentage enough to be sound.

For constructive auctions it's not a problem to play it either way around. Although we allow for more shapes, we are fairly strict on our hcp, so all of our inquiries are shape showing.

[helene_t]

If you play Muiderberg with dicipline (no 3-card other major) it tends to have tollerance for the other minor, so you can play a modified response scheme: 3♣ is in principle to play (only convert with 5d1c), 3♦ to play, 2NT minor suit query (weak or strong) including invitational raise. This makes it easier to find the best part-score and also makes it consistent with Woolsey-over-1NT and with Muiderberg in competition.

You need a different overcall structure against 1NT when you're a passed hand since you denied a hand suitable for Woolsey, Capeletti or whatever. I suggest: 2♣/♦/♥ are DONT promissing 5 in the bid suit, dbl promisses 5d4c or 5s4h.

Multi is a very bad convention since it's much easier to defend than natural preempts, responder can hardly show length in the other major, description of opener's hand starts at the 3-level and then you still need one bit of bidding space to tell which major you have. And you can't double a 2♥/♠ overcall for penalty. I'm not against multi since it's the price you may have to play Muiderberg which is a nice convention. I just recommend that you don't play multi/Muiderberg in 3rd/4th seat. If you do play something Muiderbergish in 3rd seat, then play 2♥ as 5h4x, then 2♠ is pass-or-correct since a passed responder can't have a hand suitable for a normal 2♠ response. Your own suggestion, 4M5m, is probably better.

Bergen's two-under-preempts (2♦ show spades, 2♥ is a normal preempt) make more efficient use of bidding space so if you want something fancy you may consider that.

As for strong variants of multi: I personally don't like it but if the strong variants must fullfill very strict requirements, then it's probably allright. Not so long ago we had this auction:
2♦-3♥
3NT-6NT - partner could still have used Baron if he wanted so this was sorta controlled auction. I don't want to think about what could have happened if I had had some ill-defined semiforcing minor-suit-oriented hand. Something like this has happened several times:
2♦-2NT
7♠ - I had no clue how to show specifc strong variants after a positive response so I just gambled on one ace and a couple of trumps in the dummy. Partner had no aces but I was lucky with the lead and made it. I was not amused and neither were the opps, but maybe it's just a lack of sense of humor.

Since you play Acol, 1♣ is rather well-defined, so you can probably stuff most strong hands in the 1♣ opening. Then 2♣ is available for your preempt structure.

[Gerben42]

Quote

Since you play Acol, 1♣ is rather well-defined, so you can probably stuff most strong hands in the 1♣ opening. Then 2♣ is available for your preempt structure.

But then you are not playing Acol but Polish Club and that is not allowed at EBU level 3.

[Wackojack]

Thanks very much for all your suggestions. These along with the links you have supplied plus archive BBO threads have really helped me in my search for an improvement on Benji Acol. So I would like to share my thoughts with you so far, hoping they make sense.

What is wrong with Benji? The main widely recognised problem is the 2 game-force opening bid. 2D(big) - 2H(neg)- 3H (suit)- 4C (suit) is an extreme example of how the auction can get too high so quickly. For this reason I usually play “reverse Benji”, where 2C is the game force and 2D is the strong 8+ playing trick but less than game force. Although better, this is still not satisfactory when your bid is based on a heart suit. Certainly, I found myself loath to open 2D with hearts and 8-9 playing tricks. Where possible I would consider either 2C upgrade or 1H downgrade or even 4H pre-empt. So I had been wondering if an opening bid of 2C could take over all strong major suit hands from 8 playing tricks upwards and also include very strong 3-suiters. Chris Ryall’s ideas on extending strong unbalanced 2C openings by using Paradox responses really impressed me. Are there any weaknesses in this approach? What about high level intervention? Anyway, if I buy this idea, I can use the multi 2D to show major suit weak 2’s and the remaining big hands. I realise that the ambiguous nature of the multi does not allow “full on” responder’s pre-empts but can live with that, especially having the inclusion of Muiderberg 2M pre-empts. Muiderberg in the armoury is also useful when it is not used, because in the sequence 1S-2C-2D or similar, you know that this is not a light opener and you can bid 2NT with 10-11, confident that you are not over-stretching.

I still need to look at loose ends (thanks Helene) like, how Muiderberg affects my defence to 1NT when partner has passed, whether or not to allow 3 in the other major and playing 2H to include 5S4H. So this is where I seem to be at present:

2C: Acol strong 8-9 playing tricks in major or strong 4441 or 5440 or game force or 25+ balanced. Paradox responses.
2D Weak 5-9, with 6-card major or 23-24 balanced or 8-9 playing tricks in minor

2H/S Muiderberg 7-11

2NT 20-22 balanced.

[david_c]

Wackojack, on May 4 2005, 09:50 AM, said:

What is wrong with Benji?

Apart from the problems you mention, the Benji 2♣ (or reverse-Benji 2♦) is very susceptible to interference. The opponents will try to bid as high as possible, and if you're sitting there with a strong single-suited hand you may feel morally obliged to bid your suit. So the opponents very rarely get caught, but meanwhile they've managed to disrupt your auction.

Quote

Chris Ryall’s ideas on extending strong unbalanced 2C openings by using Paradox responses really impressed me.  Are there any weaknesses in this approach?

If you open 2♣ when you have an Acol Two in a major, then it becomes more difficult to bid game-forcing hands with a major. If partner responds 2♦ you'll probably be OK, but remember partner will not know how strong your hand is when you rebid 2♥ or 2♠. However, if partner responds 2♥ or 2♠, you may need to bid at the 3-level to show a game-forcing hand with a major suit; that's a significant loss.

Quote

What about high level intervention?

Panic!

[Gerben42]

Quote

What is wrong with Benji?

Umm where to start? Other systems achieve the same accuracy on the strong hands but allow for more pressure on the opponents, for example. There is a reason that top pairs do not play Benji.

Quote

If you open 2♣ when you have an Acol Two in a major, then it becomes more difficult to bid game-forcing hands with a major. If partner responds 2♦ you'll probably be OK, but remember partner will not know how strong your hand is when you rebid 2♥ or 2♠. However, if partner responds 2♥ or 2♠, you may need to bid at the 3-level to show a game-forcing hand with a major suit; that's a significant loss.

Nonsense, the 2M-responses show terrible hands, now almost always your only goal is to try and reach a playable game. After 2♦ you can rebid on the 2-level and enjoy the forcingness.

Quote

What about high level intervention?

Same as for any strong opening bid. This is what you fear most. To counter this include a weak 2 in ♦ in your strong 2♣ if allowed.

Responses:
2♦: semi-positive opposite a strong two
2♥: no trick for hearts OR 5+♥ and game interest opposite weak 2
2♠: no trick for spades OR 5+♠ and game interest opposite weak 2
2NT: Your favorite Ogust thingy

You will notice that "both strong" is exceedingly unlikely, especially because both the Strong 2 and the Forcing 2M bid after Weak 2 would show a good suit. For "both weak" even more so. This practically guarantees slam in opponent's hands anyway.


Edit: If this method makes you nervous, either scrap the strong options in 2 major or require two of the top 3 honors for both a semi game force and the positive response after weak 2.

This post has been edited by Gerben42: 2005-May-12, 05:01