[whereagles]

ArtK78, on Mar 3 2010, 05:49 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 3 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

I recall that Michaels way back when was actually a weak THREE-suited takeout call.  Imagine that!?!

I have never heard that. And the 1960 article by Mike Michaels on the ACBL website doesn't mention 3 suited hands.

How far back are you talking about?

he was being ironic. In the old days an overcall cue would show like a 4441 and 20 points or so

[whereagles]

Pict, on Mar 3 2010, 08:39 PM, said:

In my experience the weak/strong idea was an early attempt at science, long before the present age of extreme competition.

Indeed. People realized showing both suits at once is more important than splitting ranges.

As to what a minimum michaels looks like... well, I think it's more important to look at the ODR than to count points. I would overcall (1♠) 2♠ even at unfavourable with

x
KQJTx
QJ9xx
xx

(perhaps even less hcp with a 6-5) but wouldn't think of it even at favourable with

AJ
Qxxxx
KJxxx
x

[Codo]

Tthe any range michaels has it problems too when it comes to competetion. I find it much easier to decide whther to defend in a good fit with a shortage in partners second suit when I know that he has a weak hand- where they will make their contract- or a strong hand, where we will make our contract. With the inbetween hands, you often transfer + 100 into -100.

I have tried both ways and found no remarkably difference between them. Sometimes they win, sometimes you lose.

In an Indy I would expect the min/max approach from partner.

[mich-b]

Maybe off topic, but...
Does anyone feel uncomfortable about not knowing which is partner's minor after 1M-2M?
Do you think it may be better to agree that 1M-2M shows OM+♣ , and just overcall with OM+♦?

[gnasher]

mich-b, on Mar 8 2010, 11:57 AM, said:

Maybe off topic, but...
Does anyone feel uncomfortable about not knowing which is partner's minor after 1M-2M?

Yes.

Quote

Do you think it may be better to agree that 1M-2M shows OM+♣ , and just overcall with OM+♦?

I prefer to play the cue bid as the highest two, and 2NT as the highest and the lowest. You're more likely to want to show a major and a minor than both minors.

[gwnn]

wow this is genius I never would have thought of it (I had similar concerns as mich_. 2NT as highest+lowest... great stuff I will definitely try it.. what do you do with both minors over 1M from the right? what are your general experiences? do you play the same over 1m?

[gnasher]

gwnn, on Mar 8 2010, 12:20 PM, said:

wow this is genius I never would have thought of it (I had similar concerns as mich_. 2NT as highest+lowest... great stuff I will definitely try it..

I'll pass that on to the person who suggested it to me. But let's not go overboard: it makes two hands easier to bid whilst making another rather harder.

Quote

what do you do with both minors over 1M from the right?

Bid one and then decide whether to bid the other. That's less than ideal, obviously.

Quote

what are your general experiences?

I don't have a list of triumphs to offer you, I'm afraid. I just know I no longer face any awkward guesses after (1M) 2M (4M).

Quote

do you play the same over 1m?

Yes. Of course, everybody already plays specific two-suiters over 1m; the only difference is that I use 2NT to show spades + the other minor, rather than hearts + the other minor.

[Free]

PhantomSac, on Mar 3 2010, 11:16 PM, said:

I never bid 1M 2M with bad hands, I always just overcall or pass, so I guess mine are intermediate or strong? Seems like a bad idea to make 2 suited bids on terrible hands that drive you to the 3 level.

For 1m-2m though I'm a big fan of having a very wide range, with the majors there's a lot more reason to get in, and you only force to the 2 level.

What about the borderline case 1♥-2♥? You can still play at 2-level, but you might as well be forced to the 3-level if partner doesn't have a ♠ fit.

[blackshoe]

Max Hardy, Competitive Bidding With Two Suited Hands.

[Fluffy]

I've been latelly playing 3♣ shows highest+lowest, poor clubs, they always become artificial, nobody likes them

So far all I got from this is a bad result due to forgetting the system, and a good result due to forgetting the system lol.

[nick_s]

I've wondered about using 1NT to show the other 2-suiter. Does anyone else think this is reasonable?

[bluecalm]

More more world class pairs doesn't use "micheals" anymore. They use ghestem and variations. I think bidding 2 suiter without known second suit is pointless as you won't know about fit in most deals anyway (if they compete) and you can't make any fast action to make life difficult for them. On the other hand you make it very easy for them in if they end up playing the hand.
Some pairs which play Ghestem (or similar) 2suiters:

All italians:
Fantoni - Nunes
Lauria - Versace
Duboin - Sementa

Helgemo - Helness
Brogeland - Lindqvist
Garner - Weinstein (other variation, 1H-2S = S/D)
Brink - Drijver
Fallenius - Fredin (yet another variation)

I would prefer to play all cuebids as highest + lowest and to have no way to directly show others than using it as "micheals". Apparently most elite pairs agree about my assesment of "micheals"

[jjbrr]

I'd be shocked if current expert standard is theoretically inferior to anything currently played. michaels seems fine. I'd be eager to learn, though.

[whereagles]

I've been playing a michaels variation with unknown MAJOR, e.g.

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

and it's served me fine thus far, even with an undefined range! (Starting from 7 losers.)

[jvage]

bluecalm, on Mar 21 2010, 08:28 PM, said:

More more world class pairs doesn't use "micheals" anymore. They use ghestem and variations. I think bidding 2 suiter without known second suit is pointless as you won't know about fit in most deals anyway (if they compete) and you can't make any fast action to make life difficult for them. On the other hand you make it very easy for them in if they end up playing the hand.
Some pairs which play Ghestem (or similar) 2suiters:

All italians:
Fantoni - Nunes
Lauria - Versace
Duboin - Sementa

Helgemo - Helness
Brogeland - Lindqvist
Garner - Weinstein (other variation, 1H-2S = S/D)
Brink - Drijver
Fallenius - Fredin (yet another variation)

I would prefer to play all cuebids as highest + lowest and to have no way to directly show others than using it as "micheals". Apparently most elite pairs agree about my assesment of "micheals"

I am quite sure that neither Helgemo-Helness nor Brogeland-Lindqvist (the ones on this list that I know) would agree that they play Ghestem. They both play a cuebid of opponents suit as specified suits (both majors/other major+club) and 2NT as the 2 lowest, but they don't have a bid to show the last two-suiter (have to bid each suit naturally).

John

Edit: After checking their notes I saw that Brogeland-Lindqvist actually use a jump-cue-bid over a minor (not over a major) to show the last two-suiter (spades+other minor). My comment above about not having any way to show the last two-suiter was inaccurate.

[nige1]

A cue-overcall used to designate an artificial game-force (usually a two or three-suiter) before modern conventions like Michaels and Ghestem became popular. I prefer the wide-ranging version of Michaels. It accords with the theory that, in a competitive and pre-emptive auction, reaching the right strain is more important than the right level. You may have the chance to differentiate, later. For example ...

• Pass with normal strength and shape
  
• Bid again with extra shape (A suit with 6-5. Notrump with 6-6).
  
• Double with extra power.
  
• Cue-bid again with extra strength and length.

[Free]

whereagles, on Mar 22 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

I've been playing a michaels variation with unknown MAJOR, e.g.

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

and it's served me fine thus far, even with an undefined range! (Starting from 7 losers.)

You also have another variation: Baileys. Don't know if it works good or not (haven't played it, but seems interesting to me). 2NT always shows the 2 lowest unbid suits, cuebid shows the highest unbid suit + another. At least you don't need to look for a Major fit at 3-level, but 1m-2m may be a loser opposite Michaels...

[aguahombre]

jjbrr, on Mar 22 2010, 12:00 AM, said:

I'd be shocked if current expert standard is theoretically inferior to anything currently played. michaels seems fine. I'd be eager to learn, though.

Bluecalm's observations seem to apply to several non-ACBL world class pairs.

I checked the 2009 CC's of some ACBL pairs, that I could find:

Bates/Sontag; Cohen/Berk;Git/Moss;Stansby/Martel;Meckwell --all showed Michaels.

Well, sort of: I got a big LOL when I looked at the Git/Moss card. The people on the other thread who bashed the appearance and clarity of Meckwell's hand-written CC should look at the "Direct Cue:" section of Git/Moss

usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/GitelmanMoss.jpg

[jjbrr]

I guess I just don't see what the problem is. That CC looks fine to me, too. They seem to play natural over a 1♣ opener, Michaels over 1♦ and astro over majors.

[aguahombre]

jjbrr, on Mar 22 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

I guess I just don't see what the problem is. That CC looks fine to me, too. They seem to play natural over a 1♣ opener, Michaels over 1♦ and astro over majors.

So they put a big "D", not a circle, around the checkbox for Majors to mean they use Mike over one diamond? Ok, then that is clear