[dickiegera]

I posted a question earlier about doubling and cue bids.
Received no responses

New question.

Anyone have opinions about TOP & BOTTOM CUE BIDS and
how to play them and do you use EQUAL LEVEL CONVERSION
in connection with Top & Bottom Cue Bids
Thank you

[Phil]

This is Hardy's stuff.

Played it 10 years ago. Do not like it at all.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on Jul 4 2010, 01:07 AM, said:

This is Hardy's stuff.

Played it 10 years ago. Do not like it at all.

Why not?

[hanp]

If you want to immediately show both suits, play Ghestem.

[aguahombre]

We gave up the "top and bottom" several years ago, too. It was much less frequently occurring than the more popular Michaels. Its only real usefullness ---as hinted in Dick's post --- was to immediately describe an awkward 4-6 in the focus major and clubs, because doubling risks a diamond response at an inconvenient level.

The frequency of 4-6 M/m hands seems less, and we tend to just overcall the minor when they do come up. But the Michaels-type hands come up a lot, and we would rather be able to do that.

[Phil]

blackshoe, on Jul 4 2010, 07:16 AM, said:

Phil, on Jul 4 2010, 01:07 AM, said:

This is Hardy's stuff.

Played it 10 years ago. Do not like it at all.

Why not?

I'm going on memory, but as I recall there are three elements to this:

- T and B
- Bottom and Bottom overcalls
- ELC

T and B are OK to get both suits in and somewhat useful. But you give up a lot to have this luxury. I am not clear on whether or not this call showed 4+ in the upper or promised 5-5.

B and B awkward. If memory serves me correctly,

(1♣) - 2♦ shows diamonds and 4 hearts
(1♦) - 3♣ shows clubs and hearts, but exactly four of them (2N showed the 5-5). It always seemed weird to press this hand type up to the 3 level.

ELC with both majors is AWFUL. (1m) - x - (pass) - 2 other minor; (pass) - 2♥ is supposed to be "the majors". But is it: 5-5, 4-5 or even 5-4? What is the upper limit of the strength? What do you do with various strong hands with hearts.

Play Overcall Structure. It is far superior to this.

[dickiegera]

Phil, on Jul 4 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jul 4 2010, 07:16 AM, said:

Phil, on Jul 4 2010, 01:07 AM, said:

This is Hardy's stuff.

Played it 10 years ago. Do not like it at all.

Why not?

I'm going on memory, but as I recall there are three elements to this:

- T and B
- Bottom and Bottom overcalls
- ELC

T and B are OK to get both suits in and somewhat useful. But you give up a lot to have this luxury. I am not clear on whether or not this call showed 4+ in the upper or promised 5-5.

B and B awkward. If memory serves me correctly,

(1♣) - 2♦ shows diamonds and 4 hearts
(1♦) - 3♣ shows clubs and hearts, but exactly four of them (2N showed the 5-5). It always seemed weird to press this hand type up to the 3 level.

ELC with both majors is AWFUL. (1m) - x - (pass) - 2 other minor; (pass) - 2♥ is supposed to be "the majors". But is it: 5-5, 4-5 or even 5-4? What is the upper limit of the strength? What do you do with various strong hands with hearts.

Play Overcall Structure. It is far superior to this.

Explain Overcall Structure
Thank You

[Phil]

dickiegera, on Jul 4 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

Explain Overcall Structure
Thank You

Lots of links you can find on the net. Here's a few:

This

and This

[cherdanno]

Phil, on Jul 4 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

Play Overcall Structure. It is far superior to this.

Wow Phil you haven't done this in ages! (I didn't even know you still play it.)

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jul 4 2010, 05:33 PM, said:

Phil, on Jul 4 2010, 11:05 AM, said:

Play Overcall Structure. It is far superior to this.

Wow Phil you haven't done this in ages! (I didn't even know you still play it.)

Yeah but I'm not as dogmatic about it. OS is still a part of two infrequent and one frequent partnership.

I like it when I get power x or RJO and I'm a little nervous when I have a minimum 1NTO hand.

[blackshoe]

1♦-3♣ to show clubs and hearts is from the original Competitive Bidding With Two Suited Hands book. In Advanced Bidding For the 21st Century he changed it to 1♦-2♥, which I suppose is somewhat better.

I'll take a look at the Overcall Structure.

[A2003]

Phil, on Jul 4 2010, 01:41 PM, said:

dickiegera, on Jul 4 2010, 11:26 AM, said:

Explain Overcall Structure
Thank You

Lots of links you can find on the net. Here's a few:

This

and This

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=38310

[A2003]

A2003, on 2010-July-04, 21:23, said:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=38310

Now the link is not working due to upgrade.

[Gerardo]

A2003, on 2010-October-20, 08:25, said:

Now the link is not working due to upgrade.

My mistake, sorry. Fixed now.

[awm]

I like the top and bottom cuebids. To clarify, I use these to show a 4-card holding in the top suit, 5+ in the bottom suit, and reasonable values (like a two-level overcall). To analyze these, you have to consider a lot of factors, which I'll try to do here.

(1) What do you gain? These patterns are actually pretty hard to bid without a gadget. For example, RHO opens 1♣, I have 4♠-2♥-5♦-2♣ . If I overcall in diamonds, it's pretty easy to lose the spades after a club raise or heart bid and raise. If I overcall in spades, partner will never get my relative suit lengths correct. If I double, partner will probably bid hearts (maybe a large number of hearts). These are also very common hand patterns, much more common than 5-5 in the same suits for example.

(2) What do you lose? Michaels cuebids, basically. I'm not convinced these are a big winner (in fact I've seen some strong players go for numbers recently after ill-advised Michaels bids). Most of the time you can just overcall your higher suit (usually spades). This has some risk of losing the second suit, but it also conceals the second suit from the opponents in a lot of cases (i.e. when it's their hand, or when you end up declaring in your higher suit anyway). It also keeps the auction lower and makes it a lot tougher for opponents to penalize.

(3) What about other "gadget" treatments? Overcall structure uses Roman Jumps, where you lose most of your two-level weak jump overcalls in exchange for being able to show these same hand types (presumably you overcall at the one-level on those). Another alternative is Raptor 1NT, where you lose the natural 1NT overcall (usually off-shape double on those). I'd much rather lose Michaels cuebid than lose my two-level preempts or my natural 1NT overcalls... but apparently some people feel differently.

[wyman]

Quick follow-up (to awm or whomever):

1D-(2D) - ??, where 2D is 5+clubs, 4+spades

What are your agreements re:
2H
2S
3C
3H
other jumps?

1H-(2H)-??, where 2H is 5+clubs, 4+spades
Your agreements now?

And does it change things if the call shows 5/5+? (i.e., when the call only shows 4+ spades, you may want a natural spade available)

Thanks.

[awm]

When my side opens and the opponents make an artificial call, my methods are based on the number of known 5+ card suits they have shown.

In general, if they make a call that has one known five+ card suit then: (1) Bidding the suit they showed is a strong raise of partner (2) Double is general values/desire to penalize (3) Other calls are natural, with new suits being forcing one round.

So here, after 1♥-(2♥) showing 5+♣ and 4+♠, I would have: (1) 3♣ is a limit raise or better of hearts (2) Double is general values/desire to penalize (3) 2♠, 3♦ are natural and forcing; 2NT is invitational with appropriate stoppers; 3♥ is constructive but less than limit raise. I would play the same defense if 2♥ showed 5+♣ and an unspecified five-card pointy suit.

If they make a call that has two known five+ card suits, then: (1) Bidding one of their suits shows a good hand with one of "our" suits (their lower denomination = our lower denomination) (2) Double is general values/desire to penalize (3) Other calls are natural and not forcing.

So here, after 1♥-(2♥) showing 5+♣ and 5+♠, I would have (1) 2♠ shows our higher suit, hearts, a limit raise or better and 3♣ shows our lower suit, diamonds, with game invitational or better values (2) Double is defensive (3) 3♦, 3♥ are constructive but not invitational, 2NT is a natural invite.

[Siegmund]

Having SOME toy to show 4-5s is sensible.

I certainly think there are better toys out there than Top and Bottom -- for that matter, it's almost certainly not right to play the "same" type of cuebid over all 4 1-level openings. My personal preference in GCC land is
1C-2C= 4S+5red, 1C-2D= 4H5D
1D-2D=5C+4major, 1D-2H=4S5H
1H-2H=4S+5minor
and to not show 4-5s at the 3-level (so 1S-2S is still 5H+5minor, and 2NT is still 5-5 two lowest.)

My impression is you should play a 4-5 overcall scheme OR equal-level conversion, NOT both. I can't see any merit at all to playing "5-5 top and bottom" instead of "5-5 Michaels." It's not like the Michaels ambiguity is impossible to sort out.

[Siegmund]

Re wyman's followup question, if my opponents play 1D-2D=4S5C....
X-negative
2M-natural, F1
2NT 11ish... I'd have to ask my regular partner which suits it promises stoppers in
3C-strong diamond raise
3D-weak
3M-fit-jump (for us, HHxxx in the major and any 4 of the minor)

More generally, a suit they promise 5 of becomes a cuebid. If they promise two of them, assume an unusual-vs-unusual type of structure. A suit they promise only 4 of remains naturally biddable by our side.

[wyman]

Thanks. Assumed that showing 5-5+ would be unus/unus -- BUT it wasn't clear whether there was a standard agreement about "lower rank = lower rank" or "cheaper = lower rank" (e.g., 1D-(2D); does 2S show clubs or hearts?)

Also, 1D-(2D)-2H? NF Const?