[blackshoe]

Max Hardy (Competitive Bidding with Two Suited Hands, Advanced Bridge Bidding for the Twenty First Century) advocated dumping Michaels in favor of a structure involving Top and Bottom Cue Bids, Equal Level Correction doubles, and some artificial jump shifts, in all three cases showing a two suited hand with the lower ranking suit longer or stronger than the higher ranking. He said that these hand types are very difficult, sometimes impossible, to show otherwise. Why was he wrong?

[Vampyr]

Is this a quiz? My guess is that this method leaves you overcalling your longer or stronger higher suit, and after further competition you may not get a chance to show the other suit.

[Cthulhu D]

The Partnership Bidding at Bridge guys advocate having specific two suited overcalls to make competitive bidding easier and also enable a 'get in get out' mentality where you get your hand off your chest in one bid.

I think these are pretty powerful bids, the problem is that you lose jump shifts as weak and preemptive. Which is a significant problem for either partner or you. What do you do with KQJxxx of hearts after they open 1C if 2H is both majors?

Conversely you have a similar problem with KQJxxx of diamonds over 1S opener.

Not totally clear if the tradeoff is worth it. I wish there was a good playing robot with easily editable bidding so you could test some of this stuff.

[mikeh]

I looked into playing more 2-suited bids many years ago. I do think that there is a trade-off in that the more calls you dedicate to artificiality, the fewer natural calls are left in your arsenal. How you measure that trade-off will depend on a number of factors, including partnership issues as well as theoretical gains and losses.

However, it may be useful to bear in mind that Hardy was one of the worst bridge writers to ever gain any popularity. His breakthrough book, which I bought in the 1970's was full of good ideas (but very few of which, if any, were his) but terribly written. He was never a very good player and I don't think he was much on theory either. That isn't to say that 'if Max recommended it, it must be bad', but it is to say that I wouldn't be as prepared to think that the idea has merit as I would be were, for example, a Martens or a Cohen or a Lawrence were to suggest it.

One minor factor is that the more specific your calls are in what are usually efforts to pre-empt the opps, the easier it is for the opps to bid (and play) well over it. Of course, it becomes easier for partner as well, so it remains a tradeoff.

[Cthulhu D]

mikeh, on 2014-November-03, 18:18, said:

One minor factor is that the more specific your calls are in what are usually efforts to pre-empt the opps, the easier it is for the opps to bid (and play) well over it. Of course, it becomes easier for partner as well, so it remains a tradeoff.

The theory is quite interesting. The effects of fits in secondary suits vs misfits in secondary suits is quite marked, and if partner knows about the secondary suit situation, he is better positioned to decide to balance, save or defend. Additionally, as they have opened, you are pushing up hill (they have exchanged more information), so more specific bids are good. Additionally, if you can get your hand off your chest in one bid partner is the boss of the auction - he's actually got the most information at the table then.

The problem is bidding with the WJOs, which becomes very difficult unless careful measures are taken.

[Siegmund]

It is a little odd that he would suggest equal level correction and two-suited overcalls with the lower suit stronger or longer.

I am a fan of having a method to show the 4-5s that tend to have the 4-card suit get lost in standard methods, even at the expense of having to bid 5-5s naturally. My preferred adaptation of Roman jump overcalls, to squeeze in most of the hand types and remain GCC legal, has been floating around on the web for several years -- briefly, using 1C-2C to show 4 spades and 5+ of a red suit, and 1C-2D to show 4 hearts and 5+ diamonds, but leaving 1C-2H and 1C-2S as natural, instead of playing all three jump overcalls as Roman.

I have talked several of my partners into trying it -- the ones who turned me down counter-offered Equal Level Correction, and encouraged me to double-and-correct with at least some of those same 4-5 hands.

[awm]

Having a way to show these sorts of "reverser" 4-5 and 4-6 hands is actually a huge winner, and Hardy is correct that these types are hard to show otherwise. Certainly you can always overcall in your longer/lower suit, but it often becomes quite difficult to find a 4-4 or 5-4 fit in the shorter suit.

This is why all the Poles play Raptor, and why some people play Roman Jumps. Hardy's overcall methods are just one more approach to showing these hands, sacrificing the Michaels cuebid and the purity of the double instead of the strong notrump overcall or the weak jump overcalls. But he's far from alone in believing these are important.

The system Hardy recommends is:

Cue = 4+ in the highest unbid suit, 5+ in the lowest unbid suit
Dbl = normal takeout, but could also be 4+ in the highest suit and 5+ in the next highest
Showing the "lowest two" suits is most important when the opening bid is a minor, and he uses 2♦ over 1♣ and 3♣ over 1♦ to show these possibilities.

My experience has been that only the 3♣ call over 1♦ is a really big loss here. I've taken to using 2NT to show this hand instead (to regain my 3♣ WJO).

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2014-November-03, 15:06, said:

Is this a quiz? My guess is that this method leaves you overcalling your longer or stronger higher suit, and after further competition you may not get a chance to show the other suit.

No, it's an attempt to start a discussion.

mikeh, on 2014-November-03, 18:18, said:

However, it may be useful to bear in mind that Hardy was one of the worst bridge writers to ever gain any popularity. His breakthrough book, which I bought in the 1970's was full of good ideas (but very few of which, if any, were his) but terribly written. He was never a very good player and I don't think he was much on theory either. That isn't to say that 'if Max recommended it, it must be bad', but it is to say that I wouldn't be as prepared to think that the idea has merit as I would be were, for example, a Martens or a Cohen or a Lawrence were to suggest it.

So, he wasn't necessarily wrong just because he was Max Hardy, but.... he was wrong because he was Max Hardy.

Siegmund, on 2014-November-03, 22:39, said:

It is a little odd that he would suggest equal level correction and two-suited overcalls with the lower suit stronger or longer.

They show different suits. See Adam's reply above.

awm, on 2014-November-03, 23:44, said:

My experience has been that only the 3♣ call over 1♦ is a really big loss here. I've taken to using 2NT to show this hand instead (to regain my 3♣ WJO).

In the second book I mentioned in the OP, which is more recent than the other, he changed this (at the recommendation of somebody he mentioned whose name I forget) to overcalling 2♥ in this case. Saves some space, and gives you back the 3♣ WJO, but gives up the 2♥ WJO. 2NT may be better still.