Jinksy

One of the big advantages of split-range Michaels is that everyone plays it anyway ('I'll figure out later whether this 12-count is an upgrade to 15 or a downgrade to 10...') :P

Why doesn't the 4th bidder just have AKQ8752 and his P a takeout double while we're at it? Obviously there are risks associated with a 2♠ bid, and P having a second source of tricks with a second outside entry that he's not sure whether to lead hardly seems foremost among them*. Clearly I think the risks of preempting outweigh the rewards. Even if they didn't, Michaels is a terrible bid with all sorts of downsides (many but not all of which I've described), and I rate pass much higher than 2♦, no matter what your nominal range for it is. Do you really want me to give you specific holdings where bidding it here goes badly? How long have you got? * On the hand you give, I'd prefer to just lead partner's suit than try my luck leading away from a broken 6-card holding with a highly dubious entry outside, assuming we're trying to set 3N. And (channelling Gwnn) I realise that means we'll occasionally fail to set the contract when P does have Qx of my suit, JTxxx(x) of his own, and the opps have exactly 8 tricks off the top, before you re-explain that to me like this is the first time I've seen a bridge hand.

People play it as all sorts of ranges - I play it as 0-37, by preference. But you still have to hope to achieve something by bidding it. Opposite a passed hand, unfavourable with both majors, it's unlikely you have a good sac if you're not making anything - which you probably aren't with a hand this weak. Meanwhile, 2♦ is a far less preemptive bid than even 2♠. Not only can they bid 2♥/2♠ artificially, then can X or pass then act later. So you're giving up a lot of info about your hand when P prob can't make any use of it and the opps very likely can.

If I have QJxxxx and an entry (and they're playing NT) opposite P's Kx, he's unlikely to have another plausible lead to set the contract.

If partner knows that you preempt aggressively in this position (s)he won't lead from that kind of a holding unless there are no other plausible looking leads to set the contract (and at MPs, even then would prob eschew Kx).

Then that 'deserves' them being the only pair in the room to successfully pick up the 4-1 trump split in their 6♣ slam. You pays your money and takes your choice, but I would rather just preempt my longest suit and confuse two opponents and one mostly inert partner figure than give them a road map with various low-level options for entry into the auction. I use Michaels only when there's a decent chance that it's our hand.

I would bid 2♠ or 3♠ as N, depending on how frisky I was feeling. We're way too weak for Michaels, which consumes little space and gives the opps a blueprint when they inevitably play own the hand. So as S, I'm expecting a much better hand from P and will bid 4♥ without much thought to alternatives.

I wouldn't normally cue shortage in P's suit, but if we have a 10-card trump fit or better I would - then the shortage can turn back into a potential asset. So here I'd hope P either either had 5+Cs (ideally 6+, since we've probably only shown 4), or was getting creative with the Q♥.

I have much more of a problem with the clueless club players who go to such events and then try to tell their opps the rules of the game. Against you it wasn't an issue, because you obviously knew where you stood, and on the off chance they were entirely pleasant about it and just called the director to make sure, then kudos to them. But my guess is what actually happened is they got a bit flustered, started accusing you of cheating and either called the director to punish you or you called him to resolve their complaint properly - because that's how 98% of these disputes seem to go. If so, I'd say the director had an unofficial word with the wrong player.

A simple principle I like to stick to in these situations where no-one's really had a chance to show or deny extras is that we cue what we've got, then sign off at game if we've got nothing substantially more. IMO P should have something for 4♣ (again, fast arrival + KISS), but he's not promising the Earth when the alternative would have eaten so much space. So I would just cue, and respect P's 5♣ signoff. What was the other hand?

Googled his blog, but which posts should I read, and what in general makes you feel he's a good source?

I doubt we'll be left in 4♥, and if we're bidding higher, I'd rather play in diamonds than a 4-4 ♥ fit, so if I have a forcing 4♦ I'll just bid that.

No he won't. You don't have to get two ruffs to set a contract. Either major ace could be enough, or partner having the Kx of Hs and declarer not being able to afford to finesse, or partner having a spade holding that he wants led into before declarer gets a pitch, or thousands of other less obvious positions (such as this).

T♠ = 10 Q♣ = 5 ♥ = 2 ♦ = 0 (had not looked at full hand when writing this) I would certainly have lead the spade after the hesitation and defended (and appealed if the match result hinged on a ruling against us) the decision if the opps complained. Singletons stand out a mile after reading Bird & Anthias' books, and even beforehand, this is just the archetypal hand for them - very weak, enough trumps to potentially make life difficult for declarer/score several ruffs if P has quick entries, and nothing else that screams 'beating the contract'. On N's hand, I would have bid 2♠ over 1♠.

I will try passing in the knowledge that I always get these decisions wrong. At this vul I'm not happy about it - at any other I would think it obvious.

This is why I play new suits as forcing. We don't have to have slam interest to prefer a heart contract to a club one.

W might have found a lead from 7x, which seems like a slight argument in favour of ducking, depending on what the bidding was. If it went 1♦ 1♥ / 1N 3N or similar, it's surely better to play for the 4-3 split.

X is presumably convertible values, with direct 3♦ more distributional.

Hadn't thought about that. But even there, our minor suit fit might be clubs, so we don't necessarily want to force to the three level with eg x Qxx KJxx AQxxx opposite Kxxx xxxx xx Kxx (though that might be getting unduly pessimistic).

No it isn't. The sequence has been discussed on this forum, and a number of strong players prefer to play the 2♦ rebid as a forcing reverse, at least after a 1♠ overcall (though Helen's point that it might be different over a 1♥ overcall is something I hadn't considered). This is because while your grandma played negative doubles as 'promising the two unbid suits', many people play them as 'promising the unbid major', thus giving no guarantee that 2♦ will be a playable spot with two minimum hands.

Does everyone who thinks 3♣ is NF also think 2♦ in the auction 1♣ (1M) X / 2♦ is NF? If not, what is the significant distinction between them? That a 'negative' X when opener has shown 5+ hearts really does deny hearts, whereas one after a 1C opening could easily have club support? If so it would make sense, though with eg Kxxxx xx KJxxx x (and potentially even greater dist when too weak for a 2-level bid and too spadey to pass), would responder not bid the same?

[hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h2ddp3cp]133|100[/hv] Is 3♣ forcing? Would it make a difference if the doubler were a passed hand?

Time to out myself as South. Maybe it should show that, but I prefer not to raise directly unless there's no other option. I usually find it more helpful to be able to bid out values below 3N, and to be able to use a bid of the minor at the 4 level as something keycard-related, which is only possible when the surrounding bids can't be natural (ie typically after a slower sequence). So to me, bidding 4♦ (or any other 4-bid) after P's 3N would still have shown decent secondary diamond support - Hx or conceivably xxx. I also don't agree with the '22 + 10 = slam' comments. We have a horrible misfit, so I expect these hands to play substantially worse than 22 balanced opposite 10 balanced, and if P has nothing extra I really don't expect to miss much. Give him xx Axxx KQxxxx x and I think he'd have bid the same (would anyone not GF in normal 2/1 with that hand plus an abstract king?), but now slam is a disaster. It doesn't become much nicer if we throw in the Q♥ or Q♣.

It is, but we normally wouldn't bid it without something in the suit in a GFing auction, on the theory that if you don't have any values in it, you probably have a more descriptive bid elsewhere.

[hv=pc=n&s=saqt83hkjdacakj43&n=s9ha542dkq97654c2&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1s(14%2B%20points%2C%20F1)p2d(GF)p3c(Extras%20and%205-5%20shape)p3dp3h(FSF,%20probably%20some%20values%20in%20Hs)p3np4n(Quant)ppp]266|200[/hv] N's GF nominally showed 10+ points. IMPs. Is there a way to find the slam? We thought it revolved around how likely S was to bid like this without stiff A♦ or possibly a fake 3♥ bid based on extra values but no better bid.