ratty spades

[jillybean]

I had a great game at the club yesterday, 3rd in SecA. Here’s one hand that I didn’t bid well.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sxxxxxhkqjxdakcxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

(1♣) ?[/hv]

 

Your bid and rationale please

[Walddk]

It's a matter of style, but I am not going to introduce that spade suit (directly at least). I much prefer to michaels, also if it shows 55. By the way, in Europe it's pretty common to bid Michaels with no more than 54 over 1mi.

 

Over 1MA, however, "we" promise at least 55.

 

Roland

[helene_t]

Agree with Roland. 2♣ should just promise 5-4. Partner can ask for the fivecard with 2♦.

[whereagles]

Another option is to treat the spade suit as a 4 carder and make a take-out double.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

A Michaels bid is fine (assuming you have agreed to

use it on 54), else you could make a take X or

pass. I prefer pass over take out.

 

If you pass, you hope, that you will get the chance to bid

again in the bal. seat, maybe even the ratty suit.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[hrothgar]

Hey there

 

An offshape Michaels might work, however, lots of folks (myself included) prefer a good/bad Michaels style. This hand falls in between, so I'd rule that out.

If you're playing a continuous strength range for Michaels it might be a reasonable description.

 

The one bid that I'd never chose is double. I think that 1♥ is a much more descriptive call. If I were to assume that xxxxx in Spades is too weak to overcall - some would - then overcalling with my chunky heart suit seems better than doubling with a doubleton Diamond. (I'm going to be very unhappy if I start with a double and partner starts introducing Diamonds)

[pbleighton]

As others have noted, this is a style issue. 1H, 2C, double, and pass are all reasonable options.

 

If the partnership style allows it, I prefer 1H. It shows where I live, and is a great lead director.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

I had a great game at the club yesterday, 3rd in SecA. Here’s one hand that I didn’t bid well.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sxxxxxhkqjxdakcxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

(1♣) ?[/hv]

 

Your bid and rationale please

If partner had dealt and passed, I would X. If that means we end up in a 4-2 diamond fit, so be it (I will not correct a 1♦ call), but that seems rather unlikely to me.

 

Since partner hasn't made a call, I'll just pass, and X if the auction is at 2 of a minor or less the next time around, and they haven't bid a major.

[inquiry]

I think it is generally acceptable to bid 1♠ with this hand "distribution" even with ratty spades. Having said that this is MATCHPOINTS and if lefty can find a spade honor and bids NT over that, do you really want to encourage a spade lead from partner if that is not his natural lead?

 

Sad to say, at imps, I would overcall 1♠ anyway or possibiily a takeout double, but at matchpoints, I would venture a riskier 1♥ overcall. A second possibility for matchpoints is a frisky michaels cue-bid.

[david_c]

I would double. Neither of the major suits look biddable to me, and my Michaels bids promise 5-5. I've lost my fear of doubling with a doubleton minor after a couple of bad results from not doing this.

[MickyB]

Agree with David. This looks nothing like a Michaels to me, and I don't want to miss a 5-4 spade fit by bidding 1♥.

[whereagles]

I've lost my fear of doubling with a doubleton minor after a couple of bad results from not doing this.

Ah.. someone who sees the light :P

[Fluffy]

1♥ because I think that is our longest suit :P. 2♦ if you allow any strenght for michaels.

[jillybean]

Needless to say I hated it but bid 1♠ and we missed a ♥ game. :(

My partner said afterwards she would have been happy with 54 Michael’s after 1m

 

Next time! :)

 

Sometimes I think Im sticking my kneck out and I do regardless and gets chopped off, other times like this it wouldnt have been such a risk and I dont.... sigh

[pbleighton]

"Sometimes I think Im sticking my kneck out and I do regardless and gets chopped off, other times like this it wouldnt have been such a risk and I dont.... sigh"

 

Sometimes you have to guess, and everyone guesses wrong a lot.

 

Don't worry about it.

 

Peter

[the hog]

I agree that this looks nothing like a Michaels to me. I can't understand the M bidders. The imbalance between the H & S suits, the topless S suit and the AK outside. Uh....I don't think so. 1S is fine. Mbe 1H at MPs.

[pclayton]

Good enough for an offshape x.

[han]

I think that this is a very good hand to post. There are good things to say for double, 1H and 1S (and maybe also for pass, although I'm not sure what). I'd be more than happy to overcall KQJx of hearts on some other hand but not with longer spades. If partner was a passed hand and game was unlikely then it would be much more appealing.

 

So the choice is between 1S and double. Double has the advantage of keeping both major in play, it's also right on strength and it doesn't ask for a spade lead. 1S is the normal bid with this shape, and you should have good reasons to do otherwise.

 

Sometimes I think Im sticking my neck out and I do regardless and gets chopped off, other times like this it wouldnt have been such a risk and I dont.... sigh

 

I think we all feel like this sometimes.

[mike777]

Congrats on your wonderful finish.

 

one spade

close second choice x

 

going to bid my longest suit first and then my second longest if possible. Yes I see xxxxx in spades.

 

I tried to avoid michaels if at ever possible.

[pbleighton]

"I tried to avoid michaels if at ever possible."

 

I don't avoid it, but I don't like it either 5-4 or intermediate strength, so this hand fails twice. I don't fault others for bidding it, though, if their agreements permit it.

 

"and maybe also for pass, although I'm not sure what"

 

If you are strict about having your bid under classical definitions (I'm not), pass is inevitable.

 

Peter

[han]

well Peter, I agree that all other calls are somewhat ugly, but that doesn't mean that there is something good to say about pass :).

[pbleighton]

"well Peter, I agree that all other calls are somewhat ugly, but that doesn't mean that there is something good to say about pass"

 

Pass would be my last choice as well, Hannie, but I think you may be missing my point. I think that this bidding problem is more of a Rorschach test for players' preferred styles and agreements in competitive bidding than it is about hand evaluation. I expect that very few Forum members would pass this hand, but there are good players at my club who would pass it. They have been successful "having their bid" for a LONG time, and they are not about to change. Pass works for them.

 

They don't choose me as a partner :)

 

Peter

[HeartA]

Agree with Roland as well. My Michaels usually shows 5-5 (over minor or major). Occasionally, I bid Michaels (especially over minors) with 5-4, as in this situation.

[jtfanclub]

(and maybe also for pass, although I'm not sure what)

Because it's the majors. You're unlikely to get pre-empted out of bidding the next time around, and you'll be well positioned if partner makes a call.

 

Sometimes, I feel like people feel if they pass on the first round, they're never allowed to bid again. I'm looking at 3+ defensive tricks. If the opponents bid so high that I can't come in, I think I'll be happy with the result.