Michaels v. Ghestem

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that
this is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for
you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise
it, and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

Both have pros and cons. With Michael's you either don't know the 2nd suit
or cannot show one combination, with Ghestem you cannot preempt in Clubs.

Ghestem is only better if you are very very sure you're not going to forget
it. (1H) 3C can look very natural!

I prefer the simple variation.

Gerben

David Babcock

2009-06-01 11:25:34 UTC

Post by Gerben Dirksen
(1H) 3C can look very natural

even to high-level players who are accustomed to it. see

http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brx_brn0.htm

David

Chris

2009-06-01 10:12:07 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

Ghestem has a nice symmetry to it that I found attractive when I
didn't really understand bridge. The problem is that it gets you
unnecessarily high when you have the boss suits (exactly when you
don't want to get high because you want to be able to show the boss
suits pretty freely). I would never play Ghestem over 1C, 1D, or 1H
openings. It's OK over a 1S opening because the "get too high" aspect
goes away (i.e., because Michaels has the same problem), so you trade
knowing the minor in a hearts+ minor hand for being able to preempt in
clubs; I'd prefer to be able to preempt in clubs, but at least it's
close.

If you really want a good topic, write up how you think two-suited
overcalls should work by a passed dealer over his RHO's opening bid.
Which jumps (if any) do you want to retain as one-suiters?

Christopher Monsour

Ian Payn

2009-06-01 11:29:48 UTC

"Chris" <***@msn.com> wrote in message news:f13f5cc2-9a48-479c-bf14-***@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

If you really want a good topic, write up how you think two-suited
overcalls should work by a passed dealer over his RHO's opening bid.
Which jumps (if any) do you want to retain as one-suiters?

++++The choice is not mine. It's a running feature, "top players" (yes, yes,
I know, but they were running short of people) debate the merits of
something or other. Weak No Trump vs. Strong No Trump, Five Card Majors vs.
Four Card Majors etc. The last one that I did was "Teams is better than
pairs". My opponent was quondam r.g.b. habituee Frances Hinden. She argued
in favour of pairs, lucidly and intelligently. I just wrote a load of old
drivel, but I won anyway on the write-in vote, because people just think
teams is a better way of scoring than pairs, and nothing anyone can say can
change their minds. I am hoping for a similar victory on this occasion for a
similar reason.

h***@yahoo.com

2009-06-01 11:49:28 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

Ghestem has a nice symmetry to it that I found attractive when I
didn't really understand bridge. The problem is that it gets you
unnecessarily high when you have the boss suits (exactly when you
don't want to get high because you want to be able to show the boss
suits pretty freely). I would never play Ghestem over 1C, 1D, or 1H
openings. It's OK over a 1S opening because the "get too high" aspect
goes away (i.e., because Michaels has the same problem), so you trade
knowing the minor in a hearts+ minor hand for being able to preempt in
clubs; I'd prefer to be able to preempt in clubs, but at least it's
close.
If you really want a good topic, write up how you think two-suited
overcalls should work by a passed dealer over his RHO's opening bid.
Which jumps (if any) do you want to retain as one-suiters?
Christopher Monsour

This is sort of off topic, but didn't Rubens (with a co-author;
Kleinmann, perhaps?) write an article to that effect in the BW,
claiming that passed hand jump overcalls should show two suited
hands? If my memory is right, something like p (p) p (1c); 2h was
supposed to show 4=6 reds.

Henrysun909

vincit

2009-06-01 10:43:15 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

I have partnershiped Pierre Ghestem and was on his team in various
chanpionships including Division Nationale 1 for many years, in the
last five years before he died I have been working with him quite on a
daily basis, he was quite a genius in all parts of the game and such a
creative man with a deep knoledge of the Game, I have never
encountered else where, if a contract had any chances of making, he
would find it, you could only be mesmerized by his card play !
He had "strong" ideas about systems and bridge in géneral, he started
playing transfer interferences in the 1980's, to the best of my
knowledge he has never played what is actually known as Ghestem or
maybe with Bacherich in the 60's

This is what he was playing indeed it is a complete system :

Against 1C

1S = Transfer NT or D Long
1NT = Two-suiters SH
2C = C natural
2S = CANAPE : 4S5D or 4S5C
2NT = Two-suiters HD (55)

Against 1D

1S = Transfer 1NT or C Long
1NT = CANAPE 4H5C
2T = Transfer-Cue Bid : two suiters with at least 4S4H or 5H4S
2D = Long H
2H = Long S
2S = CANAPE 4S5C or better
2NT = Two suiters HC (55)
3C = C Pre-empt
3D = Two suiters : 5S5H weak

Against 1H

1NT = Transfer showing a two-suiters with CD (4D5C)
2D = Transfer cue-bid showing a two suiters SC (55) : the Extremes
2H = Long S
2S = Direct cue-bid showing a two-suiters DC (55) : the minors
2NT = Two suiters : SD (55)
3X = Pre-empts in X
4C = 6C4S
4D = 6D4S
4H = 40(54)

Against 1S :

2H = Transfer-cue-bid showing a two-suiters DC (55)
2S = Direct cue-bid showing a two-suiters HC (55)
2NT = The minors 55
4C = 6C4H
4D = 6D4H
4H = 40(54)

Ghestem is better because it is a system ..... AND you ALWAYS right-
side the contract = First priority
Your second priority is becoming an expert in playing Moysian Fits and
Ghestem was a really a master in this area, the only downside was that
he was too "difficult" for his partners and the level of complexities
of most of his analysis were not for everyone

I hope the above helps

Vincit

Chris

2009-06-01 12:11:29 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

I assume Dbl is takeout and 1D and 1H are transfers?
It is not surprising that it works to use transfers overcalls of 1C,
for the same reason transfer responses work nicely: Diamonds don't
need to be a priority.

Post by vincit
Against 1D
1S = Transfer 1NT or C Long
1NT = CANAPE 4H5C
2T = Transfer-Cue Bid : two suiters with at least 4S4H or 5H4S
2D = Long H
2H = Long S
2S = CANAPE 4S5C or better
2NT = Two suiters HC (55)
3C = C Pre-empt
3D = Two suiters : 5S5H weak

What are Dbl and 1H over 1D? It seems you want one-level overcalls in
the majors and a takeout double, and it seems tough to accomplish that
with only two bids. At least over 1C and 1S (and to a lesser extent
1H), I can see how to fill in the other bids to make this playable.
But here with both majors unbid, you need three separate calls at the
one-level, for showing one major, showing the other major, and showing
support for both. The above simple can't be completed to a playable
system.

Post by vincit
Against 1H
1NT = Transfer showing a two-suiters with CD (4D5C)
2D = Transfer cue-bid showing a two suiters SC (55) : the Extremes
2H = Long S
2S = Direct cue-bid showing a two-suiters DC (55) : the minors
2NT = Two suiters : SD (55)
3X = Pre-empts in X
4C = 6C4S
4D = 6D4S
4H = 40(54)

Again, what are double and 1S? I'd like to be able to show simple
overcalls in spades, NT, and clubs, and to be able to make a takeout
double. Tough to do with just those two calls. I guess 1S shows NT
or clubs, and double shows 3-5 (or 4-5) spades? If 3-5, advancer has
a huge problem. If 4-5, what is intervenor supposed to do with
3=1=5=4 (with weak diamonds but good hand), 3=2=4=4 (1S would not be
terrible, I guess, except what if I have only 12-14 points?), etc.,
hands.

Post by vincit
2H = Transfer-cue-bid showing a two-suiters DC (55)
2S = Direct cue-bid showing a two-suiters HC (55)
2NT = The minors 55
4C = 6C4H
4D = 6D4H
4H = 40(54)

I suppose you could play double to show NT or clubs, and 1NT as
takeout.

Post by vincit
Ghestem is better because it is a system ..... AND you ALWAYS right-
side the contract = First priority
Your second priority is becoming an expert in playing Moysian Fits and
Ghestem was a really a master in this area, the only downside was that
he was too "difficult" for his partners and the level of complexities
of most of his analysis were not for everyone

Is there a reference for this really having been what he played?

Christopher Monsour

Chris

2009-06-01 12:28:07 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

I reread and realize you are essentially playing 2C as takeout with at
least 4-4 in the majors, so I assume Dbl and 1H are transfers to
hearts and spades. But you still lose big time on 3=4 or 4=3 majors
hands (even if you are good enough for 1S, since you might miss your
major suit fit) that are appropriate to a takeout double, and on 4=4
major suit hands that aren't strong enough to commit to the 2 level.

Christopher Monsour

vincit

2009-06-01 14:33:53 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

Regarding the take-out DOUBLE keep in mind the respondr will use 1NT
as a Relay and will bid 2D only with 5 cards therfore for instance
doubling 1S can be done with only 2 or 3 diamonds the sames principles
would apply in oher situations. The point is : is it a sacrifice to
give an artificial meaning to 1NT when responding to a take-out
double? PG was adamant that 1NT was always a terrible bid and there
was no problem to have this bid forcing. I have trusted him on this
point. Now visualize how rich is your language and how great are your
possibilities and how flexibel can your take-out doubles be .....
This is relaxing !!
Cheers
Vincit

vincit

2009-06-01 14:48:26 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

1NT is a relay after your partner has doubled a Major (I am not sure I
was very clear), if he doubles 1C the relay is 1D and the same
principles apply
BTW PG was playing 1NT on a 1S opening and 1S natural or relayon a 1H
opening (LOL)
Showing shapes first was an absolute priority
Cheers
Vincit

vincit

2009-06-01 13:09:17 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

Post by vincit
2H = Transfer-cue-bid showing a two-suiters DC (55)
2S = Direct cue-bid showing a two-suiters HC (55)
2NT = The minors 55
4C = 6C4H
4D = 6D4H
4H = 40(54)

I suppose you could play double to show NT or clubs, and 1NT as
takeout.

Is there a reference for this really having been what he played?
Christopher Monsour

1) On 1S Double is for take-out, and on 1H Double is a transfer for S
with at least 4 cards, it is either an interference with five cards or
a take-out double with 4 cards
2) On 1S 1NT is natural or tranfer for C, 2C is a tranfer for D and 2D
is a transfer for H
3) Double on 1D shows 4H and is either a normal 1H interference or a
take-out double with 4H
4) 1H on 1D shows 5S or a take-out double with 4S
5) 1S on 1H is a transfer for 1NT or shows Long C

PG was not a marketing man and could not speak a word of English his
work was rather looted by evryone, for instance I can guarantee he was
the first one to reverse the majors on 1C Strong
Maybe there are only five players in France having played this system
with him including Shapour Mohtashami I played with for a very long
time.
Philippe Soulet, Dominique Poubeau, Jean-Christophe Quantin, Frank
Multon and some of the best Polish Players of the 80-90's have played
this system
I think all them were rather non scientific players (except the polish
players) and Ghestem was too demanding, he was playing a 1C dual
(either natural or strong) with a focus on competitive auctions
especially N°3 and a variable NT opening (12-15 or 16-17) and 2 trick
openings were artificial
For each bid there are long developments and I have many hand writing
papers reference to the follow ups regarding Competive Auctions.
Also he has strong ideas about take-out doubles, for instance 1NT is
never natutal when responding to a take-out double it is a relay, so
you can "double" ALL auctions
etc ...At that time in France, the French were very natural players
under the influence of Michel Lebel and Pierre Jaïs and PG was
considered a martian and nobody could understand what he was saying or
open to his ideas (except the italians .....), also the Federation was
against this type of bridge and I remembered we were banned in 1989
from playing 1S relay on 1H, all in all players in France play natural
that the political line that is why his ideas have been kept more or
less hidden

At his Club in Lille (North of France) there are still fligh A and/or
national/international Champions playing it or a substantial part of
it like Jean-Paul Fremery, Patrick Grenthe, Philippe Vanhoutte, Marcel
Leflon
Jean-Paul fremery has put some papers on the site of the club at
http://sskweres.free.fr/systemes/index.php you may wish to have a
look, indded all the very inovative and some "extraordinary" ideas are
missing. Maybe I could do a website, but i am just lazy ... The
difficulty is to find a partner open minded with a flawless memory
wishing to invest enough time as it is hard work .....Anyway all the
materials is only available in French.... so in case you need it the
corespondance is :
So C = T, D = K, H = C, S = P, NT = SA ........ A = A, K = R, Q = D, J
= V
Cheers
Vincit

b***@gmail.com

2009-06-01 14:21:52 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

Post by vincit
2H = Transfer-cue-bid showing a two-suiters DC (55)
2S = Direct cue-bid showing a two-suiters HC (55)
2NT = The minors 55
4C = 6C4H
4D = 6D4H
4H = 40(54)

I suppose you could play double to show NT or clubs, and 1NT as
takeout.

Is there a reference for this really having been what he played?
Christopher Monsour

1) On 1S Double is for take-out, and on 1H Double is a transfer for S
with at least 4 cards, it is either an interference with five cards or
a take-out double with 4 cards
2) On 1S 1NT is natural or tranfer for C, 2C is a tranfer for D and 2D
is a transfer for H
3) Double on 1D shows 4H and is either a normal 1H interference or a
take-out double with 4H
4) 1H on 1D shows 5S or a take-out double with 4S
5) 1S on 1H is a transfer for 1NT or shows Long C
PG was not a marketing man and could not speak a word of English his
work was rather looted by evryone, for instance I can guarantee he was
the first one to reverse the majors on 1C Strong
Maybe there are only five players in France having played this system
with him including Shapour Mohtashami I played with for a very long
time.
Philippe Soulet, Dominique Poubeau, Jean-Christophe Quantin, Frank
Multon and some of the best Polish Players of the 80-90's have played
this system
I think all them were rather non scientific players (except the polish
players) and Ghestem was too demanding, he was playing a 1C dual
(either natural or strong) with a focus on competitive auctions
especially N°3 and a variable NT opening (12-15 or 16-17) and 2 trick
openings were artificial
For each bid there are long developments and I have many hand writing
papers reference to the follow ups regarding Competive Auctions.
Also he has strong ideas about take-out doubles, for instance 1NT is
never natutal when responding to a take-out double it is a relay, so
you can "double" ALL auctions
etc ...At that time in France, the French were very natural players
under the influence of Michel Lebel and Pierre Jaïs and PG was
considered a martian and nobody could understand what he was saying or
open to his ideas (except the italians .....), also the Federation was
against this type of bridge and I remembered we were banned in 1989
from playing 1S relay on 1H, all in all players in France play natural
that the political line that is why his ideas have been kept more or
less hidden
At his Club in Lille (North of France) there are still fligh A and/or
national/international Champions playing it or a substantial part of
it like Jean-Paul Fremery, Patrick Grenthe, Philippe Vanhoutte, Marcel
Leflon
Jean-Paul fremery has put some papers on the site of the club athttp://sskweres.free.fr/systemes/index.phpyou may wish to have a
look, indded all the very inovative and some "extraordinary" ideas are
missing. Maybe I could do a website, but i am just lazy ... The
difficulty is to find a partner open minded with a flawless memory
wishing to invest enough time as it is hard work .....Anyway all the
materials is only available in French.... so in case you need it the
So C = T, D = K, H = C, S = P, NT = SA ........ A = A, K = R, Q = D, J
= V
Cheers
Vincit

I can easily translate the text from English to Italian or Croatian
but I am afraid that my French is not that good, especially the
written part of it:-)

Cheers
Boris

Chris

2009-06-02 03:05:40 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

Post by vincit
2H = Transfer-cue-bid showing a two-suiters DC (55)
2S = Direct cue-bid showing a two-suiters HC (55)
2NT = The minors 55
4C = 6C4H
4D = 6D4H
4H = 40(54)

I suppose you could play double to show NT or clubs, and 1NT as
takeout.

Is there a reference for this really having been what he played?
Christopher Monsour

The descriptions you have given of takeout doubles are so restrictive
that it rather undermines the value of having such a careful advance
structure. Surely the most flexible competitive call needs to be used
more often.

You mention in another post that shape has the highest priority.
That's OK when you open that bidding because they can't easily
penalize you, but when overcalling you need to be worried about suit
quality. A system that forces me to show 3=1=5=4 shape over a 1H
opening as a diamond overcall (as the only alternative to pass) has no
appeal whatsoever. It sounds like it should lead to some juicy
undertricks for the opponents to score up.

Post by vincit
...At that time in France, the French were very natural players
under the influence of Michel Lebel and Pierre Jaïs and PG was
considered a martian and nobody could understand what he was saying or
open to his ideas (except the italians .....), also the Federation was
against this type of bridge and I remembered we were banned in 1989
from playing 1S relay on 1H, all in all players in France play natural
that the political line that is why his ideas have been kept more or
less hidden
At his Club in Lille (North of France) there are still fligh A and/or
national/international Champions playing it or a substantial part of
it like Jean-Paul Fremery, Patrick Grenthe, Philippe Vanhoutte, Marcel
Leflon
Jean-Paul fremery has put some papers on the site of the club athttp://sskweres.free.fr/systemes/index.phpyou may wish to have a
look, indded all the very inovative and some "extraordinary" ideas are
missing. Maybe I could do a website, but i am just lazy ... The
difficulty is to find a partner open minded with a flawless memory
wishing to invest enough time as it is hard work .....Anyway all the
materials is only available in French.... so in case you need it the
So C = T, D = K, H = C, S = P, NT = SA ........ A = A, K = R, Q = D, J
= V

I really appreciate the reference. Sorry I don't think more of the
idea. It is intriguing, but it just doesn't seem sound to focus on
shape only and ignore suit quality, and ignore making it easy for
partner to advance a takeout double in competition (because the
takeout double could be a simple overcall in the cheapest major,
without support for the unbids).

Christopher Monsour

2009-06-01 11:40:14 UTC

for me there are two downsides on Ghestem

1 : if you dont see a good natural meaning for the 3C overbid
then why would the 3D bid stay natural ?

in other words : is Ghestem really so usefull that you would sacrifice your
natural 3C bid for it

2 : people tend to forget the exact meaning of their Ghestem bids

Co Wiersma

vincit

2009-06-01 11:57:52 UTC

Post by Co

for me there are two downsides on Ghestem
1 : if you dont see a good natural meaning for the 3C overbid
then why would the 3D bid stay natural ?
in other words : is Ghestem really so usefull that you would sacrifice your
natural 3C bid for it
2 : people tend to forget the exact meaning of their Ghestem bids
Co Wiersma

Most certainly NOT that is why Ghestem would never "Ghestem", 3C
should be a nat pre-empt
Vincit

Mike Amos

2009-06-01 11:41:18 UTC

1. Michaels

2. Why? It's like asking the question which is better a sawn off shotgun or
a pea-shooter. You are far far less likely to hurt yourself or any one else
with a pea-shooter

MICHAEL Amos

b***@gmail.com

2009-06-01 11:51:27 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

With a sound bidding approach I prefer Ghestem.

Boris

f***@googlemail.com

2009-06-01 13:33:01 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

Ghestem is better because you specify exactly which two suits you
hold. Playing Michaels you lose half the benefit when it goes e.g. 1S
2S 4S ? and fourth seat has no idea whether he has an 11-card fit or
not on some suitable 3136 hand.

Michaels is better because you have the director at the table
considerably less often. Perhaps I'm either biased or cynical but I
would say that about half the 3C overcalls I see from pairs playing
Ghestem variants are intended as natural.

As a minor point, you can also keep the 3C overcall as natural.

There is a third way, which is to use the cue bid and 2NT overcalls
each to show specific two-suiters, and to give up on showing the
lowest two suits alltogether. In that method a cue bid always shows
the two highest suits and a 2NT overcall always shows the extremes.
The only disadvantage is when you happen to get dealt the two lowest
suits, you have to bid just one of them.

Ian Payn

2009-06-01 13:47:32 UTC

Post by f***@googlemail.com
Michaels is better because you have the director at the table
considerably less often. Perhaps I'm either biased or cynical but I
would say that about half the 3C overcalls I see from pairs playing
Ghestem variants are intended as natural.

++++At one point there was a not-entirely frivolous suggestion that Ghestem
players who either forgot what was going on or made jump overcalls in clubs
should be shouted at for long periods of time.

campboy

2009-06-01 19:00:07 UTC

A few years ago we were playing in an intra-county KO match, and
opponents for the first half had "Ghestem" (with no further
explanation) on the card. Partner (who is a "facetious young man from
Oxbridge") said "I see you play Ghestem -- should we call the director
now, or wait for you to get it wrong?"

On the first board, there was a Ghestem cue-bid, MI and/or UI and a
director call. Sadly we didn't get an adjusted score.

I look forward to reading what you come up with :)

Ian Payn

2009-06-02 09:07:08 UTC

Post by campboy
A few years ago we were playing in an intra-county KO match, and
opponents for the first half had "Ghestem" (with no further
explanation) on the card. Partner (who is a "facetious young man from
Oxbridge") said "I see you play Ghestem -- should we call the director
now, or wait for you to get it wrong?"
On the first board, there was a Ghestem cue-bid, MI and/or UI and a
director call. Sadly we didn't get an adjusted score.
I look forward to reading what you come up with :)

++++Well, I had considered an evening at the Young Chelsea with David Burn
on which we'd play Ghestem on odd-numbered boards and Michaels on
even-numbered boards (or vice-versa - I wasn't going to go to the barricades
over which way round) but I thought that even by our standards of stupidity
that was stupid indeed. It just wouldn't come up, and if it did we'd just
forget, and get into trouble. Again.

raija d

2009-06-01 15:05:30 UTC

Post by Ian Payn

++++At one point there was a not-entirely frivolous suggestion that
Ghestem players who either forgot what was going on or made jump overcalls
in clubs should be shouted at for long periods of time.

Preferably at a close range and by many people... til they are annoyed to
the hilt.
Systematically forgetting system IMO should not be allowed to be the system.
Or something like that :)

Adam Beneschan

2009-06-02 22:17:48 UTC

Post by f***@googlemail.com
Ghestem is better because you specify exactly which two suits you
hold. Playing Michaels you lose half the benefit when it goes e.g. 1S
2S 4S ? and fourth seat has no idea whether he has an 11-card fit or
not on some suitable 3136 hand.

Yup, I've been there... soon after my partnership started playing Top-
and-Bottom cue-bids, so that (1H) 2H showed spades and clubs, I had
the hand for it. Partner also had five clubs, and at first thought I
had forgotten the convention. Presumably, though, he remembered what
happened last time he assumed I had forgotten one of the new toys he
suggested, and how upset I had gotten with him after we got a bad
result because we missed a great save, so he went ahead and jumped to
5C this time---which he could have made (by misplaying it), but the
opponents had 5H cold and couldn't find it because we had deprived
them of bidding room, and down 1 was a great result for us. Michaels
players wouldn't have been able to do that. So I'm definitely a fan
of showing two specific suits rather than leaving one unspecified.

-- Adam

TWOferBRIDGE

2009-06-01 14:36:10 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Michaels suffers from not showing "specific"
2-suiters very often, as has been mentioned.
Furthermore, over 1-minor opening, you can't
show Spades and the other-minor.

Another Ghestem-like system is
Danish Cuebids:

(1A) - ??
2A = 2 upper unbid
2NT = upper and lower unbid
3C = 2 lower unbid

So for :
(1D) - ??
2D = the majors( Ht/Sp)
2NT = Sp/Cl
3C = Ht/Cl

(1S) - ??
2S = Ht/Diam
2NT = Ht/Cl
3C = Diam/Cl

(1H) - ??
2H = Sp/Diam
2NT = Sp/Cl
3C = Diam/Cl

and finally:
(1C) - ??
2C = Sp/Ht
2NT = Sp/Diam
3C = Ht/Diam

- - Don - -
ps. The criticism of any of these systems
is the "misuse" which may give the opps
a blueprint if they declare.

Lorne

2009-06-01 15:32:31 UTC

One thing that may be worth exploring is the response stucture after (1M) -
2M - (P or X).

Many seem to play 2N as asking for the minor but I think 3C pass/correct is
much better as you can now also bid 3D pass/correct with the inference that
you are happy to play in 4C or 5C if partner is suitable. You can also bid
4C to say you are happy at the 4 level in either minor. This may have
benefits either allowing partner to put pressure on straight away rather
than having an extra round of bidding to leqrn which minor he has, or in
defense when he has extra knowledge about your holding in both minors.

re Ghestem, whenever I play it I use 2N as the lowest 2 suits, jump cue as
the highest and non-jump cue as the other 2. Maybe that is no longer
Ghestem but it lets you show both suits and keep 3C as a natural weak jump.
Downside is that you are 1 level higher than you might want in a couple of
sequences. Losing the jump cue to show a solid suit will cost about once
every 5-10 years.

TWOferBRIDGE

2009-06-01 17:16:45 UTC

Post by Lorne

One thing that may be worth exploring is the response stucture after (1M) -
2M - (P or X).
Many seem to play 2N as asking for the minor but I think 3C pass/correct is
much better as you can now also bid 3D pass/correct with the inference that
you are happy to play in 4C or 5C if partner is suitable. You can also bid
4C to say you are happy at the 4 level in either minor. This may have
benefits either allowing partner to put pressure on straight away rather
than having an extra round of bidding to leqrn which minor he has, or in
defense when he has extra knowledge about your holding in both minors.
re Ghestem, whenever I play it I use 2N as the lowest 2 suits, jump cue as
the highest and non-jump cue as the other 2. Maybe that is no longer
Ghestem but it lets you show both suits and keep 3C as a natural weak jump.
Downside is that you are 1 level higher than you might want in a couple of
sequences. Losing the jump cue to show a solid suit will cost about once
every 5-10 years.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Lorne uses: " jump-cue = 2 highest".

That means for :
(1S) - 3S! = Ht/Diam, forced to 4-level

whereas other methods force to the 3-level.

Lorne

2009-06-02 15:55:47 UTC

888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Lorne uses: " jump-cue = 2 highest".

That means for :
(1S) - 3S! = Ht/Diam, forced to 4-level

whereas other methods force to the 3-level.
************************************

Yes, but it keeps 3C natural in all sequences so you have to balance the
benefit of having 3C available against the disadvantage of forcing to the 4
level after 1S when you have the red suits. (and if you have S+D over 1H
and the fit is in D). If the reason you do not like Ghestem is that you
think it is too costly to lose 3C then this is an option, albeit not
perfect.

Michael Angelo Ravera

2009-06-01 17:40:28 UTC

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

I would never voluntarily play regular Michaels when Bailey is
available. Ghestem has the value of knowing the second suit, but as
commonly played, gets you too high precisely when you could play 2S
and takes away a natural 3C preempt.

Bailey is so easy to explain that I teach it to beginners in
preference to Michaels:
(1x)-2NT shows the two lowest unbid suits always.
(1m)-2m and (1H)-2H show spades and one of the two suits shown by 2NT
(1S)-2S shows hearts and one of the two suits shown by 2NT

Advances to the cue bids are pass or correct. Advancer cues show a
strong unbalanced hand. Advancer bids 2NT to show a strong balanced
hand (with stops in Opener's suit). When advancer bids the known suit
(usually spades), Overcaller rebids the unknown suit to show a
stronger hand. When advancer bids the unkown suit, Overcaller cues or
bids 2NT to show agreement and the stronger hand.

I don't really much like either system over a 1S opener, but other
than a double, neither the ACBL nor the EBU give much license to show
possibly weak two-suiters without a jump and the 1S opener has the
advantage anyway.

TWOferBRIDGE

2009-06-02 01:38:09 UTC

Post by Michael Angelo Ravera

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

I would never voluntarily play regular Michaels when Bailey is
available. Ghestem has the value of knowing the second suit, but as
commonly played, gets you too high precisely when you could play 2S
and takes away a natural 3C preempt.
Bailey is so easy to explain that I teach it to beginners in
(1x)-2NT shows the two lowest unbid suits always.
(1m)-2m and (1H)-2H show spades and one of the two suits shown by 2NT
(1S)-2S shows hearts and one of the two suits shown by 2NT
Advances to the cue bids are pass or correct. Advancer cues show a
strong unbalanced hand. Advancer bids 2NT to show a strong balanced
hand (with stops in Opener's suit). When advancer bids the known suit
(usually spades), Overcaller rebids the unknown suit to show a
stronger hand. When advancer bids the unkown suit, Overcaller cues or
bids 2NT to show agreement and the stronger hand.
I don't really much like either system over a 1S opener, but other
than a double, neither the ACBL nor the EBU give much license to show
possibly weak two-suiters without a jump and the 1S opener has the
advantage anyway.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Thx, Angelo.... for Bailey Cuebids.
It's certainly easy to remember...
It also gives the 2-suiters w/Spades more action.
And those Advancer, etc follow-ups are
very interesting. I don't see much of a down-side.

- - Don - -

OldPalooka

2009-06-02 14:05:21 UTC

Post by Michael Angelo Ravera

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Michael Angelo Ravera

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

I would never voluntarily play regular Michaels when Bailey is
available. Ghestem has the value of knowing the second suit, but as
commonly played, gets you too high precisely when you could play 2S
and takes away a natural 3C preempt.
Bailey is so easy to explain that I teach it to beginners in
(1x)-2NT shows the two lowest unbid suits always.
(1m)-2m and (1H)-2H show spades and one of the two suits shown by 2NT
(1S)-2S shows hearts and one of the two suits shown by 2NT
Advances to the cue bids are pass or correct. Advancer cues show a
strong unbalanced hand. Advancer bids 2NT to show a strong balanced
hand (with stops in Opener's suit). When advancer bids the known suit
(usually spades), Overcaller rebids the unknown suit to show a
stronger hand. When advancer bids the unkown suit, Overcaller cues or
bids 2NT to show agreement and the stronger hand.
I don't really much like either system over a 1S opener, but other
than a double, neither the ACBL nor the EBU give much license to show
possibly weak two-suiters without a jump and the 1S opener has the
advantage anyway.

The advantages of top and another (I wonder about the Bailey
attribution although he certainly preferred it) vs. Michaels are a bit
obscure. OK, over 1m you can cue bid with spades and the other minor,
but that is a mixed blessing and partner cannot blast in hearts. Over
1M, you are playing Michaels with paradox advances.

-- Bill Shutts, San Diego USA

Michael Angelo Ravera

2009-06-02 17:46:56 UTC

Post by Michael Angelo Ravera

Post by OldPalooka
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT), Michael Angelo Ravera

Post by Ian Payn
Michaels vs. Ghestem, which is better?
I have been asked to contribute an article to English Bridge magazine
extolling the virtues of Michaels Cue Bids over Ghestem.
I believe that thorough research is invaluable, and think it cruel that this
is often referred to as "getting other people to do the work for you".
A discussion with the semi-legendary B.J. "Binkie" Callaghan has already
been arranged - for the price of a few pints (which isn't much) he'll tell
me everything he knows (which isn't much, either), but I though I'd throw
the net a bit wider, then if anything decent came up I could plagiarise it,
and take the credit (and, more importantly, the money) myself.
So, how about it?
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

I would never voluntarily play regular Michaels when Bailey is
available. Ghestem has the value of knowing the second suit, but as
commonly played, gets you too high precisely when you could play 2S
and takes away a natural 3C preempt.
Bailey is so easy to explain that I teach it to beginners in
(1x)-2NT shows the two lowest unbid suits always.
(1m)-2m and (1H)-2H show spades and one of the two suits shown by 2NT
(1S)-2S shows hearts and one of the two suits shown by 2NT
Advances to the cue bids are pass or correct. Advancer cues show a
strong unbalanced hand. Advancer bids 2NT to show a strong balanced
hand (with stops in Opener's suit). When advancer bids the known suit
(usually spades), Overcaller rebids the unknown suit to show a
stronger hand. When advancer bids the unkown suit, Overcaller cues or
bids 2NT to show agreement and the stronger hand.
I don't really much like either system over a 1S opener, but other
than a double, neither the ACBL nor the EBU give much license to show
possibly weak two-suiters without a jump and the 1S opener has the
advantage anyway.

Over 1M, Bailey and Michaels are equivalent. I play Pass or correct
advances. My only contribution is in how Overcaller can show the
stronger hand.

It goes like this:
(1D)-2D-(P)-2H; (P)-3D shows hearts and spades with the stronger hand
whereas
(1D)-2D-(P)-2H; (P)-2S shows clubs and spades and the weaker hand
and
(1D)-2D-(P)-2H; (P)-P shows hearts and spades with the weaker hand

That part is easy,
However, you may want to agree that
(1D)-2D-(P)-2H; (P)-2NT shows clubs and spades and the stronger hand,
so that you can still play 3C opposite a weak advancer.

stefan f.

2009-06-02 09:40:15 UTC

Hello,

Post by Ian Payn
Q1 Which is better, Michaels or Ghestem?
Q2 Why?

I am sorry, but I am another poster that is not going to
answer your questions. Would just like to point out that
playing in germany to agree to play michaels is not enough.
A widespread, and part of the "official" german system,
two-suiter convention is called michaels präzis.

after 1m

1m - 2 dia = both Majors
- 2 NT = two lowest unbid suits (= H +om)
the two-suiter Spade - minor is bid naturally

after 1M

1M - 2M = oM + Clubs
- 2NT = minors (= two lowest unbid suits)
- 3Cl = oM + Dia (memory hook: 3Cl is never Clubs)

ciao stefan
germany

LowerLine

2009-06-02 10:40:58 UTC