[billw55]

More to the point, the strong cuebid was abandoned because it was so rarely useful, and because that hand type can be easily accommodated starting with a double. This frees up the direct cuebid for hand types that occur much more frequently. This is all fairly easy to understand, and it was widely realized several decades ago.

PhilG, how often do you expect to hold a game force in your own hand after opponents have opened the bidding? On the other hand, how often do you have a distributional two suiter in the 8-15 range? I think if you are honest you will admit that the latter is much more common.

[1eyedjack]

billw55, on 2016-April-28, 14:57, said:

More to the point, the strong cuebid was abandoned because it was so rarely useful, and because that hand type can be easily accommodated starting with a double.

Thread drift alert.

Oddly enough, when playing with robots I would much prefer that it abandoned Michaels in favour of a stone-age GF cue. Low frequency it may be, but when it arises you are better placed than via double when (not unexpectedly) the auction is aggressively contested and comes back to you at the 3 or 4 level. Aside from the fact that Gib is not great at followup after a Michaels cue, it is (currently) incapable of accepting that a double may have fewer than 3 cards in all side suits.

[PhilG007]

Jinksy, on 2016-April-28, 14:43, said:

I live in England and regularly play club bridge in which people often describe their system as 'Acol'. Not once have I seen any of them using a direct cue as a game-forcing hand. You can claim it's not strictly Acol if you like, but then your claim that it's 'the dominant system in the United Kingdom' is ludicrous.

Prove it

[Zelandakh]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-29, 07:14, said:

Prove it

In the normal scheme of things the onus is on the poster that makes a ludicrous statement to prove their idea rather than on those that question it. For example, I could say that the universe was created by the mating ritual of an inter-dimensional worm. It would be difficult to disprove this but that does not mean that anyone should take such a claim on face value.

I also note that you have still failed to provide one world class pair using a GF cue bid in current competition. Once again, a claim made as authoritative without backing it up in any way, instead just oving onto another ridiculous claim.

And I am quite sure you are well aware that these claims are silly. Just as I am quite sure you were aware about why you received criticism before starting the "is it me" thread. It is the combination of these attributes that leads one to think in the direction of trolling. It is little different from going to a religious website and "joining in the debate" on abortion.

It would be nice if you really did join in the debates, presenting your opinions without dressing them up in some sort of authoritative manner to imply that yours is the only valid way. Perhaps you even have something useful to add. The last couple of threads I have seen from you have been pure troll-bait though. That is not a good direction to be moving in if you want to enjoy this community over a longer period. So please take a moment to think about what you want from BBF and how you can integrate.

Note: please do not think I am suggesting you need to change your opinions to fit in here. I would suggest that it might improve your bridge to open yourself to some new ideas but that is another thing entirely.

[1eyedjack]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-29, 07:14, said:

Prove it

There are a lot of assertions in the quoted text. Any particular one or more that you would like him to prove?

That he lives in England?
That he regularly plays club bridge?
That the people in said clubs often describe their system as Acol?
That they have never been known to cue bid to show a GF hand?
That the GF cue is not the dominant method in the UK?

Any particular mixture of the above?

Any particular reason to doubt the veracity of any of his observations such as to justify an application for proof?

My penny's worth is that my experience is the same. I don't know Jinksy but it would be an unlikely coincidence if we move in the same circles.

I did once see someone make a GF cue in a rubber club at the Kings Road (probably the club no longer exists now). I suspect that if you play at Crockfords you would be required to pay the GF cue (Michaels would certainly be banned).

[Vampyr]

1eyedjack, on 2016-April-29, 07:49, said:

My penny's worth is that my experience is the same. I don't know Jinksy but it would be an unlikely coincidence if we move in the same circles.

I don't know either of them but my experience is the same.

I would guess that Michaels is not allowed in any rubber bridge club, so the GF cue would be the dominant method among rubber bridge players (although many rubber bridge players play duplicate too, and would at those times play Michaels or top-bottom or whatever).

[Cyberyeti]

PhilG007, on 2016-April-29, 07:14, said:

Prove it

Well I've played duplicate bridge in the UK for 40 years, and I don't think I've seen the rock crusher cuebid in 30 years, yes it WAS the common method, but hasn't been for a loooong time.

[Tramticket]

I concur with Cyberyeti, Vampyr, 1EyedJack, Zelandakh above.

Even at beginner level, Michaels is taught in the UK.

[StevenG]

I started playing in clubs in 1993, and it was still used sometimes, either by older players who had been strong in their time, or by life intermediates who'd read a bit. I played it myself (having read "All About Acol" and similar) until I learned there was something better. I haven't seen anyone play it for many years.

[billw55]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-29, 08:20, said:

I don't know either of them but my experience is the same.

I would guess that Michaels is not allowed in any rubber bridge club, so the GF cue would be the dominant method among rubber bridge players

Any logic as to why one artificial use of the cuebid is allowed, but another is not? What do they think the difference is?

[mycroft]

The "Big" hand is "Natural" for versions of Natural including "Played in 1930, when Rubber Bridge was ossified". Note that "the play" is what is important.

To be less cynical for a moment, cutaround rubber really does have the issue that you should only be playing systems that anybody you happen to cut in that club would understand immediately. And they do want the play to be the thing. And a lot of duplicate conventions (not Michaels cuebids, but a lot of them) are strongly designed around "no legs" scoring that duplicate provides and would be much less effective when some of the time, "forcing 1NT' for instance is game - or when 2♠+1 is not the same score as 3♠=.

But mostly, it's just a different game, played by different players, with different attitudes to what the game is. That happens.

(It's also one of the many reasons I don't play rubber bridge. So I could very easily be talking ad fundamentum extractum. But even as a no-rubber-bridge player, I can certainly tell at the duplicate table who the "ex-rubber" players are!)

[Vampyr]

billw55, on 2016-April-29, 09:27, said:

Any logic as to why one artificial use of the cuebid is allowed, but another is not? What do they think the difference is?

Well, the strong cuebid came first, but it is more than that. Michaels requires some agreements (weak/strong or all strengths)? Plus agreements about defending against it. This does it work when the discussion as you sit down across from someone consists of: Four or five? Weak or atrong? And the answers to those questions.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2016-April-27, 09:47, said:

To the OP:

You start with 2♦ - and hope that partner isn't so old-fashioned that he passes.

I think this is very location-dependent. In some places NMF is popular; in others simple checkback is more common.

[mycroft]

I think that if you caught someone for whom 1♣-1♠; 1NT-2♦ was NF *because 2♣ is ART, F*, you'd be very unlucky.

If you caught a partner for whom 2♦ is NF, and so is 2♣, then ah, well, rubber. Hard to bid this hand.

If you caught a partner for whom 2♦ is F (New suit by unpassed responder) and you end up in 6♦ because you've absolutely promised 4♦ to go with your 5♠, then oh well, as well.

I think the last two sets of people have died out away from the rubber table; I think the first group would know enough to not expect that random plays that way without discussion. ICBveryW.