| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
So which scheme is best – UNT/Michaels, Ghestem or Questem? Let's start by tabulating the final contract using each scheme; assuming a weak hand and no further opposition bidding and see where we eventually end up: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Notes: |
1 |
The Michaels bid is ambiguous for the minors. |
| |
2 |
Ghestem stays lower than Questem. |
| |
3 |
Questem stays lower than Ghestem. |
| |
4 |
We cannot bid Questem 3♣ with the very strong hand type. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
So which scheme really is best? If you are loathe to give up your normal 3♣ bid then you have to use UNT/Michaels. But you have no bid in 2 situations and it's ambiguous in the minors in four situations. Very big minuses in my opinion. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Assuming that you are prepared to use 3♣ conventionally then it boils down to this: - |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| - |
Questem has the very big advantage that over a 1♣ or 1♦ opening you can cue bid to show |
| |
both majors and rest at the two level. Thus making it fairly safe with 5-4 type hands in the same way as Michaels. Very handy for those of you who like to make noises with weak 5-4's. |
| - |
Ghestem has the advantage over Questem in that you can always bid 3♣ conventionally with |
| |
the very big hand since ♣ 's is never one of your suits. Since this comes up far less often than the weak 5-4 major suit type hands I think that Questem is to be preferred. Up to you. |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
Pattaya Bridge Club - |
www.pattayabridge.com |
|
|
| |
|
|
