[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]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-21, 04:25, said:

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]

gwnn, on 2014-January-21, 04:42, said:

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♣.”

[32519]

The OP asked for you to suggest an auction to at least force to game in one of your 2-suits. Very interestingly not a single person suggested Misiry.

[gwnn]

32519, on 2014-January-21, 07:21, said:

The OP asked for you to suggest an auction to at least force to game in one of your 2-suits. Very interestingly not a single person suggested Misiry.

Nobody suggested your scheme either.

[Zelandakh]

32519, on 2014-January-21, 07:17, said:

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.

1. (2NT) is true. Losing a natural 2NT opening is a loss. Ben can get around this to some extent because he also plays a Multi 2♦ opening.
2. (3♣) is not exactly true. Having a natural 3♣ opening versus 2NT is a gain but not as big as if there was no 3 level club preempt available.
3.-4. (3♦) is truly ridiculous given the comment in 2. Opening your 3 level diamond preempts 2♦ as opposed to 3♣ is a clear loss. That is even more clear when you see that one claim of a gain is stopping the opponents from playing "a confortable 2M".
5.-7. (3♥) shows that you have either not read or not understood MisIry. Ben gives some different options for these 3M openings but none of them include a natural 3♥ opening, which is already covered by the 3♦ opening.
8. is true if that is the version of the 3M MisIry openings being played.
9. if the opponents know what they are doing they will have better uses for a double of the transfer opening than suggesting a sacrifice. Moreover, in the case of the 3m openings Opener will possess the suit opened if strong, and if Opener is weak they are probably not the ones sacrificing. In contrast, your 3♦ opener does not show diamonds if strong so, if the opponents were so poor as to use a double in this way, that would be a loss for your methods, not a gain. I suppose you could argue that your wy might dupe a very inexperienced pair into playing a bad defence but that would rather be clutching st straws.
10. depends how quickly they sacrifice. If they wait until both suits are known then Ben's rebid structure has conveyed a great deal more information making it easier for partner to know whether to bid on or not.
11. I think MisIry is also simple once you spot the pattern and make the effort.

You also missed out that you are not covering hands with both minors, or both majors. Nor have you got a transfer Gambling 3NT opening, nor freed 3NT up for your choice of a strong major preempt or a 4m preempt. Nor are you addressing the issue of the sequence 3♦ - 3♥; 3NT where 3NT does nothing to specify strength. Indeed I do not even know which minor 3NT here shows, since you have not given the full structure yet. It would be really poor if Opener had to rebid 4m here to show the minor and waste both 3♠ and 3NT, so hopefully you are not going to be suggesting that. But if not, then the continuations are also artificial, and because they are not based on an underlying logic and pattern that ends up being more complex, not less. This is another reason for posting a full structure - perhaps you have a scheme that is both simple and effective in terms of bidding space. So far I have not seen this but you should know by now I am not averse to new ideas.


Edit: oh yes, I forgot to add. You may not have seen it yet but another long-standing scheme for strong 2-suiters, in fact older than MisIry, is available online in the form of the MAF system. That should still be available and runs approximately along natural lines. That might also be something on which you can base a workable scheme and thereby iron out some of the current wrinkles.

[32519]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-21, 08:03, said:

This is another reason for posting a full structure - perhaps you have a scheme that is both simple and effective in terms of bidding space. So far I have not seen this but you should know by now I am not averse to new ideas.

I have dumped a natural 2NT opening bid more than a year ago after suffering enough bad boards in 2NT going down. I have moved the big balanced hands into my 1♣ bid which is very similar to a Polish Club.
My 2♣ retains its original meaning of 22+ HCP.
My 2♦ bid is Multi but with the following 4 hand options –
1. A natural 6 or 7-card ♦ suit
2. A 6-4 holding in the majors, 10-15 HCP
3. A big 4-4-4-1 holding, 16+ HCP
4. A big 5-5 or better holding in the minor suits, 14+ HCP
My 2♥ and 2♠ bids are natural promising a 6-card suit
My 2NT bid promises 5-5 in the majors, 8-12 HCP
My 3NT bid promises a major suit single suiter which can make game on its own. 4♥ as P/C from partner denies any slam try. Anything else encourages a slam try.
My 4♣/4♦/4♥/4♠ are all natural and pre-emptive

The introduction for treating big 2-suiters as posted here will be an addition to our current agreements. This has never yet before been discussed between partner and myself. fromageGB was the first to point out problem areas which needed more thought. Now you are also entering into the discussion which is much appreciated. If a workable suggestion comes to light which fits in with the rest of the system, we will introduce it. If it is unworkable then obviously we leave it out.

[32519]

Zelandakh, on 2014-January-21, 08:03, said:

Edit: oh yes, I forgot to add. You may not have seen it yet but another long-standing scheme for strong 2-suiters, in fact older than MisIry, is available online in the form of the MAF system. That should still be available and runs approximately along natural lines. That might also be something on which you can base a workable scheme and thereby iron out some of the current wrinkles.

Do you have a link to this?

[HighLow21]

2♣ all day, every day.

[Zelandakh]

I think this is the right one. It is quite a while since I visited. The 2-suited method has some silly name like Madam. It might take a little time to get used to the site too - it is not the best laid out from memory but everything is there is you sniff around.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I got dealt the following in a tournament yesterday

---

Ended up declaring 3D, making 7.
not the best contract, but good enough for 77%

[32519]

hrothgar, on 2014-January-21, 10:12, said:

FWIW, I got dealt the following in a tournament yesterday

---

Ended up declaring 3D, making 7.
not the best contract, but good enough for 77%

Thanks for this Richard. Here is a link to the traveller of this hand. Seems like bidding these types of hands are problematic for most.

[32519]

I'm starting to look for more of these big 2-suiter hands to develop the idea further before including it officially into our system. This hand comes from a club game where there were 7 tables. I am suggesting this as a bidding sequence:

---

Notes on the bidding:
1. East can see a hopeless misfit looming, despite West promising a big 2-suiter. East rejects the transfer by bidding his own long suit.
2. Despite having only the measly ♣3 in partners suit, the promised ruffing length in East's hand plus holding 5 top tricks for East, West bids game. 5♣ is the only making game.

[manudude03]

32519, on 2014-January-25, 14:10, said:

I'm starting to look for more of these big 2-suiter hands to develop the idea further before including it officially into our system. This hand comes from a club game where there were 7 tables. I am suggesting this as a bidding sequence:

---

Notes on the bidding:
1. East can see a hopeless misfit looming, despite West promising a big 2-suiter. East rejects the transfer by bidding his own long suit.
2. Despite having only the measly ♣3 in partners suit, the promised ruffing length in East's hand plus holding 5 top tricks for East, West bids game. 5♣ is the only making game.

Emphasis mine. May I suggest if you're having to look for them, then it shouldn't be a priority.

[32519]

manudude03, on 2014-January-25, 15:40, said:

May I suggest if you're having to look for them, then it shouldn't be a priority.

Whose system are we talking about here, mine or yours? My system already includes some bids frowned upon by the purists. Seems like this one will also be frowned upon. By you at least, anyway.
To include this in my current system will require minimum changes. Also the additional memory load is minimal. All that needs to be remembered is that a 3-level pre-empt in the RED SUITS is a transfer bid. A 3-level pre-empt in the BLACK SUITS is a natural bid. After that the bidding is pretty logical.

manudude03, on 2014-January-25, 15:40, said:

I'm starting to look for more of these big 2-suiter hands <snip>

Would you have preferred me to say, "I am now on the LOOK-OUT for more of these big 2-suiter hands." I always review the hand records distributed after a club game. If I spot a hand there that fits the criteria of something I am tinkering with, then I start collecting them until I have enough example hands to justify a system change/modification.

[the hog]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-17, 16:58, said:

I agree.

What a great hand for Misiry. I am surprised this never took off. I have to open 2C on this hand.

[the hog]

gwnn, on 2014-January-21, 07:33, said:

Nobody suggested your scheme either.

No one ever will either.

[fromageGB]

The numbers man should be plauded for raising and discussing ideas on how to handle hands to convey information in a regular partnership bidding system. I'd like to see more of this happening in the forums. While one may not choose to adopt an idea as expressed, it may lead to further thought on one's own methods and whether they should be rethought or improved.

Not only has this thread brought the OP method to light - some believe it should have been kept under the bushel - it may have also introduced referenced ideas such as misiry to a new audience, or indeed the ideas of Madam Maf.