[Liversidge]

Partner and I play Benji Strong 2♦. We didn't know how to check for slam with hand 1 where responder has a diamond void and only 3 honour points. Even with a bust a small slam is solid. Swop responder's minors and even a small slam goes off against a diamond lead.
Cue bidding 4♦ to show a control would work here, but we are not sure if cue bidding works in general, for example a slightly weaker hand that opens 2♣ where responder has just one honour trick but is unsure what to bid after 2♣- 2♦ - 2♥ and wants some way of alerting partner to potential extra ruffing tricks.


Hand 1

---

hand 2

---

[manudude03]

It's a lot cleaner if you can open 2C allowing the weak hand to raise hearts and then you can subsequently find about the diamonds via cuebids. Cuebids are basically bids that indicate willingness to go to slam and show 1st round control (ace or void) and most strong pairs allow 2nd round controls (king or singleton) too.

So the auction would go something like 2C-2D-2H-3H-3S*-4D*-... would work for the first, while it would go 2C-2D-2H-3H-3S*-4C*-4H in the second.

After a 2D opener, you really need agreements after the auction 2D-2H-3H. I would recommend in this case that a 3S bid by responder is natural and 4C/D are cuebids agreeing hearts. So in this case, it would go 2D-2H-3H-4D* and 2D-2H-3H-4C* respectively.

edit: As an aside, I would recommend that playing Benji, that 2C-2D-2H-3H is a slam try, and to bid 2C-2D-2H-2NT with either a negative or just 1 trick (though in the latter, you might just risk 4H anyway, you might have a ruff for the 10th trick). I like to avoid 2C-2NT whenever possible, it takes up too much valuable space.

[Cyberyeti]

Do you have agreements what 2♣-2♦-3♥ means ?

The old fashioned "solid suit" bid handles this easily as partner just cues now.

[helene_t]

At my club most people play Benji this way: 2♦ just shows and GF. So the 3♥ rebid just shows 5+ hearts. This means you can't cuebid since you are still looking for a fit. Obviously this is terrible.

Maybe Wayne's advice, that 4♣ or 4♦ should be cuebids nevertheless, is a good idea. But I think the "right" way to play Benji is that it shows a one-suited game force specifically, i.e. all flexible GF hands start with 2♣ and
2♣-2♦
2♥
is forcing.

I am not sure how helpful this is, though. Benji is not something that has been played by advanced players for several decades so once your partnership has reached the point where you are ready to make subtle agreements about slam bidding you should probably just get rid of Benji.

[Liversidge]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-January-22, 04:35, said:

Do you have agreements what 2♣-2♦-3♥ means ?

The old fashioned "solid suit" bid handles this easily as partner just cues now.

When I asked one of the best players at our club about this problem last night he did not have an answer to the 'void' question but asked why I bothered with Benji 2♦ as part of our system at all. (This is a current debate topic at our club, but that's a different suject) He said that he would bid 2♣ and after a negative 2♦ he would jump to 3♥ or 3♠ to show the equivalent of a Benji 2♦ hand. Not the same as you are suggesting but partner and I had not got a jump rebid in the strong suit as part of our system, and we should give some meaning to it. (We are novices so our systems are not very refined)

I take it that you are suggesting that if we use Benji then this sequence shows a particular type of game forcing hand, with a long solid suit, and if the suit is not solid but I have my 10+ tricks then I use the 2♦ bid?
If so, with such a hand it might also be important to have a way for partner to show a void, in which case we could use Manudude3's cue bid system, if I am following you both?

[Liversidge]

 helene_t, on 2016-January-22, 04:51, said:

. Benji is not something that has been played by advanced players for several decades so once your partnership has reached the point where you are ready to make subtle agreements about slam bidding you should probably just get rid of Benji.

Going a bit off topic (apologies) but you have hit on a current hot issue at our club. When I started playing 3 years ago my partner played Benji, and he played (and still does) with another partner who used the same system. I acquired Mr Bridge Software, Bernard Magee's "More Acol Bidding" that advocates Benji as a progression from standard Acol 2♣, so until your comment I had presumed it was a fairly modern system.

Recently my partner's other partner has switched to weak 2's in ♦ , ♥ and ♠. My partner still plays it with his other partner but having persuaded me (reluctantly) to do the same he has now asked me to revert back to Benji as he doesn't think the weak 2♦ has much preemptive value and we lose some precision with only having one strong bid, a view that I and some others at the club share. But others (that have never used it!) are vehement that Standard Acol 2♣ with weak 2's in three suits is all you need.

Looking to the future, what would you recommend as an alternative to Benji, so I can look more closely at it? Are there any sources showing possible "subtle agreements" you could point me too.

[helene_t]

 Liversidge, on 2016-January-22, 05:42, said:

Looking to the future, what would you recommend as an alternative to Benji, so I can look more closely at it? Are there any sources showing possible "subtle agreements" you could point me too.

I think you should start with weak twos in three suits and discuss how the strong 2♣ opening works: which (if any) sequences can stop in a part-score, which bids are cuebids and which are natural, what cuebidding style you use.

At some point you may find that there are some hand types you can't show at all. For example, if two-suited hands can be both 6-4 and 5-5 (or 5-4 sometimes) then you will have difficulty finding the best fit. At that point you may consider several options:
- Going back to some kind of strong 2♦ but now with a sensible destinction between 2♣ and 2♦
- Playing the minor suit openings as almost forcing and also allowing major suit openings to be quite strong (respond with all 5 counts and most 4 counts)
- Multi 2♦ maybe?
- Off-shape 2NT openings.
- Don't worry about it, the rare monster hands should have low priority if you mostly play matchpoints.

As for the weak 2♦ opening not having much preemptive effect I don't think that is true.

[NickRW]

 Liversidge, on 2016-January-22, 05:42, said:

Looking to the future, what would you recommend as an alternative to Benji, so I can look more closely at it? Are there any sources showing possible "subtle agreements" you could point me too.

I largely agree with Helene - well sort of.

I certainly agree that 2♦ has quite a significant pre-emptive effect. Arguably just as good as 2♥ (The latter uses one more step in the bidding it is true - but it focuses opponents attention on the spades - the former can leave them wondering which major to play).

One thing to watch when progressing from either traditional strong Acol 2s or Benji (or Multi for that matter), to just using 2♣ and 2NT for your strong hands, is that the highest possible strength of your 1 level openers goes up by about a point or so. Beginning Acol players are taught to respond with a 6 count (or at least they were in my day!). You'll find that that you really need to find a response with 5 or even any Ace when you change over. In turn this means that a) you have to be a little wary of opening as light as some Acol players are used to and b) opener has to be a little more wary of reversing light in case responder has dredged up a response. And that in turn means that when opener has not reversed, responder has to be more willing to keep the bidding open if at all possible with things like false preference. That in turn tends to make people more keen to play 5 card majors. And so on. Before you know it you're playing American style rather than Acol anymore.

I'm not saying which of Acol or "Standard" is better. Just to try to make you aware that these two beasts are awful similar - and quite a bit different once you get down to brass tacks. It isn't just a matter of switching your 2 bids about.

Nick

[Cyberyeti]

 helene_t, on 2016-January-22, 05:51, said:

As for the weak 2♦ opening not having much preemptive effect I don't think that is true.

The weak 2♦ causes a particular problem, what do you do with say a 13 count 4234 ? and how do you respond to whatever you do ?

And 2♣-2♦-3♥ as a solid suit is just old fashioned Acol from when 2♦ was just an Acol 2 in diamonds.

[steve2005]

Benji is a convention which takes up useful space for very rare hands. How many hands do you get a month? Is horrid to use when you are strong with hearts, find a way in your methods to open 2♣.

Liversidge, on 2016-January-22, 06:42, said:

Looking to the future, what would you recommend as an alternative to Benji, so I can look more closely at it? Are there any sources showing possible "subtle agreements" you could point me too

Just a weak 2♦ is underrated.. You can play very undisciplined and if you have a good suit you can open at 3-level like you would have to do with clubs.
Looking for something different- 2♦= 4441 17-24 (blue team) and 19-20 balanced (or 20-21) This frees up 2N as a preempt with both minors which is potentially even more effective than a weak 2♦. Taking out the 4441 hands from 2♣ really improves your bidding there. Yes, there is a way to show even bigger 4441 hands after 2♣ I leave as an exercise.

[wank]

benji is bad. it's only popular because weak players are confused by opening strong, sub-GF hands at the 1-level. quite why this is is beyond me - there is always a forcing bid of some description available once partner responds. obviously if you open 2D when everyone else is opening lower in 2C it's going to damage you sometimes.

however, here it doesn't look too difficult to find slam. 2d-2h-3h-4d cuebid. getting to 7 might prove tricky admittedly.

i don't understand what you mean in your last sentence. a hand where responder has a fit and shortage is fine for a cuebid - it just shows a control.

[rmnka447]

2 ♣ - 2 ♦
3 ♥

Forcing to game in ♥ -- big heart hand

........3 ♠ (cue)

If opener has a big ♥ hand, responder's hand has gotten a lot better, so shows something in ♠

4 ♣ (cue)....?

Here's where the two example hands diverge, with ♦ void,

...... 4 ♦

with ♣ void,

...... 4 ♥

opener has a chance to go on with the 4 ♦ bid, but should be content to sign off with 4 ♥ bid.

[mgoetze]

 Liversidge, on 2016-January-22, 05:42, said:

Going a bit off topic (apologies) but you have hit on a current hot issue at our club. When I started playing 3 years ago my partner played Benji, and he played (and still does) with another partner who used the same system. I acquired Mr Bridge Software, Bernard Magee's "More Acol Bidding" that advocates Benji as a progression from standard Acol 2♣, so until your comment I had presumed it was a fairly modern system.

Bridge publishers are perfectly happy to publish books on bidding systems and conventions that are shockingly bad (example), as good players don't actually read such books, so the target audience are people who can't tell the difference. And it's pretty safe to assume that anything that is in print is out-of-date by at least a decade.

[wank]

i'm actually shocked he found a publisher for that *****.

[Liversidge]

 wank, on 2016-January-23, 11:02, said:

i don't understand what you mean in your last sentence. a hand where responder has a fit and shortage is fine for a cuebid - it just shows a control.

I was thinking about a situation like this with a "9 playing trick" hand that we would open 2♣ playing Benji.

---

This makes 6♣ but swop East's spades and hearts and you would make just 10 tricks against a heart lead.
The void is valuable only if there are no duplicated values, and I was asking whether there was any way of communicating this without going too high.

If opener jumps on his rebid to show a strong hand with a long solid suit as suggested by cyberyeti and rmnka447 then I guess East has to bid game and hope. My question was whether there is any alternative. I am now thinking not.

[wank]

well yes sometimes describing your hand properly entails a risk. equally not describing your hand entails a risk. if you have 5-0 in the majors and refuse to splinter with 4H because partner might have xxx AK and you'll get too high, then you need to do something else, but what, bid 3NT to stay low and see the opps cash the first 5 or 6 heart tricks when partner was AK xxx after all?

[Cyberyeti]

 Liversidge, on 2016-January-24, 10:04, said:

If opener jumps on his rebid to show a strong hand with a long solid suit as suggested by cyberyeti and rmnka447 then I guess East has to bid game and hope. My question was whether there is any alternative. I am now thinking not.

No, responder cues, that's what he's being asked to do, 2♣-2♦-3♥-3♠-4♣-4♦ etc on the original hand

On the hand you give with the club suit and 5 small opposite 3 small in the major, that's the penalty you pay for opening that hand 2♣ partner will raise and you'll wind up in the wrong spot.

[nige1]

 Liversidge, on 2016-January-22, 01:26, said:

Partner and I play Benji Strong 2♦We didn't know how to check for slam with hand 1 where responder has a diamond void and only 3 honour points. Even with a bust a small slam is solid. Swop responder's minors and even a small slam goes off against a diamond lead. Cue bidding 4♦ to show a control would work here, but we are not sure if cue bidding works in general, for example a slightly weaker hand that opens 2♣ where responder has just one honour trick but is unsure what to bid after 2♣- 2♦ - 2♥ and wants some way of alerting partner to potential extra ruffing tricks.

Hand 1
Partner and I play old-fashioned Acol (Majors first!) with few conventions except simple Benjamin.
Hence, I'm familiar with Liversidge's dilemma.
I don't know the answer
I suppose that, by agreement, you could start 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♥ to show this kind of hand.
But we don't have that agreement
Albert Benjamin refused to play his own convention
I'm hoping to persuade partner to switch to a strong ♣
On a very good day, we might reach 7♥.

---

Hand 2

We'd get 5♥ on hand 2

We can pray for a non-♦ lead or a blockage
Although you could argue that we've already told them what to lead

---

[Liversidge]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-January-24, 15:06, said:

On the hand you give with the club suit and 5 small opposite 3 small in the major, that's the penalty you pay for opening that hand 2♣ partner will raise and you'll wind up in the wrong spot.

The reason I felt uncomfortable about adopting 3 weak 2's is that my partner's other partner (partner 2) retained the lower (Benji) opening 2♣ threshold of 23-24 HCP balanced or 8 playing tricks and a single strong suit, and doesn't distinguish between a long major/minor, and says responder must not pass below game. I felt that this would cause uncertainty for responder if he had a very weak hand. It would certainly make me very nervous!

If my partner and I were to switch to 3 weak 2's, what is a sensible threshold for a 2♣ opening bid (hopefully a bit stronger than the above!)?

Although I haven't played it I have some notes I made a while back for the requirement for this opening:

With an unbalanced hand, open 2♣ with an opening hand, and with either 23-24 HCP balanced or 9-10 playing tricks (Mm). The hand should have defensive strength of at least five quick tricks in case the opposition compete at a high level and partner doubles, OR satisfy the rule of 25 (HCP plus length of two longest suits = 25). An unbalanced 2♣ opening usually shows a 6+ card suit.


Does that sound sensible?

[Cyberyeti]

 Liversidge, on 2016-January-25, 06:56, said:

The reason I felt uncomfortable about adopting 3 weak 2's is that my partner's other partner (partner 2) retained the lower (Benji) opening 2♣ threshold of 23-24 HCP balanced or 8 playing tricks and a single strong suit, and doesn't distinguish between a long major/minor, and says responder must not pass below game. I felt that this would cause uncertainty for responder if he had a very weak hand. It would certainly make me very nervous!

If my partner and I were to switch to 3 weak 2's, what is a sensible threshold for a 2♣ opening bid (hopefully a bit stronger than the above!)?

Although I haven't played it I have some notes I made a while back for the requirement for this opening:

With an unbalanced hand, open 2♣ with an opening hand, and with either 23-24 HCP balanced or 9-10 playing tricks (Mm). The hand should have defensive strength of at least five quick tricks in case the opposition compete at a high level and partner doubles, OR satisfy the rule of 25 (HCP plus length of two longest suits = 25). An unbalanced 2♣ opening usually shows a 6+ card suit.


Does that sound sensible?

I can only tell you what we play which does include 3 weak 2s. We play it GF except if followed by 2N. Our system is odd, but includes a good 19-21 2N so balanced hands start at 22 and we use kokish (2♣-2♦-2♥ is hearts or balanced) to give us an extra balanced range, but the balanced hands are not really an issue here.

The 6 card suit requirement is not needed, what do you do with a 544/535/5431 25 count.

The other discussions to have are.

How freely are you going to respond to 1m if you're opening 2♣ less often with minor suited hands ?
What constitutes a positive response, particularly in a minor, and what constitutes a 2N response
Are you going to play 2♦ 0-7 (and if so are you using a second negative) or are you going to play 2♦ single negative, 2♥ double negative or are you going to just bid 2♦ most of the time