The ACBC/HB program will work well (under the right conditions below) if only using the Screener section...or if only using the Choice Tournament section.
The Screener section alone is equivalent to a binary choice experiment, where the question "asked" for each product profile is, "Is this concept a possibility for you or not". In other words "choose/not choose" for each concept. It's like a card-sort conjoint where respondents sort an array of conjoint cards into just two buckets.
If skipping the BYO section, then ACBC uses a balanced and near-orthogonal design, similar to any other traditional conjoint experiment. That's a great starting point.
If you use a *healthy number of concepts (product profiles), then the Screener section alone should do pretty well...to the degree that respondents don't say that nearly all the concept are "not a possibility" or that all the concepts are "a possibility".
Imagine that all your respondents say that all cards are "not a possibility". All you will learn is that the None parameter (the "not a possibility" parameter) is extremely high and nothing else matters (there is no difference among all the attributes and levels in your study).
If all respondents say that all cards are a possibility, then all you learn is that the None parameter is extremely low and nothing else matters (there is no difference among all the attributes and levels in your study).
*Healthy number of cards asked for a card-sort conjoint or binary choice conjoint:
[(Total Number of Levels)-(Total Number of Attributes)+1]*2