Another hand from a club game

[32519]

No poll on this one.

 

Sitting North you get dealt this massive 2-suiter. This was the bidding so far -

[hv=pc=n&n=sakj543h7dakqt97c&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=ppp]133|200[/hv]

At an absolute minimum you want to drive to game in one of your two suits. How would you go about achieving that?

[hrothgar]

No poll on this one.

 

Sitting North you get dealt this massive 2-suiter. This was the bidding so far -

[hv=pc=n&n=sakj543h7dakqt97c&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=ppp]133|200[/hv]

At an absolute minimum you want to drive to game in one of your two suits. How would you go about achieving that?

 

Obvious 1S opening

[neilkaz]

Obvious 1S opening

Yes and I jump shift 3♦ next time or if forced to rebid 4♦ or 4♠ if comp. gets that high. I cannot imagine getting passed out in 1♠ from here.

[CSGibson]

I have to say that I am opening 2♣. I'll never convince partner I need one ace and a fit for a (grand?) slam if I open 1♠. When I open 2♣, rebid 2♠, then keep bid diamonds, partner will know how big of a hand I must have, since I declined to jump shift.

[mycroft]

As always with big 2-suiters, expect competition. What if you have to start with 4♠? 3♠? 5♦?

 

Sure, three passes probably means that they don't have a big fit (outside of clubs - how's ppp-2♣; 3♣-p(GF)-4♣ sound?) - but in that case, neither do you.

 

If I get dropped in 1♠, oh well, I've been +230 before. Partner will not pass with an ace, so I'm not worried about +260.

 

Edit: oops, missed vul. Not too concerned about a jump to 5♣. But 4 on the 6-4 fit? Not unlikely.

[mfa1010]

I have to say that I am opening 2♣. I'll never convince partner I need one ace and a fit for a (grand?) slam if I open 1♠. When I open 2♣, rebid 2♠, then keep bid diamonds, partner will know how big of a hand I must have, since I declined to jump shift.

I agree.

[32519]

I am toying with the idea of playing transfer pre-empts (into the majors only) with these sorts of hands. With a genuine 1-suiter 7-card suit pre-empt, you transfer into your major and then pass. But with big 2-suiters (like here), you transfer into the major on level 3 and then bid the minor suit on level 4. Partner is expected to bid game in one of your 2-suits. Only with a really bad hand/misfit is partner allowed to pass the minor suit on level 4 with preference for the minor.

 

This is the full idea that I am toying with -

3♥ = transfer to ♠ and then pass with a normal 1-suiter pre-empt. Partners hand strength and holding in ♠ will determine his bid i.e. 4♠ and not 3♠ with a decent hand and something in ♠.

Same goes for ♥ where 3♦ is a transfer to 3♥.

With big 2-suiters (minimum = 6/5 holding) introduce the minor suit on level 4 giving partner a choice of games.

3♣ is a natural 7-card pre-empt.

 

The downside to this scheme is that I lose a natural 3♦ pre-empt. The 7-card ♦ suit pre-empts end up with the 2♦ pre-empt losing some of their effectiveness.

 

Any thoughts?

[lycier]

Good topic.

 

I will open 1♠ ,and plan to 6♦,it is very easy for any suit fit in ♠ and ♦ to bring about a good result with 12 winning tricks.

[fromageGB]

I am toying with the idea of playing transfer pre-empts..

Any thoughts?

I did play transfer pre-empts at one time but gave it up because it gives opponents far more opportunities (if they have discussed them or have general meta-rules). They can X to show the bid suit. They can bid your suit as a takeout. They can pass then bid, or they can bid immediately.

[gszes]

too many good bidding tools available to guess on this one prefer a nice safe

 

2c

 

opener intending to show spades and dia. If p shows interest in either suit will then

 

go for the search for a grand. Opening at 1 level risks entirely too much when p is short

 

in spades and has a big dia fit and a weak hand and opps let you play it (happens)

 

 

 

[gwnn]

You're at least 8 years too late: http://inquiry2over1.blogspot.nl/2005/07/new-misiry-2nt-through-3d.html

[32519]

I have to say that I am opening 2♣. I'll never convince partner I need one ace and a fit for a (grand?) slam if I open 1♠. When I open 2♣, rebid 2♠, then keep bidding diamonds, partner will know how big of a hand I must have, since I declined to jump shift.

I agree.

too many good bidding tools available to guess on this one

prefer a nice safe 2c opener intending to show spades and diamonds. If p shows interest in either suit will then go for the search for a grand. Opening at 1 level risks entirely too much when p is short in spades and has a big diamond fit and a weak hand and opps let you play it (happens)

Many play 2♥ as a "double negative" after a 2♣ opening. So now the bidding has gone -

P-P-P-2♣

P-2♥-P-2♠

P-?

How does the bidding continue now when partner does not have a fit in the ♠ suit? The odds must surely favour a fit in the second suit now.

 

So how does the bidding continue after 2♥ as a "double negative" and no fit in the first suit?

[32519]

I did play transfer pre-empts at one time but gave it up because it gives opponents far more opportunities (if they have discussed them or have general meta-rules). They can X to show the bid suit. They can bid your suit as a takeout. They can pass then bid, or they can bid immediately.

I've been thinking about this and accordingly decided to adjust the original idea as follows -

1. With a 7-card single suiter in ♠, open with a normal 3♠ pre-empt. Both partner and the opponents now know you have a normal pre-empt, but you have cut out some of the opponents opportunities, forcing them to enter the auction on level 4.

2. With a big ♠/m 2-suiter, transfer into the ♠ suit first. Again both partner and the opponents now know that you have a big 2-suiter. How would your defence change knowing about the big 2-suiter? Vulnerability will surely be a factor.

 

Thanks for your reply above.

[32519]

You're at least 8 years too late: http://inquiry2over1.blogspot.nl/2005/07/new-misiry-2nt-through-3d.html

Misiry is way too complicated and so will never gain popularity with the average club player. Big 2-suiters have a very low frequency of occurrence. The memory load required to remember the continuation bidding structure is just too much for the average club player who is content to play a system that not only is effective, but also easy to remember. I think this suggestion of mine takes a giant step forward in simplifying Misiry to something more palatable for the average club player.

[gwnn]

Misiry is way too complicated and so will never gain popularity with the average club player. Big 2-suiters have a very low frequency of occurrence. The memory load required to remember the continuation bidding structure is just too much for the average club player who is content to play a system that not only is effective, but also easy to remember. I think this suggestion of mine takes a giant step forward in simplifying Misiry to something more palatable for the average club player.

Your scheme will also never gain popularity. People are simply not interested in these hands. You're comparing 0.000001% to 0.000002% and calling it a giant step forward.

 

MisIry at least has intelligent follow-ups (i.e. it attempts to use all bids and not waste a bunch of extra space), yours is throwing all of inquiry's and Misho's hard work and calling it a giant step forward.

[rmnka447]

I'm bidding 2 ♣ with this 2 loser hand.

 

As someone said, you'll never convince your partner that the hand is as good as it is if you start 1 ♠.

 

It's unlikely, but opening 1 ♠ may be passed out.

 

If you open 2 ♣ and can rebid 2 ♠, partner can make several potential rebids below where you'd be (opponents passing) after 1 ♠ - 1 NT - 3 ♦.

 

Even if partner shows a bust (cheapest suit rebid for me -> 2 ♣ - 2 ♦ - 2 ♠ - 3 ♣), you can still offer a choice of games by rebidding ♦. I would think jumping to 4 ♦ would show almost this exact hand -- huge 2 suiter pick a game. But if your agreements are that 4 ♦ would show something else, then you'll still get to bid 3 ♦ and make a 4 ♦ rebid over partner's next bid.

[32519]

You're comparing 0.000001% to 0.000002% and calling it a giant step forward.

 

MisIry at least has intelligent follow-ups (i.e. it attempts to use all bids and not waste a bunch of extra space), yours is throwing all of inquiry's and Misho's hard work and calling it a giant step forward.

You're kidding, right? If this is your probability of being dealt a big 2-suiter, NO ONE is going to do the memory overload for the Misiry continuation bidding structure. Quote: "It attempts to use all bids and not waste a bunch of extra space."

 

Go and read some of the other replies to this thread. Some want to open 1♠ and then keep on repeating ♦ until partner gets the picture of your big 2-suiter. The same goes for those who want to open with 2♣.

 

So yes, I think I have simplified Misiry to the point that it needs little or no memory load. Once opener has intoduced the second suit and partner is interested in slam, I suggest introducing 4NT as 6-card Blackwood. Once opener has made the applicable reply, partner can place the final contract.

 

Nearly all average club players play some form of Blackwood. To include 6-card Blackwood into their bidding agreements should require very little effort.

[32519]

If you want to save space on the key-card ask and there is an unbid suit(s) between openers 2-suits (♥ in this example hand), you can bid the in-between suit or the lower of the in-between suits if openers 2-suits are ♠ and ♣, as the key-card ask.

[gwnn]

No I'm not kidding. You were not talking about the probabilities of strong two suiters (huh? How would a method increase that?? Will your convention involve a rain dance?), so that is not what my post was replying to. I see nowadays you've extended your hobby of not reading posts to those that are your own.

[P_Marlowe]

1S, followed by 3D / ... / ?D

 

Will get the message across.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Zelandakh]

Looks like an obvious 3♦ opening playing (new) MisIry. Rather than reinvent the wheel I suggest you check that out. Last time I was there Ben still had a typo or 2 in the write-up but if you follow the logic it is clear what the follow-ups should be. Also, if you do see the logic then the memory overhead is not large - much like playing a relay system and re-using the same pattern in many different auctions. For the openings, 2NT = ♥ + not ♣; 3♣ = ♣ + not ♦; 3♦ = ♦ + not ♥. Is that really difficult?

 

As for your scheme, it is a little confusing. You seem to have a natural (weak) 3♠ opening and a transfer (strong) 3♥ opening. Compare that with (new) MisIry where both 3M openings are retained and the 3 level heart preempt is already taken care of. It is perhaps closer to the original MisIry scheme that included 3♥. But why don't you write up the entire scheme and then we can judge more easily the merits of it and compare the complexity?

[gwnn]

As for your scheme, it is a little confusing. You seem to have a natural (weak) 3♠ opening and a transfer (strong) 3♥ opening. Compare that with (new) MisIry where both 3M openings are retained and the 3 level heart preempt is already taken care of. It is perhaps closer to the original MisIry scheme that included 3♥. But why don't you write up the entire scheme and then we can judge more easily the merits of it and compare the complexity?

He has written it up already.

1. Transfer to your major.

2. Bid your minor.

3. Wing it (4NT is 6KC Blackwood probably). Do not worry about control bids, voids, etc. How likely are they to matter when you have 5-5, 6-5 or so?

[PhilKing]

I think it is correct to open 1♦.

 

The main point is that slam is more likely to be cold in diamonds than spades (imagine partner holding xx in spades and Jx or even 9x in diamonds), and this gives me maximum room to explore the possibilities.

 

1♠ is more likely to get passed out and 2♣ will lead to complications if I rebid 3♦. If I open 2♣ and rebid 2♠ I will be emphasing the wrong suit, since I do not want preference at the six level.

[Zelandakh]

He has written it up already.

1. Transfer to your major.

2. Bid your minor.

3. Wing it (4NT is 6KC Blackwood probably). Do not worry about control bids, voids, etc. How likely are they to matter when you have 5-5, 6-5 or so?

Hmmm, sometimes I hold both majors or both minors. And sometimes my hand has fewer losers than normal. And those voids...

 

If this is the criteria then you could just play MisIry Lite and add the stronger continuations when the auctions become familiar:

 

2NT = weak ♣ or GF ♥+♦ or GF ♥+♠

==

3♣ - 3♦ = ♥+♦

3♣ - 3♥ = ♥+♠

 

--

3♣ = weak ♦ or GF ♣+♥ or GF ♣+♠

==

3♦ - 3♥ = ♣+♥

3♦ - 3♥ = ♣+♠

 

--

3♦ = weak ♥ or GF ♦+♠ or GF ♦+♣

==

3♥ - 3♠ = ♦+♠

3♥ - 3NT = ♦+♣

 

It should be obvious to anyone that such a method is strictly worse than Ben's...but at least you are playing something with a future this way.

[32519]

What do I gain/lose using the 2 schemes?

Misiry:

1. I lose a natural 2NT opening bid

2. I lose a natural 3♣ pre-empt

3. I lose a natural 3♦ pre-empt

4. I retain a natural 3♥ pre-empt

5. I retain a natural 3♠ pre-empt

6. The 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ opening bids are all susceptible for X or allowing the opponents to bid the suit not promised on level 3, possibly opening the door for a sacrifice at favourable vulnerability. That amounts to a fourth loss.

7. The continuation structure of Misiry is more complex, a fifth loss.

 

My scheme:

1. I retain a natural 2NT opening bid. On this one my scheme gains.

2. I retain a natural 3♣ pre-empt. On this one my scheme gains again.

3. I lose a natural 3♦ pre-empt. On this one there is no gain/loss playing either scheme. However…

4. My scheme does not lose a ♦ pre-empt altogether but it does lose some of its effectiveness. A hand that would normally pre-empt with 3♦ is now forced to pre-empt with 2♦. Depending on how the bidding continues, I get another opportunity to bid 3♦ showing the 7-card suit and pushing the opponents out of a comfortable 2M contract. Granted Misiry can adopt this approach as well which would mean that there is no gain/loss playing either scheme. But until Misiry adopts it, I will chalk it up as a gain for my scheme.

5. I lose a natural 3♥ pre-empt. So here Misiry gains. However…

6. My scheme does not lose the 3♥ pre-empt altogether as I can transfer into ♥ and pass. Also…

7. My 3♥ bid as a transfer to ♠ announces the big 2-suiter in ♠/m. More often than not our side will still be able to bid 4♠ over the opponents 4♥.

8. I retain a natural 3♠ pre-empt. On this one there is no gain/loss playing either scheme.

9. Misiry has the 2NT, 3♣ and 3♦ bids which allow the opponents to X or bid the suit not promised on level 3, possibly opening the door for a sacrifice. My scheme has the 3♦ and 3♥ bids (one less) susceptible to X etc. by the opponents. So I will chalk that up as another gain for my scheme.

10. Sacrificing on level 5 for either scheme should be on par once the opponents know what the 2-suits are, favourable vulnerability, etc. So there is no gain/loss playing either scheme should the opponents choose to sacrifice.

11. The continuation structure of my scheme is simple requiring almost no memory load, another gain for my scheme.

 

Almost without exception any new bridge idea/convention undergoes some sort of modification by someone else other than the creator thereof. Misiry is not one of those exceptions. Which scheme do you want to play? The choice is still yours, which obviously includes the option of “Neither, thank you. I will stick to opening these hand types with 1M or 2♣.”