michels vs something better

[bebop4]

Playing Michael's is limited and incomplete.

 

What if opp bids 1c and am 5/5 in S and D

Same if opp bids 1D and I am 5/5 in S and C.

 

So why not play that a direct cue-bid means that I am 5/5 in the TOP unbid in a LOWER unbid suit?

This coupled with Unusual 2N over call allows you to show ALL combinations of 5/5 hands.

 

e.g.

they bid 1C my cue-bid means 5/5 in S and either D or H If I am 5/5 in H and D then Unusual 2N (unusual 2N)

they bid 1D my cue-bid means 5/5 in S and either C or H If I am 5/5 in H and C then Unusual 2N (unusual 2N)

they bid 1H my cue-bid mean same as Michaels, 5/5 in S and an unspecified minor If I am 5/5 in C and D then Unusual 2N (unusual 2N)

they bid 1S my cue-bid mean same as Michaels, 5/5 in H and an unspecified minor If I am 5/5 in C and D then Unusual 2N (unusual 2N)

(

That covers ALL 5/5 combinations. And it is NOT alertable, and most opponents assume (mistakenly) it is Michaels.

[Phil]

 

And it is NOT alertable, and most opponents assume (mistakenly) it is Michaels.

 

Well hot damn! An awesome treatment and an opportunity to trip up the opponents.

[Tramticket]

Well hot damn! An awesome treatment and an opportunity to trip up the opponents.

 

Great reply :)

 

Fortunately, on this side of the pond it is alertable. So your dodgy ethics won't work.

[nige1]

We play bepop4's version of "Michaels" and it works fine. We alert it and it's on on our CC.

• Over (1m opener), 2m cue shows 2-suiter: ♠s and ♥ OR ♠ and om. (2♥ advance is P/C). 2N is relay).
• Over (1M opener), 2M cue shows 2-suiter: OM and either m. (3♣ advance is P/C. 2N is relay).

[1eyedjack]

The OP doesn't state the jurisdiction. Where I play, Michaels, Ghestem and all variants are alertable, and I am frankly surprised that there is a jurisdiction where some of them might not be.

 

That said, if they are all alertable, there remains nearly as much of an opportunity to take an un-sportsman advantage from opponents who make assumptions, as if none are.

[johnu]

That covers ALL 5/5 combinations. And it is NOT alertable, and most opponents assume (mistakenly) it is Michaels.

 

If you are in the ACBL, it should be alerted according to the Alert Procedures document because it is has a very unusual or unexpected meaning.

[fromageGB]

If you have only two bids for three possible combinations of 2-suiters then you inevitably have one of them where the "undisclosed" suit is ambiguous. Which bid you choose for this does not matter much, but having three bids for such 2-suiters is in my view much better. Playing with only two bids you inevitably are put in the position of :

(opening) partner-2-suiter (responder bid) ...

and while you have a good fit for one of the two possibilities you can't stand the other, so have to keep quiet.

 

Bebop, you could try

1) cue bid of opener's suit = top 2 of the other suits

2) 2NT = bottom 2 of the other suits

3) 3♣ over ♦♥♠, or 2♦ over 1♣, = the extreme 2 suits

 

Variety 3 might mean giving up a WJO in that minor, but if you have a hand of that type that you want to bid on, you stretch to either a simple overcall or a double-jump. The advantage is that whatever fit partner has over your 2-suiter, he can support. Depending on local regulations, you can even have a bid of variety 3 that means "the extreme suits, but if I rebid this suit it means I have a single-suited WJO after all." I don't play that, but it is legal in the UK.

 

(Note that the bid for the extreme suits - eg 1♥ 3♣ with clubs and spades - will always be one of your suits and can therefore be passed, so don't do this one with a very strong hand.)

[Vampyr]

Great reply :)

 

Fortunately, on this side of the pond it is alertable. So your dodgy ethics won't work.

 

Not really, because the normal Michaels meaning is also alertable.

[manudude03]

The way I see it, the main benefit of Michael's is to get your fit in immediately. Imagine you have a hand like Kx Axxxx xxxx xx and you see the auction go (1D)-2D-(P), your hand is mediocre if partner's second suit is clubs (which it likely is), but potentially huge if partner has hearts (4H opposite Axxxx Kxxxx x xx only requires a 2-1 trump break). I think if you want to be able to show every combination, then play some variation of ghestem.

 

That said, there are benefits to having the undisclosed second suit. It deprives the opponents of a cuebid they might otherwise have available, and they may not know what your second suit is when it comes to the lead.

[viaduct]

FINCH CUE BID (very SIMPLY and FULLY covers all 6 possible 2-suit combinations, and 3/4 of the time a 3♣ bid actually includes ♣s).)

 

Finch Cue Bid (alertable) is used to show a hand with two 5-card suits with one bid, some partnerships do allow 4-5/5-4 when holding both majors.

It can be used when you are stronger, but generally it’s used as a weak, pre-emptive, 6-11 point bid, with both vulnerabilities being taken into account.

 

It replaces Michael’s Cue Bid/Unusual 2NT; CRO (all variations of Colour\Rank\Other); Ghestem and Questem.

 

Bidding (and remembering) couldn’t be any simpler! The lowest cue bid possible 1x 2x (1♣2♣/1♦2♦/1♥2♥/1♠2♠), signifies the 2 highest unbid suits; with the highest bid 1x 3♣, showing the 2 lowest unbid suits; and the middle bid 1x 2NT, used to specify the 5/5 holding of the highest and the lowest unbid suits.

 

 

 

“The Lowest (1x2x Finch Cue Bid) shows the Highest (2 unbid suits), and the Highest shows the Lowest, otherwise the middle (2NT) must be the other two (Highest and the Lowest)”.

 

 

Other options – If 1 of opponents' 2 bid suits is a phoney (♣), then, treating (♣)sas UNBID, permits all 3 Finch Cue Bids, a 2(♣) bid being used as your normal overcall.

If opps have bid 2 suits (e.g. 1♦ & 1♠), 2 unbid suits are left, so with 5/5 in ♣s & ♥s, a 2♦ bid (lower bid suit) shows 6-9 points; 2♠ (higher) 10-12; 2NT 13-15 & 3♣ 16+.

 

 

Michael’s Cue Bid/Unusual 2NT has 2 “the other Major and a minor” and 2 totally omitted combinations (lowest & highest unbid suits over opponent’s minor openings)!

All CRO versions (CRO COR ROC etc;) are totally neutral, neither major nor minor!

The Finch Cue Bid overcomes the Ghestem problem of having to bid 3♣ when holding both majors, as now the lowest Direct Cue Bid (2♣ ♦ ♥ ♠) is very much major oriented.

The Questem problem stills exists when you’re strong and one of your suits is Clubs, in which case the initial bid should be DOUBLE, rather than bidding 3♣, which partner may pass thinking you are weak! Although the 3♣ Bid can’t now be used as a weak jump overcall, 75% of the time when you overcall 3♣, you actually have clubs!

Where Questem is an inversion of Ghestem, the Finch Cue Bid is a further inversion, making it even better than Questem, in that the 3♣ Bid is very much for the minors; the 2NT bid becomes neutral; the low 2-level Direct Cue Bid remains major oriented; culminating in a simple yet complete and exact logical scientific bidding system.

[1eyedjack]

Finch Cue Bid (alertable)

You are almost certainly correct. But I suspect more by accident than design, and that you fall into the same trap as that of the OP. Alerting regulations vary by sponsoring organisation.

 

I personally think it unlikely that there is a single SO that would regard it as un-alertable, hence my tentative agreement with your conclusion. Still, it is arguably brave of you to speak on behalf of them all.

[blackshoe]

If you are in the ACBL, it should be alerted according to the Alert Procedures document because it is has a very unusual or unexpected meaning.

I'm not certain about "top and another" cuebids, but I am certain that top and bottom cuebids don't require an alert in the acbl.

 

Check out Max Hardy's Competitive Bidding With Two Suited Hands.

[barmar]

I'm not certain about "top and another" cuebids, but I am certain that top and bottom cuebids don't require an alert in the acbl.

I think you're right, although I wish T&B did require an alert. Michaels is so ubiquitous that no one would ever think to ask the meaning of the cue bid, and this gives anyone playing some other cue bid agreement a big advantage.

 

ACBL's Alert Procedure doesn't provide any more guidance than the vague "highly unusual and unexpected". I'm not sure if I've ever encountered a T&B cue bid -- if I've ever played against a pair that was playing them, it didn't come up. And I'll bet 99% of ACBL players are similar.

 

But the fact that the convention has a well-recognized name may be enough to make it not be "highly unusual". Top-and-another, on the other hand, is not something I've even heard of before, so I think it clearly meets the standard of being highly unusual and unexpected.

[johnu]

I'm not certain about "top and another" cuebids, but I am certain that top and bottom cuebids don't require an alert in the acbl.

 

Check out Max Hardy's Competitive Bidding With Two Suited Hands.

 

Why are you certain? When was Hardy's book published? I would guess it was published before the current alert procedures were in effect.

[helene_t]

Great reply :)

 

Fortunately, on this side of the pond it is alertable. So your dodgy ethics won't work.

Oh yes it works here also. Because we just alert and opps assume it is Michael's.

 

Won't work in the Netherlands where Michaels is nowhere near universal so opps will ask if they need.

 

Shouldn't work in ACBL land either since cue-bids (and 2NT) are alertable if they have a highly unusual meaning. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Zelandakh]

There are many possible versions over a 1m opening. Here is another that I am rather fond of:-

 

(1m)

===

2m = WJO in a major; or strong with ♠ + om

2♦ = WJO

2♥ = weak with both majors

2♠ = weak with ♠ + om

2NT = weak/strong with ♥ + om

3♣ = strong with both majors

--

 

Playing such a system to try and get around alerting regulations is, I hope you realise, unethical. You play such methods because you think they are an improvement and ideally go out of your way to make sure that the opps are not disadvantaged from not having the correct explanations when they need them.

[barmar]

Why are you certain? When was Hardy's book published? I would guess it was published before the current alert procedures were in effect.

I don't think the relevant clause of the Alert Procedure has changed in a while.

[Tramticket]

Oh yes it works here also. Because we just alert and opps assume it is Michael's.

 

Won't work in the Netherlands where Michaels is nowhere near universal so opps will ask if they need.

 

Shouldn't work in ACBL land either since cue-bids (and 2NT) are alertable if they have a highly unusual meaning. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

I come across alternatives to Michaels (CRO / Ghestem) quite frequently, but I concede that this may be a regional thing and sadly many will be deceived. What I objected to in the OP is the concept that you should choose to play a different system in the hope that you will deceive your opponents - I hope that I have mis-read the meaning of the OP, but if there is a deliberate intention to deceive then it does seem unethical.

 

And just to be clear, I even play Ghestem myself with one partner - but because I believe Ghestem to have technical merits - not because I want to swindle the opponents.

[barmar]

What I objected to in the OP is the concept that you should choose to play a different system in the hope that you will deceive your opponents

Isn't that essentially why Meckwell play upside-down suit preference? There's obviously no technical merit to it, so the only possible reason is that it's different from what everyone is used to.

[Tramticket]

Isn't that essentially why Meckwell play upside-down suit preference? There's obviously no technical merit to it, so the only possible reason is that it's different from what everyone is used to.

 

I don't know their motivation, but:

(a) Everyone knows that they play upside-down suit preference, so there would seem to be little deception.

(b) The level of Meckwell's opponents probably need less protection than your average club / small regional tournament player.

[helene_t]

Isn't that essentially why Meckwell play upside-down suit preference? There's obviously no technical merit to it, so the only possible reason is that it's different from what everyone is used to.

Maybe they found that they are slightly more likely to want a major suit switch than a minor suit switch?

[viaduct]

I come across alternatives to Michaels (CRO / Ghestem) quite frequently, but I concede that this may be a regional thing and sadly many will be deceived. What I objected to in the OP is the concept that you should choose to play a different system in the hope that you will deceive your opponents - I hope that I have mis-read the meaning of the OP, but if there is a deliberate intention to deceive then it does seem unethical.

 

And just to be clear, I even play Ghestem myself with one partner - but because I believe Ghestem to have technical merits - not because I want to swindle the opponents.

Did you get to review Finch Cue Bid above - a considerable improvement on Ghestem, "modern" Ghestem and Questem?

[Zelandakh]

Did you get to review Finch Cue Bid above - a considerable improvement on Ghestem, "modern" Ghestem and Questem?

That is a considerable overbid. The Ghestem version where a cue shows the top 2 and 2NT the bottom 2 appears to be at least as good in all cases and possibly slightly better overall. In addition, the point of the Ghestem versions with 3m showing the majors is typically to be able to have a natural WJO in the other minor. For most players, not having 3♣ show clubs in their 2-suited hand is an advantage as it avoids the issue of having to use double for that hand type. It is unclear why you regard this as an advantage in your methods. It is an advantage in a scheme based on splitting the ranges as in the method I posted above but that does not appear to be your design goal here. In short, your idea is playable but the advantages you are claiming appear to be more illusory/hallucinatory than real.

[mycroft]

According to the Alert Procedure - pulled from the ACBL web site today - no two-suited cuebid (unless one of the suits is the bid suit) is Alertable. It's literally one of the examples.

 

Anyone who plays T&B, or S & either other suit, or "the non-touching suit and the next one up", or anything else *for the purpose of misleading the opponents* deserves the C&E committee I hope they'll eventually get. Those who play it because it's better, or that play full Ghestem, or because it fills in a hole they need to fill, or whatever, tend to be the ones that are uncomfortable with the non-Alertable nature of the call.

 

Add me to the list of people who think we should carve out a special exception for direct cue-bids, where Michaels is non-Alertable and anything else is. I like the idea of cuebids in general being non-Alertable unless HU&U, but I think this one is.

 

Note that the definition of cuebid in the ACBL for Alerting purposes includes the bid of a suit *shown, but not bid* by the opponents. That makes Unusual over Unusual not Alertable. Because of the theory that "negative inferences do not in general make a call Alertable", 1♥-(2NT)-3♥ is also not Alertable (assuming one of 3m is the good heart raise). I do anyway, and if I get nailed for it, I will take it with good grace - I just don't feel comfortable with the opponents not knowing what's going on.

[blackshoe]

Why are you certain? When was Hardy's book published? I would guess it was published before the current alert procedures were in effect.

Because when I read Hardy's book just a few years ago, I checked the regulation, and I have kept up to date with it. The book was published in the late 1990s. It does not, by the way, address the question of alerts.