[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.