| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Questem (inverted Ghestem) - The Two Suited Overcall |
|
| |
|
|
| |
I assume that you are familiar with Michaels/UNT and also with Ghestem (if not you can look them up on this site). Now both are fine conventions (if not abused) but they both have their drawbacks as I indicated when I described them both. Just to summarise: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
Using UNT/Michaels we have the problems: - |
| |
|
| 1- |
When we show a specific major and an unspecified minor partner may have a problem if he has |
| |
mediocre support for the major and just one reasonable minor. Should he play it safe and bid the major or take a chance of finding an excellent minor suit fit? |
| |
|
| 2- |
We cannot show all hand types. Specifically, we cannot show a hand with ♠ 's and a minor |
| |
if the other minor is opened. |
| |
|
| |
Using Ghestem we have the problems: - |
| |
|
| 3- |
You loose 3♣ as a weak jump overcall or whatever it normally means in your system. |
| 4- |
If the opening bid is 1♣ /♦ and we have a major two-suiter, then we have to bid 3♣ and are |
| |
thus forced to the three level whereas it is a cuebid (and thus only the two level) using Michaels. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
Now if you are prepared to use the 3♣ bid as conventional it certainly appears that Ghestem has the edge over UNT/Michaels. But this last point (4-) really is quite significant. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Hand A |
Consider this Hand A. The definition of Michaels cue bids states that one need be only |
| |
|
5-4 (or 4-5) in the majors to cue bid an opening 1♣/♦, and many (most?) people play Michaels that way. |
| ♠ |
KJ84 |
| ♥ |
K8742 |
Playing Ghestem the bid here is 3♣ and that necessarily puts us up at the three level with no idea if we have a resemblance of a fit. |
| ♦ |
96 |
| ♣ |
95 |
So this type of hand cannot be bid using Ghestem. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Is there a solution? Yes! We simply ‘invert' the Ghestem cue bids and 3♣ bids. Thus the revised structure is as follows. For want of a better name, let's call it Questem: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Direct cue bid |
= |
2 highest suits |
| 2NT |
= |
2 lowest suits |
| 3♣ |
= |
highest + lowest suits |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
So we now have, using Questem: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Opening bid |
Overcall |
Meaning |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1♣ |
2♣ |
♥ 's and ♠ 's |
| 1♣ |
2NT |
♦ 's and ♥ 's |
(two lowest) |
| 1♣ |
3♣ |
♦ 's and ♠ 's |
(highest + lowest) |
| 1♦ |
2♦ |
♥ 's and ♠ 's |
(two highest) |
| 1♦ |
2NT |
♣ 's and ♥ 's |
(two lowest) |
| 1♦ |
3♣ |
♣ 's and ♠ 's |
(highest + lowest) |
| 1♥ |
2♥ |
♦ 's and ♠ 's |
(two highest) |
| 1♥ |
2NT |
♣ 's and ♦ 's |
(two lowest) |
| 1♥ |
3♣ |
♣ 's and ♠ 's |
(highest + lowest) |
| 1♠ |
2♠ |
♦ 's and ♥ 's |
(two highest) |
| 1♠ |
2NT |
♣ 's and ♦ 's |
(two lowest) |
| 1♠ |
3♣ |
♣ 's and ♥ 's |
(highest + lowest) |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Now this really is very easy to remember. 2NT is the same as the unusual NT, so always the two lowest. That leaves the cue bid and 3♣ . The cue bid is always the two highest, as it is with Michaels when not ambiguous. 3♣ thus always shows what's left - the highest and lowest. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
There are just six of these two-suited combinations. Playing Questem we have: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Hand 1 |
Hand 2 |
Hand 3 |
Hand 4 |
Hand 5 |
Hand 6 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ♠ |
6 |
♠ |
6 |
♠ |
KQ942 |
♠ |
6 |
♠ |
KQ942 |
♠ |
KQ942 |
| ♥ |
95 |
♥ |
KQ942 |
♥ |
6 |
♥ |
K8742 |
♥ |
6 |
♥ |
K8742 |
| ♦ |
KQ942 |
♦ |
95 |
♦ |
95 |
♦ |
KQ942 |
♦ |
K8742 |
♦ |
6 |
| ♣ |
K8742 |
♣ |
K8742 |
♣ |
K8742 |
♣ |
95 |
♣ |
95 |
♣ |
95 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
| Hand 1: |
Over a 1♥ opening, bid 2NT. |
This shows the two lowest, |
so ♣ 's and ♦ 's |
| |
Over a 1♠ opening, bid 2NT. |
This shows the two lowest, |
so ♣ 's and ♦ 's |
| |
|
|
|
| Hand 2: |
Over a 1♦ opening, bid 2NT. |
This shows the two lowest, |
so ♣ 's and ♥ 's |
| |
Over a 1♠ opening, bid 3♣. |
This shows the highest and lowest, |
so ♣ 's and ♥ 's |
| |
|
|
|
| Hand 3: |
Over a 1♦ opening, bid 3♣. |
This shows the highest and lowest, |
so ♣ 's and ♠ 's |
| |
Over a 1♥ opening, bid 3♣. |
This shows the highest and lowest, |
so ♣ 's and ♠ 's |
| |
|
|
|
| Hand 4: |
Over a 1♣ opening, bid 2NT. |
This shows the two lowest, |
so ♦ 's and ♥ 's |
| |
Over a 1♠ opening, bid 2♠ . |
This shows the two highest, |
so ♦ 's and ♥ 's |
| |
|
|
|
| Hand 5: |
Over a 1♣ opening, bid 3♣. |
This shows the highest and lowest, |
so ♦ 's and ♠ 's |
| |
Over a 1♥ opening, bid 2♥ . |
This shows the two highest, |
so ♦ 's and ♠ 's |
| |
|
|
|
| Hand 6 |
Over a 1♣ opening, bid 2♣. |
This shows the two highest, |
so ♥ 's and ♠ 's |
| |
Over a 1♦ opening, bid 2♦ . |
This shows the two highest, |
so ♥ 's and ♠ 's |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Hand 7 |
Now Questem (and UNT/Michaels or Ghestem) is basically pre-emptive. |
| |
|
But most people play that it may also be very strong. So with this hand we bid the 2NT over a 1♦ opening and thenbid on over his reply. |
| ♠ |
6 |
| ♥ |
KQ942 |
But with this hand we have a slight problem if the opening bid is 1♠. |
| ♦ |
A |
If we make the systematic bid of 3♣ partner may pass! So in this particular situation (where a3♣ bid is actually one of your suits and you have huge hand) then you simply have to double. |
| ♣ |
AKQ642 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| Hand 8 |
As with Michaels and Ghestem, with Hand type 8 we also cannot use the |
| |
|
system as it is neither weak nor very strong.So with intermediate hands like this we simply overcall. |
| ♠ |
6 |
| ♥ |
KQ942 |
|
| ♦ |
A5 |
|
| ♣ |
AQ642 |
|
| |
|
|
| Hand A |
And let's come back to Hand A. As with Michaels we need only be |
| |
|
5-4 (or 4-5) in the majors to cue bid an opening 1♣ /♦ , and many (most) people play Michaels that way. Playing Questem we do exactly the same and cue bid a 1♣ /♦ opening with 2♣ /♦ with this hand type. |
| ♠ |
KJ84 |
| ♥ |
K8742 |
| ♦ |
96 |
|
| ♣ |
95 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
But as with UNT/Miachaels and Ghestem, Questem also has drawbacks:- |
| |
|
| - |
As with Ghestem, you loose 3♣ as a weak jump overcall or whatever it normally |
| |
means in your system. |
| - |
In the situations where ♣'s is one of you suits you cannot use 3♣ as Questem when |
| |
you have the very strong hand type (because partner may pass). This occurs in just 3 out of the twelve possibilities and so using Questem you have to double instead of bidding 3♣ in these situations. Since these two-suited bids are usually weak pre-emptive bids (the very strong hand type is not very frequent) this is not a big problem. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
At this point I would like to make two observations, and these are borne out many times if you read through the news-sheets. The UNT/Michaels (or Ghestem or Questem) are the most abused conventions out there. Mistakes that are very often made are: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| 1- |
The requirement is 5-5 (or 4-5 or 5-4 with both majors). I have witnessed countless |
| |
occurrences of people mis-using the UNT etc with 6-4 or other shapes. |
| 2- |
Bidding UNT/Michaels (or Ghestem or Questem) and then bidding on shows a strong hand. |
| |
Hands of type 8 are not good enough and should simply overcall as otherwise you get too high (you have pre-empted yourself!). This is an extremely common mistake and the real strong type hand for the convention is not very frequent. For example: - |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| ♠ |
94 |
This hand comes from news-sheet 144. The holder overcalled a 1♠ opening with |
| ♥ |
AK1095 |
2♠ playing Michaels. Partner bid 3♥ and this hand raised to 4♥ . This was promptly doubled and went for a number. This type of hand is nowhere near good enough for the strong conventional bid (whichever system you decide to choose). Simply overcall 2♥ and maybe get in ♦ 's later. |
| ♦ |
AQ954 |
| ♣ |
8 |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
So which scheme is really best – UNT/Michaels, Ghestem or Questem? Obviously I believe it's Questem and there is a detailed comparison in the link. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
Pattaya Bridge Club - |
www.pattayabridge.com |
|
|
| |
|
|
