[viaduct]

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 CRO (all types), Michael’s Cue Bid/Unusual 2NT, Ghestem and Questem.

Please click here for full details of the FINCH Cue Bid beautifully presented in Rich Text Format .rtf

or here for an Adobe .pdf version

or if you prefer click here for a Microsoft WORD .doc version

AND

for a COMPARISON chart click here for an Adobe .pdf spreadsheet

[nigel_k]

Interesting idea and well presented and described. Maybe you should have typed the details into your post as not everyone will be comfortable clicking on an attachment by an unknown poster. A full analysis with a comparison of specific gains and losses vs standard methods would be helpful as well.

A couple of comments:

I am reluctant to assign an artifical meaning to a natural weak 3♣, not just because of the risk of forgetting, but also because there is no alternative to passing with those hands. If you give up the cheapest WJO (1♣-2♦, 1♦-2♥ or 1♥-2♠) then not only is it lower ranking but you have the option of bidding 1 or 3 with the hand that can no longer bid 2.

If you slightly change the actions over 1♠ so that 3♣ is red suits, you can use it with strong hands and also transfer the declaration keeping the unknown hand hidden and putting opener on lead. But this would spoil the symmetry of the system.

[mgoetze]

So it's a permutation of the Ghestem idea. The original Ghestem was designed such that you never bid one of the suits you show, a design principle which is probably antiquated given the demise of "split range" two-suiters and the increased rarity of auctions ending after a single preemptive bid. Indeed, the increased difficulty of defending against a 3♣ bid showing both minors is probably much more of an advantage than the very slim chance that your minor two-suiter happens to be an absolute monster and you accidentally get passed out in 3♣ is a disadvantage.

Nevertheless it suffers from the disadvantage of all Ghestem permutations that you don't have 3♣ available as a natural bid and as such I won't be playing it anytime soon (perhaps vulnerable if I ever get a partner willing to play something very different V than NV).

[TWO4BRIDGE]

mgoetze, on 2012-October-30, 05:08, said:

.....the chance that your minor two-suiter happens to be an absolute monster and you accidentally get passed out in 3♣ is a disadvantage.

Nevertheless, it suffers from the disadvantage of all Ghestem permutations that you don't have 3♣ available as a natural bid ....

Another system is Bailey Cue-bids which always gets unbid ♠ into the picture and retains 3C as natural :

In general:
( 1A ) - 2NT = 2 lowest unbid ( always )

( 1A ) - 2A = Highest and ONE of the 2 lowest

-- Simple Advances are for "pass or correct".
-- Advancer "cues" to show a strong unbalanced hand.
-- Advancer bids 2NT! to show a strong balanced hand.
w/stop(s) in Opener's suit.
-- If Advancer bids the "known" suit ( usually Sp),
Overcaller bids his "unknown" suit to show a stronger hand.
-- If Advancer bids the "unknown" suit, Overcaller cues
OR bids 2NT to show agreement and the stronger hand.

An example:

( 1D ) - ??
................ 2NT = 2 lowest unbid, ♥ / ♣
................ 2D = ♠ and ♥ or ♣

[fromageGB]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-29, 12:17, said:

I am reluctant to assign an artifical meaning to a natural weak 3♣, not just because of the risk of forgetting, but also because there is no alternative to passing with those hands. If you give up the cheapest WJO (1♣-2♦, 1♦-2♥ or 1♥-2♠) then not only is it lower ranking but you have the option of bidding 1 or 3 with the hand that can no longer bid 2.

If you slightly change the actions over 1♠ so that 3♣ is red suits, you can use it with strong hands and also transfer the declaration keeping the unknown hand hidden and putting opener on lead. But this would spoil the symmetry of the system.

Well, I never knew I played Questem!

This is an interesting idea. You can keep it symmetrical by using the cue, the next suit (cheapest WJO), and 2NT in a sort of just-2-suited-suction, so that
cue = next 2 up
next suit = next 2 up
2NT = the remaining 2 suits, ie the 2 surrounding the opener
This always puts opener on lead, and you can use it with a strong option if you wish.

But I don't like the thought of giving up a major WJO.

[MrAce]

mgoetze, on 2012-October-30, 05:08, said:

Nevertheless it suffers from the disadvantage of all Ghestem permutations that you don't have 3♣ available as a natural bid and as such I won't be playing it anytime soon (perhaps vulnerable if I ever get a partner willing to play something very different V than NV).

Also being forced to 3 level over a simple 1♣ opening when we hold the boss suit ♠ and dominant minor ♦, is awful imo.

[Fluffy]

finch is to bridge what chuck norris is to the world

[mikestar13]

Well thought out convention, but I personally find the price too high. 3♣ natural WJO over 1♦ can be absolutely murderous to bid against if responder has one but not both majors--I too thoroughly love "putting it to them" with the natural bid to sacrifice it to show a two-suiter. Ambiguous Michaels is good enough in a casual partnership, and Bailey is less costly to use than Finch (in each case giving up no natural WJO's), though not as efficient when a two-suiter is held. Ambiguity can cut both ways, and while the advantages of showing both suits right away are obvious, telegraphing 10 of your cards is more likely to hurt when they buy the contract anyway. Works rather better in those cases to let them know about five of your cards and let them guess what your second suit is, they may have a fair idea but they can't be sure and will sometimes really be on a guess. If it is really a partnership goal to show to show all two-suiters unambiguously, sacrificing the cheapest WJO seems less costly. After RHO's 1♦ opener, if 2♥ is used as a two-suiter bid, I can go low with 1♥ or go high with 3♥ with a string of hearts; with a string of clubs, the choice is 4♣ or pass if 3♣ is unavailable, as 2♣ needs some high cards to go with that suit. Non-jump overcalls at the two level on preemptive type hands are quite dangerous unless your whole style is geared toward it, for example the Overcall Structure.

[Zelandakh]

This looks like a poor implementation of Ghestem to me since it is less flexible for the reasons Michael already gave. There are definitely better ways of getting specific 2-suited overcalls over a 1m opening bid. An example of mine is:

Over 1♣
=====
2♣ = wjo in a major or ♠ + ♦, strong
2♦ = wjo
2♥ = majors, weak (can reduce this to 5♥4♠ if desired)
2♠ = ♠ + ♦, weak (can reduce this to 5♠4♦ if desired)
2NT = ♥ + ♦
3♣ = majors, strong

Over 1♦
=====
2♦ = wjo in a major or ♠ + ♣, strong
2♥ = majors, weak (can reduce this to 5♥4♠ if desired)
2♠ = ♠ + ♣, weak (can reduce this to 5♠4♣ if desired)
2NT = ♥ + ♣
3♣ = wjo
3♦ = majors, strong


After a 1M opening it is much more difficult. For example, after a 1♥ opening you have 3 weak hand types including spades so you either have to combine 2 of them (as per Michaels) or force to the 3 level. Regardless, it surely has to be better to play cue = oM + ♣; 2NT = minors; 3♣ = oM + ♦ than the way Finch is laid out.

[fromageGB]

Zel's idea seems good, but has one thing I am unfamiliar/unhappy with : the inability to directly show a WJO in a major. Many times partner is able to up the ante of a natural major WJO to the 3 level. Do you actually play this sort of "multi-2D" major WJO? How does it work out in practice?

[Zelandakh]

Not at the moment but I did with my previous partner. It worked out very well but mostly against poor opponents so I cannot really draw firm conclusions from that. Many of the same things can be said as over a multi 2♦ opening. Clearly being able to overcall 2♠ directly would be better; on the other hand the ability to show the second suit is arguably more important and the options for this are limited if you do not like to lose the wjo in the other minor. You should also not underestimate the extra pressure from the 2M 2-suited overcalls which are non-forcing and often difficult to penalise even when it is right to do so (no doubt expert opps would be more effective at that!).

[32519]

The probability of being dealt two 5-card suits is considerably lower than being dealt a 6-card suit. So to chuck away the natural weak jump overcall into your 6-card suit in favour of a silly convention which is less likely to occur (or which can be covered by the Michaels/2NT combination), is losing bridge.

[mgoetze]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2012-October-30, 07:33, said:

Another system is Bailey Cue-bids

Yes it is of course necessary to emphasize the name because there are surely thousands of other names to call this convention that must be eliminated. I'm sticking to calling it "Polish Michaels" though as it is what 90% of Poles and 10% of Germans assume you mean when you say that you play Michaels.

32519, on 2012-October-31, 10:53, said:

So to chuck away [...] in favour of a silly convention which is less likely to occur [...], is losing bridge.

Do you ever hold the conventions you invent yourself, or indeed write books about, to such standards? LOL.

[fromageGB]

mgoetze, on 2012-November-04, 12:14, said:

Yes it is of course necessary to emphasize the name because there are surely thousands of other names to call this convention that must be eliminated. I'm sticking to calling it "Polish Michaels" though as it is what 90% of Poles and 10% of Germans assume you mean when you say that you play Michaels.

You learn something every day. I looked up Bailey and thought it was Michaels. Then I looked up Michaels to discover I had been misplaying it for years