Do Michaels+unnatNT cover all 5-5 shapes?

[pippo13]

My partner and I have just started using michaels & unnatural notrump bids. But the very first hand caused trouble to me.

My right-hand opponent bid 1♣. I had 5♠+5♦. I couldn't bid 2♣, because that means ♠+♥. I couldn't bid 2NT, because that means ♥+♦. So I declared 1♠, but felt uneasy.

Later on I realized that the same problem occurs when I have ♠+♣ and RHO opens 1♦. Should I even in this case go on with ♠?

Is there a way to overcome the problem?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

some play that the Michales Cue Bid promises

the unbid Mayors (this may or may not be standard

in North America), other play, that the cue just

shows the highest unbid Mayor and a another suit.

 

The later style would solve your problem, another solution

would be to play something like Ghestem, which would allow

you to show all 2-suiters direct, although I would not

recommend it.

 

Play Michales, and either you change the meaning of the cue

bid or bid as you have done.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[helene_t]

As you noticed, Michaels does not cover spades+other minor when opps open 1 of a minor. There are several workarounds:

- Ghestem: 3♣ (or 3♦ when opps open 1♦) shows the highest two unbid suits. Then the cuebid shows the highest and the lowest unbid suit.

- 2♦ over 1♣ shows majors, then the cuebid would show spades+clubs.

- Equal Level Conversion: Dbl followed by a correction of 2 of the lowest unbid suit to the intermediate unbid suit shows the two highest unbid suits. Then the cuebid shows the highest and the lowest (so-called bottom-up cuebid).

 

Obviously each of those solutions has its disadvantages. I would just play Michaels and then bid spades when you have spades and the other minor. As you did.

[andy_h]

or you can go the lazy way out of, (1m) 2m shows spades and another. Obviously that has the disadvantage of not knowing what the other suit is if the bidding gets a tad high and unsure of a fit.

[pippo13]

Thank you for your help. Now I feel supported in my choice, which is the easier 1 SPADES, considering my bridge level. Later on...I'll think about it.

[MomoTheDog]

There's nothing wrong in bidding the straightforward 1s.

[bid_em_up]

- Ghestem: 3♣ (or 3♦ when opps open 1♦) shows the highest two unbid suits. Then the cuebid shows the highest and the lowest unbid suit.

Hmmm. I must be playing some version of Modified Ghestem then.

 

Direct Cue = 2 highest ranking suits

Leap to 2N = 2 lowest ranking unbid

Leap to 3C = lowest and highest unbid suit.

 

This covers all suit combinations. The tradeoff is you give up a preemptive 3C bid over a one level opening.

 

The way you suggest forces you a level higher when you have both majors (1C-3C would be two highest unbid suits, as would 1D-3D). Which, I guess is ok, it just seems kind of strange to do it this way to me.

[gwnn]

I learned Ghestem as:

 

1♦/1♥/1♠-

 

cue=high/low

3♣=highest two

2NT=lowest two

 

1♣-

 

2♣=natural

2♦=majors

2NT=♥+♦

3♣=♠+♦

 

It's the same as Helene said but majors are shown via 1♦-3♣, not 3♦.

 

The problem with 3♣ as high/low is that it can be passed. Making it forcing is not quite the thing cause then we can't get out alive beneath 4 level.

 

I don't like this scheme because of the valuable (1x)-3♣ WJO, which of course comes up more frequent than the "sound" two-suiter.

[hrothgar]

Ah... Ghestem.

 

Is there any other convention known to man that sows such chaos at a bridge tournament?

[whereagles]

As you noticed, Michaels does not cover spades+other minor when opps open 1 of a minor. There are several workarounds:

- Ghestem (...)

- 2♦ over 1♣ shows majors (...)

- Equal Level Conversion (...)

There's another one, which is popular where I play:

 

(1m)-2NT = other minor + a major

 

i.e. bundle both majors in the 2NT overcall. I know some people hate this, but I think that's just prejudice. It's been working fine since I started playing it, about 10 years ago... lol.

[bid_em_up]

The problem with 3♣ as high/low is that it can be passed.

And this is a problem, why?

 

(It's not).

 

1) It can only be passed when it is showing clubs and spades (which will be around 50% of the time, the other 50% it is showing diamonds and spades).

2) If partner passes 3C and you make 5C, then you probably should have started with a double anyway.

3) I disagree with your analysis of "frequency" types, but then again, I am not stuck with the requirement of the 3C bid being a sound two suiter, as you seem to be.

4) I prefer to be able to find our best fit in one bid whenever possible (constructive) versus making preemptive bids (destructive), that in most cases, are easily handled by competent opposition and do nothing more than to aid the other side when they end up declaring.

 

jmoo.

[gwnn]

Some people don't like doubling on 7-6's for example.

[bid_em_up]

Some people don't like doubling on 7-6's for example.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. That hand. Oh well.

[Al_U_Card]

I use modified michaels which is similar to ghestem but usually (7-8 out of 10 hands) bidding the higher ranking first then coming in with the other suit when necessary or advisable is often the most efficient and least dangerous practice.