Five-Six Alive Come

[jchiu]

[hv=d=e&v=b&s=sa9632h10daqj632cj]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♥ 2♦ 4♥ 4♠

5♣ 5♠ 6♥ Pass

Pass ??[/hv]

 

1♥ was limited, showing 5+♥ and 8-15 HCP

Your Michaels cuebid agreement is that it can be intermediate range

[matmat]

I know the deal, and even after seeing all 4 hands wasn't sure what the right action is.

[pclayton]

I also know the deal and I have some opinions but will wait.

[GaryFisch]

Didn't read the first post before voting. I would bid 2♦ without Michaels but 2♥ with Michaels. Absolutely bid 6♠ because opponents could have ♠void and make 6♥

[655321]

6♠

 

With the agreement that Michaels can be any range, I would have Michaelsed(?) on the hand. However, 2♦ seems to have worked out pretty well. Now, 6♠ this turn seems pretty clear - someone might be making something - but I hope I don't have a decision over 7♥. B)

[Guest Jlall]

Can't imagine doing anything other than 6S, don't know who can make what but not willing to gamble defending on a deal like this. Heck, I wouldn't even know what to lead (I guess the DA). I like 2D, and think in general with 6-5 where the 5 is spades it's better to bid out if you are strong enough, and if you are too weak for that to just bid michaels. Starting with michaels makes it difficult to bid after something like 1H 2H 4H p p ? I guess you could X but I would have rather just bid 2D then 4S so partner has some idea that I have this and not AKxxx x AKxxx Kx or that with the minors reversed.

[whereagles]

6♠. C'mon, this is a huge double fit deal and they probably can't make 7, so bidding 6 now seems trivial.

[ArtK78]

I agree with 2♦. The hand is good enough to bid both suits naturally, and the diamonds are so much better than the spades that bidding diamonds first is the right way to go. Besides, if you wind up on defense, you prefer the diamond lead to the spade lead.

 

i bid 6♠ now. Always bid one more on very distributional hands at IMPs when both sides have fits. They may be making, and you may be off only one.

[Gerben42]

How come y'all know the deal :)

 

6♠ reluctantly.

[bid_em_up]

I would have michaeled the hand to start with.

 

Having failed to do so, and with partner freely bidding 4S (with no indication of my spade holding at the time), 6S seems absolutely clear now.

[pclayton]

I would have used Michaels on this hand the first round. I'm not sure this hand is worth 4♠ over 4♥ if I overcall 2♦ initially, which is what I'm committing myself to with 2♦. Why would you pass up the opportunity to show your pard 10 of your cards instead of just 5?

 

Now, 6♠ is clear. 6♠ is a classic insurance bid and could even be a cheap save against a game. On a good day it will make.

 

For those wondering, the auction didn't go quite as Jason specifies, but I'll let him tell the story.

[brianshark]

No, I would have bid Michaels. I bid 6♠ now. I just think passing or doubling is aiming for too narrow a target. Their 6♥ may well make and our 6♠ may well make.

 

Wow, I see a consensus for 6♠ so far.

[Echognome]

I held the posted hand and bid 2♦ and 5♠. I felt with the given hand I was worth 2♦ and up to 4♠ next time. I also feel that the auction is not always at the game level when it comes back to us and we may be able to bid our hand cheaper.

 

I don't understand Phil's point. Yes we are showing we have a two-suiter with Michaels, but partner may not be able to judge either when they bid game. So in that sense, I feel much better having started with 2♦ if I'm willing to bid 4♠ next time around. I certainly felt that was the commitment I had undertaken starting out with 2♦.

[pclayton]

I don't understand Phil's point.  Yes we are showing we have a two-suiter with Michaels, but partner may not be able to judge either when they bid game.  So in that sense, I feel much better having started with 2♦ if I'm willing to bid 4♠ next time around.  I certainly felt that was the commitment I had undertaken starting out with 2♦.

 

Bridge is a partnership game. I hate platitudes like that, but imagine partner is looking at xx QJxx xx KJxxx and hears (1♥) 2♦ (3♦) pass 4♥... as pard starts to think.

 

You like your chances of beating 4♥, don't you? What on earth is CHO thinking about? We now hear 4♠ and watch pard struggle for -3 in 5♦ x'd. SP bad flop.

 

Next time we'll hold KQxx xx Kxx xxxx and 4♠ is excellent. Who knew?

 

Contrast this with a direct Michaels call. Don't you think it's partner who is in a better position to judge? Won't pard bid 4♠ over 4♥ whenever it's close to remotely being right?

[Echognome]

I don't understand Phil's point.  Yes we are showing we have a two-suiter with Michaels, but partner may not be able to judge either when they bid game.  So in that sense, I feel much better having started with 2♦ if I'm willing to bid 4♠ next time around.  I certainly felt that was the commitment I had undertaken starting out with 2♦.

 

Bridge is a partnership game. I hate platitudes like that, but imagine partner is looking at xx QJxx xx KJxxx and hears (1♥) 2♦ (3♦) pass 4♥... as pard starts to think.

 

You like your chances of beating 4♥, don't you? What on earth is CHO thinking about? We now hear 4♠ and watch pard struggle for -3 in 5♦ x'd. SP bad flop.

 

Next time we'll hold KQxx xx Kxx xxxx and 4♠ is excellent. Who knew?

 

Contrast this with a direct Michaels call. Don't you think it's partner who is in a better position to judge? Won't pard bid 4♠ over 4♥ whenever it's close to remotely being right?

Partner is about as likely to hold diamonds than spades isn't he? What you're saying only focuses on spades. So let's say partner holds:

 

x Qxxx KJxxx xxx instead. So now it goes (1♥) - 2♥ - (4♥) - ? Aha. I made a hand that proves my point. I don't get it.

 

We have to decide if this is a one bid or two bid hand. I feel it's a two bid hand. I don't get why this is a question of partnership bridge.

[Guest Jlall]

This reminds me of davidc's epic 1 bid hand vs 2 bid hand blog post. That was prob the best bridge blog post ever.

[Echognome]

This reminds me of davidc's epic 1 bid hand vs 2 bid hand blog post. That was prob the best bridge blog post ever.

I agree Justin. Certainly came across my mind when thinking about it.

[Guest Jlall]

 

When you have a one-bid hand, you should aim to describe it as well as possible in one bid.

When you have a two-bid hand, you should aim to describe it as well as possible in two bids.

 

 

Full post here.

 

Imo this is definitely a 2 bid hand which is why starting with 2H will lead to a lot of problems.

[pclayton]

 

When you have a one-bid hand, you should aim to describe it as well as possible in one bid.

When you have a two-bid hand, you should aim to describe it as well as possible in two bids.

 

 

Full post here.

 

Imo this is definitely a 2 bid hand which is why starting with 2H will lead to a lot of problems.

Its been a long time since I've read David's articles, but I'm a little confused why the one-bid, two-bid concept applies here.

 

When we Michaels, we aren't committing the hand to 'one bid'. The call can be made on a wide variety of hands, and there's nothing implied that we can't compete or take another call depending on the strength of our hand, or how the auction develops.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

2D is fine.

 

And now 6S.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[skjaeran]

Yes, I agree with 2♦.

And 6♠ now is absolutely obvious.

[matmat]

This was from a team match, the auction at the other table was a little more informative in general, and I think probably made it a little easier for the o.p.'s hand to decide on an action. That hand was second seat on the following auction:

W       N      E      S 
(1c) - 1d - (1h) - 1s
(4d) - 4s - ( x ) -  P
(5d) - x  - (6h) -  P 
(p)  - 6S - ( x ) -  P

[Guest Jlall]

 

When you have a one-bid hand, you should aim to describe it as well as possible in one bid.

When you have a two-bid hand, you should aim to describe it as well as possible in two bids.

 

 

Full post here.

 

Imo this is definitely a 2 bid hand which is why starting with 2H will lead to a lot of problems.

Its been a long time since I've read David's articles, but I'm a little confused why the one-bid, two-bid concept applies here.

 

When we Michaels, we aren't committing the hand to 'one bid'. The call can be made on a wide variety of hands, and there's nothing implied that we can't compete or take another call depending on the strength of our hand, or how the auction develops.

The point is that the most descriptive 2 bid sequence is bidding 2D then spades, not bidding michaels then doubling (or doing something else). If you plan to make 2 bids then the best way to describe your hand in 2 bids is clearly 2D then spades, partner will know almost exactly what you have albeit you would ideally be a little bit stronger.

[Free]

The point is that the most descriptive 2 bid sequence is bidding 2D then spades, not bidding michaels then doubling (or doing something else). If you plan to make 2 bids then the best way to describe your hand in 2 bids is clearly 2D then spades, partner will know almost exactly what you have albeit you would ideally be a little bit stronger.

I agree, but wonder if the situation is the same after a 1♠ opening when we have ♥ and ♦. Now we have the ♠s, so easy rebids all the way. When we have the reds, starting with 2♦ can give you a hard time when the auction returns at 4♠...