Game level decision; unfavorable

[Gerben42]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sqj4hat853dakt85c]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

(1♠) 2♠* (3♠) 4♥

(4♠) ?

 

* ♥ + minor, 0 - 6 losers at this vuln.

 

P.S. some of these options will get no votes but I wanted to be complete. I dislike having an 'other' option.

Edited October 13, 2005 by Gerben42

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

if the hand fits with your agreement, than use your

agreement, i.e. 2S, now dbl.

 

Marlowe

[TheoKole]

2 Spades then double, in order to have more than a game, we need a good double fit in hearts and diamonds.

 

If we do have one, then partner will pull the double, but I don't suspect we do. Partner could have cue bid if he was interested in slam, with a spade void.

 

Since I don't have a powerhouse without a double fit, I will double.

 

Theo

[whereagles]

Easy double :D Pard may take it out with an offensive hand.

[luke warm]

hmm.. i bid 2S and then 5D... i love my hand

[Guest Jlall]

I would have bid 2H initially. A medium strength hand is hard to describe, and my spade holding and heart suit are both terrible to force to the 3 level red/white. I'm sure michaels is "normal" though. Had I bid 2S Xing now seems easy.

[mike777]

2H, it seems playing michaels as 2 suited with any strength is losing favor in the expert world.

[mikeh]

I bid 2♥, altho this is very close for me. Red v white michaels should be good playing hands. I like them to be really good or weakish... but red v white, this is not very far from the weak range. Having QJx of ♠ is what tips the scale for me: a bad holding if they do not have a fit, and a good (shape) holding if they do.

 

Having bid 2♥, I assume that I hear 4♥ on a similar auction, in which case I have a true problem. It sure sounds lke RHO is bidding on a 2-suiter, and it would not surprise me in the least to see partner with x KQxx QJxx xxxx or the like.

 

Is there any way to reach the slam if that is his holding, without screwing up when he has a more mundane hand?

 

5♣? Nah... should be a suit, I'd think

 

5♦: meets the suit point, but hardly shows 1st round ♣ control, even if it shows slam interest.... does it?

 

5♥: not the slightest bit slammish

 

Pass: not the slightest bit forcing

 

4N: just plain weird and the answers tell you nothing at all

 

This hand is just too tough, so I bid 5♦ as the only bid that could possibly have slam invitational nuances, and it also helps in the extremely unlikely event that RHO bids 5♠: now pass by me invites slam for sure.

 

On the michael's sequence, I would not double 4♠. The vulnerability is wrong. I would bid 5♥: I want partner to be declarer on this one, and 5♦ sounds like a strong michaels, which I do not hold. I'd like the ♥K or QJ for that.

 

BTW if he holds x KQxx QJxx xxxx and the reds are split 3-1, you are not exactly going to enjoy comparing your -590 with your teammates -680. And partner will not pull with that hand.... not at the table, anyway. (yes, I know that you would lead a small ♥, get the ♣ruff and lead a small ♦ to get a second ruff, but let's assume that you don't :P )

[Guest Jlall]

BTW if he holds x KQxx QJxx xxxx and the reds are split 3-1, you are not exactly going to enjoy comparing your -590 with your teammates -680. And partner will not pull with that hand.... not at the table, anyway. (yes, I know that you would lead a small ♥, get the ♣ruff and lead a small ♦ to get a second ruff, but let's assume that you don't :P )

To me he should pull the X with that. Xing 4S after michaels should just say you have enough defense to hope to beat it opposite a preempt, but you obviously have a lot of offense too. I would expect to make 5H with partners hand, and the X does not show a spade stack.

[Blofeld]

What Justin said.

 

My 2♠ call (if I made one) showed an offensive hand. The double shows a defensive hand <i>given this context</i>. Partner has a very offensive hand in context, so will bid over the double.

[Trpltrbl]

I would start with 2♥. I don't use Micheals with intermediate hand.

But in this auction I would double.

 

GBB :P

[han]

Agree with the majority so far.

[HeartA]

If I get it right, it is red to white. I would bid 5♦. If it is white to red, dbl is obvious. With same vulnerability, dbl for safety.

[Blofeld]

If I get it right, it is red to white. I would bid 5♦. If it is white to red, dbl is obvious. With same vulnerability, dbl for safety.

I don't understand the reasoning there. Partner knows the vulnerability as well, and I could hardly have a more defensive hand at this point. If you're not doubling here, would you never double on this auction at these colours?

[adhoc3]

If Ghestem is available, 1♠-3♣ (showing ♥+♦) then 5♣ now (control, SI).

 

I play top-down michaels.

[Gerben42]

Solution is as follows:

 

Partner had

 

[hv=s=sxhkjxxxdxxxcxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

Par on the hand is 5♠X down 1

[mr1303]

Yes, if partner had that hand he should pull the double of 4S ( if one was made) to 5H. Unfortunate that partner has 3 small diamonds, with 2 small 6 would have excellent play.

[Mr. Dodgy]

I voted 2♠ then double, but didn't have the option to vote for 3♠...

 

My (admittedly inexpert) method with 5+/5+ 2-suiters is:

 

6-10 HCP: 2♠, intending to pass

11-15 HCP: 3♠ (SuperMichaels)

16-20 HCP: Double, then bid

21+ HCP: 2♠, intending to rebid

[jdeegan]

:) I can hardly believe the number of votes for a double. For shame! I admit I voted for 5♥, when clearly 5♦ is the better bid. But, at least I knew better than to double

 

There are a number of ways to analyze this hand. The old fashioned approach sees that we figure to lose one spade and a red suit trick. Plus, the bridge expert's mantra in these situations is to bid one more.

 

FTL analysis works beautifully. We probably have about seventeen working points. The sum of our short suits is ONE. Therefore, 13-1-1=11 tricks. Combine this with LOTT and we can count nineteen (possibly only eighteen) trumps, plus one for the void, less one for my QJx in spades for an estimated nineteen tricks. If we have a diamond fit, then we have a double fit situation, so we may be looking at 20 or 21 total tricks.

 

In summary, our side ought to take at least eleven tricks in hearts, and they can take eight or more in spades, esp. if they have a secondary club fit. Bidding 5♦ has the virtue of putting partner in the LOTT picture, so he can make an intelligent call if the need arises.

[Blofeld]

:) I can hardly believe the number of votes for a double. For shame! I admit I voted for 5♥, when clearly 5♦ is the better bid. But, at least I knew better than to double

Could you explain the problem with doubling? I double because I think it's the best description of my hand. I'm willing to trust that my partner has some judgement as well.

[luke warm]

Yes, if partner had that hand he should pull the double of 4S ( if one was made) to 5H. Unfortunate that partner has 3 small diamonds, with 2 small 6 would have excellent play.

but had you bid 2S then 5D, partner's decision is simpler eh? and i disagree with mike's statement earlier that this is an 'intermediate' hand (thus unsuitable for michaels).. this is a great hand, so i'll help partner out with his sac vs. defend decision... i'll stick to 2S then 5D

 

Could you explain the problem with doubling? I double because I think it's the best description of my hand. I'm willing to trust that my partner has some judgement as well.

 

look at partner's hand... maybe he should pull the double, maybe not, but why put him under so much pressure? you know you'd rather play than defend, so help him out by showing you have nothing against the 5 level

[beatrix45]

:lol:  I can hardly believe the number of votes for a double. For shame! I admit I voted for 5♥, when clearly 5♦ is the better bid.  But, at least I knew better than to double

Could you explain the problem with doubling? I double because I think it's the best description of my hand. I'm willing to trust that my partner has some judgement as well.

;) You are past the point of describing you hand. The preliminary part of the auction is over. You can see at least eleven tricks for your side so you gotta place the contract. If you can also give information to partner (e.g. bidding 5♦ instead of 5♥), then by all means do so. It might come in handy later if the hand has more tricks in it than we currently think.

 

You cannot be afraid of going down one. Partner bid hearts freely so it doesn't figure to happen, and when it does, the opponents may bid 5♠ to bail you out. To take only 10 tricks, you would have to lose two tricks in the red suits. Or else, partner has a small doubleton spade.

[Blofeld]

:) You are past the point of describing you hand. The preliminary part of the auction is over. You can see at least eleven tricks for your side so you gotta place the contract. If you can also give information to partner (e.g. bidding 5♦ instead of 5♥), then by all means do so. It might come in handy later if the hand has more tricks in it than we currently think.

 

You cannot be afraid of going down one. Partner bid hearts freely so it doesn't figure to happen, and when it does, the opponents may bid 5♠ to bail you out. To take only 10 tricks, you would have to lose two tricks in the red suits. Or else, partner has a small doubleton spade.

As the auction may well not end with my call, I think it's ludicrous to say that we're past the point of describing our hand. Either we need to describe our hand to partner, or vice-versa. And it's a lot easier to get to the right place via the former route. I think doubling is more likely to get me to slam when it's right than a 5♦ bid.

 

but had you bid 2S then 5D, partner's decision is simpler eh?

Well, in that there's no longer a decision available to him/her, yes.

 

look at partner's hand... maybe he should pull the double, maybe not, but why put him under so much pressure? you know you'd rather play than defend, so help him out by showing you have nothing against the 5 level

Yes, I know that in general on this hand I'd rather play than defend. I got that across with my 2♠ bid. If you think that partner could consider not pulling the double on the given hand, could you please construct a hand that you think would bid 2♠ and then double?

[jdeegan]

... could you please construct a hand that you think would bid 2♠ and then double?

:P A hand that would bid two spades and then double:

[hv=s=sjha9872daqj65caq]133|100|[/hv]

 

I don't want partner to bid 5♥ unless his hand is unusually good for that purpose, and I think it is our hand because my hand is strong for defense, one of those that was too good to overcall esp. since it has relatively weak hearts.

 

On the actual hand, having a secret trump trick (QJ3 of spades) is an attractive feature, but it doesn't outweigh all the distribution going on around the table.