brian_m, on 2012-September-26, 00:36, said:
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.
Zelandakh, on 2012-September-26, 03:09, said:
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.
kenrexford, on 2012-September-26, 06:26, said:
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?