[helene_t]

barmar, on 2016-December-12, 09:08, said:

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]

Tramticket, on 2016-December-12, 09:04, said:

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]

viaduct, on 2016-December-12, 11:16, said:

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]

johnu, on 2016-December-12, 02:39, said:

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.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2016-December-13, 11:29, said:

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.

I don't alert the simple raise, but I do alert the U/U cue bids for the above reason.

[pescetom]

I am no admirer of necros in general, but I did feel it was better to reopen this thread from 10 years ago rather than create another almost identical.
The original discussion died out somewhat prematurely after (rightly) censuring the ethics of anyone who enjoys the idea of dubious regulations allowing them to not disclose agreements. But the idea of fixing Michaels to show "Spades and another" rather than just both majors seems to me as actual as it was then.

Here in Italy until this century everyone played some flavour of Ghestem or CRO(DO) or Cyclic, each with its defects but always showing all possible 2-suiters. The combination of Unusual/Michaels has gradually gained space due to BBO and internet, but the shortcoming of not covering Spades plus the other minor is painfully obvious. Some also imported the glitch of playing (1♣)-2♦ as Michaels to retain a natural overcall of 2+ clubs, which adds to confusion.

I currently play Unusual and Michaels but with (1♣)-2♣ as ♥+♠ and (1♣)-2♦ as ♦+♠, on the basis that half a cake is better than none. But this creates an asymmetry in system, fails to resolve the problem in diamonds and arguably wastes a bid in clubs.

So what about (1m)-2m = ♠ + ♥/om?
Ten years on, does anyone see a fly in the ointment?
Do people play it, and if so why not?
I have ideas about developments, but is there anything existing well thought out?

[mw64ahw]

I started with Michaels & Unusual NT before moving to canape cue-bids and jump overcalls.

Taking it a step further I found that I was missing Weak2 overcalls.

It's fairly easy to incorporate them over 1♣-2♣, but over 1♦ if you use 2♦ as a Weak 2 or strong x4x5 then the 2♥ bid needs to be 45xx or x4x5. Looks familiar? This is a Frelling 2♥ type overcall with the defined continuations tricky, but workable. I am still considering an alternative structure based on those defined in The OS. Likewise we are trying a Frelling 2♠ type overcall over 1♥

The strong continuations are rare as unexpected, but I find at the level I play these overcalls appear to cause quite a few issues

[DavidKok]

My thoughts, I'll try to keep it brief:

• I find that natural weak jump overcalls are highly profitable, whereas the two-suiters are both rare and often don't gain (compared to bidding the suits one by one) when they come up. Because of that I think that e.g. the (1♣)-2♦ gadget is a step backwards.
  
• In the Netherlands a popular treatment works as follows. RHO opens 1X and now we play; 2X = highest unbid suits, 2NT = lowest unbid suits, 3X = outer unbid suits. This works well but has some costs I'll outline below.
  
• Obviously 3X is very high, so you'll regularly have to decide to make a simple overcall with such a hand instead if you don't want to force to the 4-level. Conversely you get to accurately describe both suits on what is likely to be an explosive auction the rest of the time. In my opinion showing exact suits has many ways to benefit, and I prefer having '2.5 ways to show my exact 3 two-suiters' to having an ambiguous bid.
  
• Specifically, showing both majors when you have both majors is the most valuable of these two-suited overcalls.
  
• There are further optimised versions of the above Dutch scheme, swapping the allocations around depending on whether the opening was a major or a minor (or even real diamonds versus short clubs). If you are interested I can look into this, but it's at best a marginal improvement and it's a bit more complicated.

[mw64ahw]

Thought I'd post a further necromancer update.

After 1♣

2♣
a) 4x5x unlimited
b) Weak 2 ♠ min.
c) Weak 2 ♥
Now partner bids ♦ to show ♦ preference & ♥ to show preference for ♠. Now overcaller can Pass or Correct. Alternatively forcing bids are 2♠, 2N & 3♣

2♦ x45x limited
2♥ 45xx limited
2♠ Weak 2 max.

With Weak long ♦ I look to preempt; via 2N in my case
With long ♣ I'll Pass and bid later if possible.

With opening values and 55/54 open at the 1-level and rebid accordingly.
So with 45xx and opening values I overcall 1♥ and look to rebid 2♦ (Spades) as per a KI5 aporoach.

Still work in progress, but the downside so far is Alerting and being timed out due to a long explanation!

[mycroft]

Well, if we're going to necro (and please don't take this as an attempt to re-divert; just a one-and-done, because the world *has* changed), know that this:

mycroft, on 2016-December-13, 11:29, said:

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.

is no longer correct.

The new Alert Procedure has gone to a righter way of dealing with this:

• If the Opening bid is Natural (so, 4+ in a major, 3+ (or 4=4=3=2 possible for 1♣), then "two suits, all unbid majors" is not Alertable, any other meaning (including T&B) for the Cuebid is. (Art. D.O., 1 & 2)
  
• If the opening is Quasi-Natural (3+ or "NT shape"), then no Cuebid is Alertable (including T&B, including Natural). (Art. D.O., 3)
  
• If Artificial (anything else), then no meaning for a bid of the same suit - or a suit shown by the bid, if you somehow get to play that - is Alertable. (Art. D.O., 4)
  
• Cuebid is still defined as "or a bid of a suit shown (4+) by the opponents"(CC), so UvU, if the Cue shows a raise (or the stronger 4th suit), is not Alertable (ART, Other, 4). The weak raise isn't either, but a NF non-jump 4th suit bid (for instance, 1♦-2♦ (T&B)-2♥ where one of 2♠ or 3♣ is a good hand with hearts) *is* (Nat, Resp. 1).
  
• The concept of "Highly Unusual or Unexpected" no longer matters for Alerting (except in a very rare corner case "allowed" but not required by the Procedure), thankfully.

I still feel that the opponents should know what's going on, but with the changes I feel it's okay to move to "if declaring, mention that 'partner had a stronger raise available'". For those who play QN or ART openings, if you haven't yet learned that "if you need to know, you have to ask", I have little to no sympathy (please note, one of my two regular partnerships is Precision).

[Chas_P]

bebop4, on 2016-December-10, 15:00, said:

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.

Google Ghestem.

[pescetom]

mw64ahw, on 2026-March-03, 06:43, said:

Thought I'd post a further necromancer update.

After 1♣

2♣
a) 4x5x unlimited
b) Weak 2 ♠ min.
c) Weak 2 ♥
Now partner bids ♦ to show ♦ preference & ♥ to show preference for ♠. Now overcaller can Pass or Correct. Alternatively forcing bids are 2♠, 2N & 3♣

2♦ x45x limited
2♥ 45xx limited
2♠ Weak 2 max.

With Weak long ♦ I look to preempt; via 2N in my case
With long ♣ I'll Pass and bid later if possible.

With opening values and 55/54 open at the 1-level and rebid accordingly.
So with 45xx and opening values I overcall 1♥ and look to rebid 2♦ (Spades) as per a KI5 aporoach.

Still work in progress, but the downside so far is Alerting and being timed out due to a long explanation!

Thanks, I'm interested intellectually if not practically (with my current partners), please open a thread when you have shaken it down.

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2026-March-03, 01:02, said:

My thoughts, I'll try to keep it brief:

• I find that natural weak jump overcalls are highly profitable, whereas the two-suiters are both rare and often don't gain (compared to bidding the suits one by one) when they come up. Because of that I think that e.g. the (1♣)-2♦ gadget is a step backwards.
  
• In the Netherlands a popular treatment works as follows. RHO opens 1X and now we play; 2X = highest unbid suits, 2NT = lowest unbid suits, 3X = outer unbid suits. This works well but has some costs I'll outline below.
  
• Obviously 3X is very high, so you'll regularly have to decide to make a simple overcall with such a hand instead if you don't want to force to the 4-level. Conversely you get to accurately describe both suits on what is likely to be an explosive auction the rest of the time. In my opinion showing exact suits has many ways to benefit, and I prefer having '2.5 ways to show my exact 3 two-suiters' to having an ambiguous bid.
  
• Specifically, showing both majors when you have both majors is the most valuable of these two-suited overcalls.
  
• There are further optimised versions of the above Dutch scheme, swapping the allocations around depending on whether the opening was a major or a minor (or even real diamonds versus short clubs). If you are interested I can look into this, but it's at best a marginal improvement and it's a bit more complicated.

Thanks, I fully agree that I would rather give up (1C)-3C than (1C)-2D.
Also that identifying two suits has its benefits (in particular being able to play majors 5-4+, although I've been burned by that too).
And that, being a Director (Caesar's wife syndrome) I like the idea of partner not forgetting holding natural 3X.
I am indeed worried about 3X often being too high, although I guess that assigning it to spades + minor also has a preemptive effect on investigation of hearts.
Will think about it.

[Zelandakh]

For sure it is posted in this thread somewhere but the system I designed is:-

(1m) - 2m = one major, weak; or ♠ + om, strong (handle just like Multi 2♦ opening)
(1m) - 2♥ = both majors, weak
(1m) - 2♠ = ♠ + om, weak
(1m) - 2NT = ♥ + om, weak or strong (ie standard UNT)
(1m) - 3m = both majors, strong


With my current partner though, we play (1X) - 2X = highest and another, which is good enough if you want simplicity. Over that we use bidding the unknown suit as pass/correct and 2NT as a constructive relay, similar to the way the most common Muiderberg structure works.

[kreivi68]

My take on the subject is what I call Chameloen Cue.

(1♣) - 2♦ = diamonds
(1m) - 2m = Multi: a) hearts or b) 5♠ + 5om
(1m) - 2♥ = 5-5 in the majors, constructive
(1m) - 2♠ = spades
(1m) - 2NT = hearts + om
(1m) - 3m = majors, strong

After the cue bid advancer's new-suit bids are P/C and 2NT asks:

3om = spades + om, minimum
3m = hearts, minimum
3♥ = hearts, maximum
3♠ = spades + om, extras

[pescetom]

DavidKok, on 2026-March-03, 01:02, said:

- In the Netherlands a popular treatment works as follows. RHO opens 1X and now we play; 2X = highest unbid suits, 2NT = lowest unbid suits, 3X = outer unbid suits
- Obviously 3X is very high, so you'll regularly have to decide to make a simple overcall with such a hand instead if you don't want to force to the 4-level. Conversely you get to accurately describe both suits on what is likely to be an explosive auction the rest of the time. In my opinion showing exact suits has many ways to benefit, and I prefer having '2.5 ways to show my exact 3 two-suiters' to having an ambiguous bid.
- Specifically, showing both majors when you have both majors is the most valuable of these two-suited overcalls.

Well I had my first think about it, and am still titubant.

As an aside, are you in favour of playing both majors as potentially 5-4?
Because that choice influences my thinking about ambiguity and I can also see that both sides can nuance strength if 5-5 is known, especially if the agreement is "weak or strong".
Against that, the frequency of 5-4 is significantly higher than 5-5.

To help me reflect, I simulated hands with 5 spades and 5+ clubs over a 4+ 1♦ opening.
I am too stubborn not to wait for BBO to restore the trick taking analysis, so I resorted to looking at 16 deals... FWIW it seemed to me that the prospects of some game are encouraging, but that the odds of taking less than 9 tricks are almost equally high, even if one bids 1♠ or Pass with the very weak hands.
Given the LoTT, vulnerability and MP, I do worry that 3♣ may be dangerous quite often and 3♦ even more so.
In particular, if TT are 16 then an agreement that allows Advancer to get out at 2 level seems superior, unless I am missing something.

I understand your thought about 2.5 cakes (exactly my reasoning in playing 1♣-2♦), but wonder if we are really bringing home the extra half a cake here.