[32519]

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?

[hrothgar]

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?

Obvious 1S opening

[neilkaz]

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

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]

CSGibson, on 2014-January-17, 15:16, said:

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]

32519, on 2014-January-17, 22:10, said:

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...through-3d.html

[32519]

CSGibson, on 2014-January-17, 15:16, said:

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.

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

I agree.

gszes, on 2014-January-18, 16:37, said:

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]

fromageGB, on 2014-January-18, 09:49, said:

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]

gwnn, on 2014-January-18, 17:11, said:

You're at least 8 years too late: http://inquiry2over1...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]

32519, on 2014-January-20, 12:23, said:

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]

gwnn, on 2014-January-20, 13:11, said:

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