MickyB Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sqj9543h8d9cqj762]133|100|Scoring: IMPRHO opens 1♥, playing 4 card majors and a 15-18 NT.[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blofeld Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 3♠. I want to preempt on this hand. With the black suits the other way around I'd bid 2♥, but spades are spades are spades. I'm 6-5. I have no defence. I have a ridiculously high ODR. The vulnerability is nasty, but I'm pushing this one for all it's worth anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 3♠. I want to preempt on this hand. With the black suits the other way around I'd bid 2♥, but spades are spades are spades. I'm 6-5. I have no defence. I have a ridiculously high ODR. The vulnerability is nasty, but I'm pushing this one for all it's worth anyway.I certainly admire the guts of this call but it is too rich for my blood at these colors. 1S is enough for me as I need a big boost from partner in one of my suits before this hand warrant serious thoughts. Winston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hi, assuming 2H is Michales, I bid that.I have a hand that looks like a 2-suiter,why not tell partner about it? With kind regradsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeartA Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 I think I would pass and come back later if there is chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 2♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 3♠. I want to preempt on this hand. With the black suits the other way around I'd bid 2♥, but spades are spades are spades. I'm 6-5. I have no defence. I have a ridiculously high ODR. The vulnerability is nasty, but I'm pushing this one for all it's worth anyway Yes Owen. And this is why people play penalty doubles against you.... I would pass. My suits are rubbish, and I am at RED Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 2♥ michaels. I really fail to see wtp :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearmum Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 [hv=d=e&v=n&s=sqj9543h8d9cqj762]133|100|Scoring: IMPRHO opens 1♥, playing 4 card majors and a 15-18 NT.[/hv]WOW u bid to THREE level at RED v white ------ I think you have a death wish :blink: :) (at white V red it's a better proposition IMHO) BECAUSE 1. you haven't told P you have 2 suits 2. you have a 6 loser hand and you have NO idea what P has :) with your hand I would 1. PASS or (If as you do figure I have a bid :angry: I would hopefully have Michaels -- or ONLY bid 2♠ --- and hope that W has insufficient in his hand to double for penalty(if indeed a X would be for penalty after a 2♠ overcall) :ph34r: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 2♥: 5 - 5 ♠ + minor either weak (here) or strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted January 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 3♠. I want to preempt on this hand. With the black suits the other way around I'd bid 2♥, but spades are spades are spades. I'm 6-5. I have no defence. I have a ridiculously high ODR. The vulnerability is nasty, but I'm pushing this one for all it's worth anyway Yes Owen. And this is why people play penalty doubles against you.... I would pass. My suits are rubbish, and I am at RED They are prepared to give up their chances of bidding constructively to the correct contract, in return for taking fewer penalties? Excellent :) QJ9xxx doesn't look like a rubbish suit to me. Admittedly I'd like the 8 as well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 3♣, hi/low Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted January 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 My bid at the table was 3♠. Pass will miss games and it will lose double part-score swings, unless you are prepared to come back in later. That's reasonable if pard will now expect 6x(5x) but it is also pretty dangerous to give the opps that much space before sticking your neck out. 1♠ could work out ok, but it is rather misleading - if partner has a decent hand you will never persuade him that you are a weak 6-5, if he has a poor hand then you may as well bid 2♠. 2♥ has the merit of describing your handtype to partner. However I don't think it will be right to play in clubs too often - You are expecting to get forced repeatedly, so you need the safety of the 6 card trump suit, and you will always need to contract for a trick more in clubs than in spades. If you were 6x5x there would be (slightly) more case for 2H, to give the partnership the option of competing in diamonds over the opponent's club bid. As it is, 2H makes the opponent's lives far too easy for my liking. 2♠ is worthy of consideration at this vulnerability - it is obviously safer than 3♠, but it will miss the occasional 4♠. I don't like making this bid when I would have done the same with QJ9xxx xx xx QJx, and I would certainly feel rather uncomfortable if the auction continued 3♥-3♠-4♥ back to me - I think 4♠ must be the percentage action here, but I hate taking the last guess. So that left 3♠, risky for sure but with the potential to force a mistake in the bidding or in the play. I was slightly nervous when the auction continued pass-pass-double-all pass - partner tabled K KT97x AKx 98xx. The play went fairly well - the opps cleared clubs (breaking 2-2), the ten of trumps dropped doubleton and they misdefended to give me the 9th :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 So you should've gone for -200 and quite possibly -500 with opponents able to make.... 2D? Congratulations Mike, another bit of great bridge from you. My feelings are well and truly verified Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted January 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 It always makes 8 tricks (there are 9 in ♣), opps can make 4♦ or 2NT and our teammates made 3NT. This is after partner has put down a stiff in my suit and a load of wasted values in the red suits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blofeld Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Yes Owen. And this is why people play penalty doubles against you.... If the opponents are really playing penalty doubles I bid 3♠ without even the few qualms about the bid I otherwise have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 2S for me, only at these colors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbleighton Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 "2♥ michaels. I really fail to see wtp" The problem is the sixth spade. I think all of the alternatives are bad. I would bid 2S at this vulnerability, but I wouldn't argue strongly against any of the other choices (including 2H). Peter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 I dislike Michaels when I'm weak and my major is longer. Michaels makes it much easier for the opponents in the bidding, and they will get everything right in the play. So I strongly prefer to bid a number of spades. 2S would be my choice, I don't have the stomach to bid 3S at these colors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Lots of playing strength, no (little) defense, more spades than clubs, 2S wtp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Yet another thread about a terrible bid that worked out :rolleyes: Funny how often we get these rather than the terrible bid that got hammered. For what it is worth, here are my thoughts: Pass is wrong: with this hand, it seems appropriate to get into the auction, and delayed bidding is usually a bad choice: the opps get to exchange information on approximate strength and degree of fit and THEN we come in with a weakish hand? Not for me, thanks. 2♥ is wrong: even if you play Michaels as weak or strong (as I do), at this vulnerability, you need more than this. It is not so much that the 2♥ bid is understrength in playing tricks, as that partner is entitled to act on the basis that you have a different hand. As is so often the case, the problem with distorting your hand is not the immediate bid but what partner may do later, if he mistakenly trusts you to have your bid. This is especially true if he has a misfit with some defence. 3♠: is overly aggressive. It is better than Michaels because it correctly emphasizes ♠ and does not suggest even a modicum of defence. But it is unnecessary, because: 2♠ seems just right. It devours 2 levels of bidding and more or less accurately describes the playing strength of the hand while not significantly overstating the defensive values. Furthermore, the opps are far less likely to play for penalties at the 2-level than they are at the 3-level. And, of course, if they do play for penalties, you are saving 300 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 3♠. I want to preempt on this hand. With the black suits the other way around I'd bid 2♥, but spades are spades are spades. I'm 6-5. I have no defence. I have a ridiculously high ODR. The vulnerability is nasty, but I'm pushing this one for all it's worth anyway. I am with you, the first bid that crossed my mind when I saw this was 3♠. But then I saw the vulnerability.... But I prefer 3♠ over 2♠. Maybe I would pass this time. 2♥ would show some defensive values at this vul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 why is it that nobody seems to play hi/low anymore? does it suck *that* much, theoretically? seems to give you ways to show all shapes (michaels, u2nt, h/l) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalvan14 Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 why is it that nobody seems to play hi/low anymore? does it suck *that* much, theoretically? seems to give you ways to show all shapes (michaels, u2nt, h/l) Have to say that I've not seen H/L being used since a few years ago.The reason? IMO, keeping 3♣ as a weak jump is more useful than immediately disclosing the minor in a Michaels. And when you hold spades, you can stop at 2 level. Btw, I'd bid 2♠ with the posted hand: I'm not a big fan of Michaels (and this is not worth it in any case); 3♠ would be ok, at reversed vulnerability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 24, 2006 Report Share Posted January 24, 2006 2♥ is wrong: even if you play Michaels as weak or strong (as I do), at this vulnerability, you need more than this. It is not so much that the 2♥ bid is understrength in playing tricks, as that partner is entitled to act on the basis that you have a different hand. As is so often the case, the problem with distorting your hand is not the immediate bid but what partner may do later, if he mistakenly trusts you to have your bid. This is especially true if he has a misfit with some defence. Sorry, you're just being dogmatic here. To say that a V vs NV michaels call should show 1-2 defensive tricks and/or 10 hcp, is an unwarranted generalization of a personal view. Some people play michaels your way, but many others play it otherwise. For those, a michaels bid is mainly preemptive, showing little more than high ODR and saying nothing about hcps or defensive tricks. This hand certainly qualifies. You may prefer a preempt of 2♠ instead of 2♥, but that's a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.