[32519]

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

Nobody suggested your scheme either.

 the hog, on 2014-January-26, 03:18, said:

No one ever will either.

Two genius' in tandem! How can anyone suggest a scheme that is still under construction?

[gwnn]

Your point was MisIry is not very popular and it will never be. My point was that yours will also never be popular as you are just throwing away bidding space in the name of simplicity but never stopping to actually think about what MisIry is trying to do. Writing a proper pro/con list (you know, with a separate sub-list for pros and one for cons, not too lists both containing pros and cons, logical fallacies and ignorance) would also be helpful.

[Onedown]

 hrothgar, on 2014-January-17, 14:44, said:

Obvious 1S opening

Also obvious you could risk being passed out on a cold diamond slam...2♣ is the only opener here and hope you the time and levels to show this monster 2 suiter

[32519]

 gwnn, on 2014-January-26, 12:46, said:

Your point was MisIry is not very popular and it will never be. My point was that yours will also never be popular as you are just throwing away bidding space in the name of simplicity but never stopping to actually think about what MisIry is trying to do. Writing a proper pro/con list (you know, with a separate sub-list for pros and one for cons, not too lists both containing pros and cons, logical fallacies and ignorance) would also be helpful.

I think you are still missing the boat completely.
A big 6-5 2-suiter has a 0.02% probability of occurrence.
A big 6-6 2-suiter has a 0.01% probability of occurrence.
With odds of occurrence so low, NO ONE is going to even bother with Misiry. The memory load will just get in the way. Misiry starts off the auction with 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦. So you are wasting plenty of bidding space here as well.
The only memory load in my scheme is to remember that a 3-level RED SUIT pre-empt is a transfer bid. After that the bidding is pretty logical and straight forward.

As already mentioned my scheme is still under construction. Thus far I have no problem in wasting a lot of bidding space on a hand pattern which has an extremely low probability of occurrence. I would much rather use all available bidding space on hand patterens with a much greater probability of occurrence to explore for the optimal contract.

I found another hand that meets the criteria for my scheme. What do you plan to bid in 4th seat after this bidding sequence?

---

Here the North hand is (almost) useless outside a ♥ contract. What do you plan to bid in 4th seat after this sequence?

Let me say it yet again: My scheme is still under construction.

[the hog]

"With odds of occurrence so low, NO ONE is going to even bother with Misiry. The memory load will just get in the way. Misiry starts off the auction with 2NT, 3♣ or 3♦. So you are wasting plenty of bidding space here as well.
The only memory load in my scheme is to remember that a 3-level RED SUIT pre-empt is a transfer bid. After that the bidding is pretty logical and straight forward."

OK. Lets look at these comments.
Firstly your assertion hat no one will bother is incorrect. A number of very good pairs have adopted and used the method, admittedly in permanent, good partnerships.
Secondly, transfer pre empts are a bit of a joke in that they offer you so many more options, to wit:

(3D) X = good hand with Ds, 3H = t/o of Hs. Now I can show a good s/s D hand at little cost without having to bid 4Ds

(3D) P (3H) P
(P) x = penalty x of Hs - a bid I was not able to make before. So you have given me a penalty x for free.

This is the scheme partner and I use against transfer preempts with success. The cost of your scheme far outweighs the benefits.

[gwnn]

32519, did you look at MisIry? What would you say it achieves? Why are the continuations so complex? You may want to use words like "control bids" or "cover cards" in your answer.

In unrelated news, is there a problem in treating

AKQxx
xx
AKJxxx
-

And

AKQxx
-
AKJxxx
xx

In the exact same way? How about the same two hands but with a missing king?

[madongjun]

 32519, on 2014-January-17, 11:58, said:

No poll on this one.

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

---

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

Just two losers in hand,I opened 2♣,then ♠ and ♦ forced! until slam,6 or 7.

[32519]

 the hog, on 2014-January-27, 01:05, said:

(3D) X = good hand with Ds, 3H = t/o of Hs. Now I can show a good s/s D hand at little cost without having to bid 4Ds

(3D) P (3H) P
(P) x = penalty x of Hs - a bid I was not able to make before. So you have given me a penalty x for free.

This is the scheme partner and I use against transfer preempts with success. The cost of your scheme far outweighs the benefits.

This is bunkum and you know it too.
1. The same doubles/bidding the suit for takeout etc. as described here by you are equally applicable to Misiry.
2. It is only true in systems where all 3-level pre-empts are weak. Here a 3♥ pre-empt guarantees a big 2-suiter. If you double 3♥ showing a ♥ suit, our side will always be able to outbid you in ♠. With your side claiming ownership of one of the remaining suits, the probability increases that our side will have a fit in at least one of openers two suits.
3. Your statement is only true when my side pre-empts in 3♦ with a weak 7-card suit in ♥. Partners overall hand strength and ♥ holding will be an indication of whether or not the 3♦ bid is showing a weak single suiter or a strong two suiter. Because of the low frequency of occurrence of the strong hand pattern, by far the majority will be the weak hand.
4. So now your side bids 3♥ as a 3-suited takeout of ♥. There are still two remaining hands with unknown hand strengths. Never in a 1,000 years will your side come out with the plus score every time. Who says my partner isn’t sitting behind you with your 3-suits and nothing in mine?

[the hog]

"1. The same doubles/bidding the suit for takeout etc. as described here by you are equally applicable to Misiry.

No it is not.


2. It is only true in systems where all 3-level pre-empts are weak. Here a 3♥ pre-empt guarantees a big 2-suiter.

You stated that a 3H bid can be a S re empt or a 2 suiter. So how does it GUARANTEE a 2 suiter?

As you are obviously not a good enough player to even understand basic bidding theory, I am done with you.

[32519]

 the hog, on 2014-January-27, 04:38, said:

2. It is only true in systems where all 3-level pre-empts are weak. Here a 3♥ pre-empt guarantees a big 2-suiter.

You stated that a 3H bid can be a S pre-empt or a 2 suiter. So how does it GUARANTEE a 2 suiter?

Did you read this post, or this one, or this one, or this one?

[32519]

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

Rather than reinvent the wheel...<snip>

Check out the hand posted here, and the hand posted here.
How does Misiry break the GF when responder can see disaster looming?

[Zelandakh]

 32519, on 2014-January-27, 06:37, said:

Check out the hand posted here, and the hand posted here.
How does Misiry break the GF when responder can see disaster looming?

On the first I disagree that your bidding sequence is at all realistic. Opener should surely rebid 4♠ over 4♣ to show very good spades and weaker diamonds, over which Responder gets to choose a contract. I do not know the MisIry system intimately but if 3♦ - 3♥; 4♦ - 5♣ is natural, that would be one way of reaching this. Maybe Ben can step in on that front - I am not even sure if he would consider Opener's hand 3 or 4 losers.

I strongly suspect Ben would open the second hand 1♠ rather than 3♣. Of course the North hand is fairly useless in a 1♠ contract but I guess we can live with that when staying so low. If South were to open 3♣ then North would probably play it in 4♥. If you ever find yourself wanting to open with one of these calls and subsequently wondering if you should stop below 3NT in partner's suit then your initial action was almost certainly wrong. As an example, say North passes 3♥ and South holds ♠AQJT98 ♥A ♦- ♣AKQJT9, just wanting to find out about the ♠K and the best trump suit. How would you rate this? It is similar to holding ♠9 ♥ ♦QT53 ♣Q9876432 and hearing partner open 2♣. Would you pass here too? If not then I put it to you that you need to start bidding some of these hands single dummy rather than always seeing the whole deal in advance.

[Mbodell]

I feel like we are near the point where someone should organize a "headsup for rolls" sort of match. Maybe a goulash one where wild distribution is more common, or just one where there are a lot of strong 2 suiters and preempt type hands?

[HighLow21]

 Mbodell, on 2014-January-27, 13:44, said:

I feel like we are near the point where someone should organize a "headsup for rolls" sort of match. Maybe a goulash one where wild distribution is more common, or just one where there are a lot of strong 2 suiters and preempt type hands?

Agreed, this would be a good system for goulash, but then again, goulash is a much different game than contract bridge. The frequency of these crazy distributions is so small that any system that tries to incorporate it is likely to do one of two things:
(1) Unslot other bid meanings that have much higher frequency (think for example strong vs. weak 2s)
(2) Lead to such complexity that when they do occur, there is no effective defense for the other side (or lead to confusion for the partnership that uses the convention once every 10,000 deals).

(1) is a much more important problem, in terms of best methods for the partnership. (2) just means that any hands that could use the new system will sometimes lead to problems of their own.

Better, I think, to have one opening bid for all powerhouses (2♣) and have an extremely well developed system from that point forward.

Out of curiosity -- the original hand has about 2.5 or 3 losers. What is the frequency of 3- loser hands? Has Pavlicek or anyone looked into this?

[HighLow21]

<deleted, duplicate>

[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.

This post is equally valid for Misiry. With such a low frequency of big 2-suiters just drop the whole thing altogether.

[32519]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-January-27, 07:35, said:

If you ever find yourself wanting to open with one of these calls and subsequently wondering if you should stop below 3NT in partner's suit then your initial action was almost certainly wrong. As an example, say North passes 3♥ and South holds ♠AQJT98 ♥A ♦- ♣AKQJT9, just wanting to find out about the ♠K and the best trump suit. How would you rate this?

This can't be right.
If the requirements for opening with Misiry are hands as strong as this, then the frequency of occurrence is going to drop even further, to the point of being negligible.

[32519]

 HighLow21, on 2014-January-27, 13:56, said:

Agreed, this would be a good system for goulash, but then again, goulash is a much different game than contract bridge. The frequency of these crazy distributions is so small that any system that tries to incorporate it is likely to do one of two things:
(1) Unslot other bid meanings that have much higher frequency (think for example strong vs. weak 2s)
(2) Lead to such complexity that when they do occur, there is no effective defense for the other side (or lead to confusion for the partnership that uses the convention once every 10,000 deals).

(1) is a much more important problem, in terms of best methods for the partnership. (2) just means that any hands that could use the new system will sometimes lead to problems of their own.

Better, I think, to have one opening bid for all powerhouses (2♣) and have an extremely well developed system from that point forward.

Out of curiosity -- the original hand has about 2.5 or 3 losers. What is the frequency of 3- loser hands? Has Pavlicek or anyone looked into this?

Halleluja! Someone has seen the light!

[Zelandakh]

 32519, on 2014-January-27, 21:31, said:

If the requirements for opening with Misiry are hands as strong as this, then the frequency of occurrence is going to drop even further, to the point of being negligible.

It is not a requirement for either method but the upper end for both is unlimited. That is what makes passing 3♥ risky. If you are excluding stronger hands (to allow for passing the transfer opening) then your frequency will be lower than MisIry. It should also be noted that all MisIry openings include a preempt, which is not true for your 3♥ opening. So the frequency of this is lower than the MisIry openings (3m) handling these hand types. To offset that, the Gambling 3M opening that Ben suggests is also very low frequency.