Vilgan Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I am considering making a few tweaks to our current system. Basically, right now I play 1♣ 2♣ and 1♦ 2♦ as Michael's. After looking back over the past few months, I am considering adjusting that slightly to: 1♣ 2♣ is natural and shows clubs1♣ 2♦ Michael's1♦ 2♦ is natural if 1♦ is precision, Michael's if it is natural.1♦ 2♥ is Michael's if the 1♦ is precision, preemptive hearts if not. I have had a LOT of hands where I feel 1♣ 2♣ as a natural overcall would have improved our score. Either we could have competed in clubs, or partner did not get off to an ideal lead against their contract. 1♦ 2♦ (if the 1♦ is precision) I have less experience with, but again I am sort of considering just making it natural over a precision 1♦. Not many people play precision here, but I have seen a lot of people get shut out of their diamond suit when I have opened a precision 1♦. For those who play either of these agreements, how have you liked it? I am considering switching to this with any partners who will, at least for a while. Then again, it is a fairly small sample size and might be inflated by me remembering bad results better, so again... good to consult those with more experience I think. Thank you for any input :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 This is fine, just remember you have to play 1D 3D as very strong michaels also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 We play something similar over Precision 1♦ and the catch-all 1♣ opening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogerclee Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Making a weak 2♦ overcall of a 1♣ opener is one of the more annoying bids in bridge. I think it's pretty important to keep this call the way it is. The defense to 1♦ precision, making 2♦ natural and bidding 2♥ Michaels and sacrificing 2♥ preemptive, has been around for awhile. I do not play this. I think having a preemptive 2♥ call is more valuable than a natural ♦ call (which I can bid next round, albeit without the preemptive effect), and 2♥ Michaels is worse than 2♦ Michaels, so I think I am giving up a lot for very little in exchange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Making a weak 2♦ overcall of a 1♣ opener is one of the more annoying bids in bridge. I think it's pretty important to keep this call the way it is. The defense to 1♦ precision, making 2♦ natural and bidding 2♥ Michaels and sacrificing 2♥ preemptive, has been around for awhile. I do not play this. I think having a preemptive 2♥ call is more valuable than a natural ♦ call (which I can bid next round, albeit without the preemptive effect), and 2♥ Michaels is worse than 2♦ Michaels, so I think I am giving up a lot for very little in exchange. I don't feel the need to preempt a limited 1♦ too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Making a weak 2♦ overcall of a 1♣ opener is one of the more annoying bids in bridge. I think it's pretty important to keep this call the way it is. The defense to 1♦ precision, making 2♦ natural and bidding 2♥ Michaels and sacrificing 2♥ preemptive, has been around for awhile. I do not play this. I think having a preemptive 2♥ call is more valuable than a natural ♦ call (which I can bid next round, albeit without the preemptive effect), and 2♥ Michaels is worse than 2♦ Michaels, so I think I am giving up a lot for very little in exchange. I don't feel the need to preempt a limited 1♦ too much. I don't agree with this. As a precision player my experience has been that one of the toughest auctions is 1D 2M because responder doesn't know which minor opener has. In standard it's much easier because you can raise the minor with 9 points and 4 cards in the suit or w/e, but in precision you will frequently have hands with less than 4 of the other major that have to make a negative X or pass, both of which being bad options. You can add in some artificiality (some people play 2N=competitive in partners minor, whichever one it is), but it's a tough spot. Also the auction 1D 2M X p can be challenging since your minor suit lengths are so poorly defined. If you have no stopper in LHOs major, it can cause a lot of problems. Anyways, I don't really have strong feelings about gaining the ability to overcall the minor vs having the preempts/better michaels available, I think it's about equal. I think both can have their day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I currently play 2♦ as always Michaels, saving 1♣-2♣ as natural, for the same reasons. Years ago, I used to take advantage of both a "short club" and a nebulous 1♦ opening to employ the full two-level opening structure from another system. 2♣ always showed any 4441 hand, with a series of asking bids if the auction allowed it; 2♦ the majors; 2M that major and an unspecified minor; and 2NT for the minors. I liked that as well, especially over 1♣, where double was handled as if opened 1♣ (strong, artificial); 1-L other was canape style; and 1NT was balanced. It got a little dicey with the one-level calls and with the 2♣ call at times, and you forfeited the interruption option (or had to play Vegas and hit the three-level), but constructive auctions were vastly improved. These days, I'm satisfied with the saving of 2♣ as a natural call, with an occasional 3♦ overstep with long diamonds. I have not yet grabbed the 3♦ Super-Michaels call from WAY back, but maybe there's some merits to revisiting that idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I have not yet grabbed the 3♦ Super-Michaels call from WAY back, but maybe there's some merits to revisiting that idea. I think it's dumb in a system where you can bid 2D for the majors, but obviously if you play 2H for the majors you have to play this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I have not yet grabbed the 3♦ Super-Michaels call from WAY back, but maybe there's some merits to revisiting that idea. I think it's dumb in a system where you can bid 2D for the majors, but obviously if you play 2H for the majors you have to play this. Oh -- missed that. Duh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I wouldn't want to give up any preemptive jump overcalls, but especially not (1♣) 2♦. I'd prefer to lose the Michaels cue bid. 5-5 in the majors has a lower frequency than a WJO, and has less preemptive value, because there are only two suits that the opponents might play in rather than three. With a constructive 5-5, I can live with overcalling 1♠. This is a bit like the argument about Ghestem, which was settled ages ago in most parts of the world. Using 3♣ as a two-suiter sounds like a really good idea until you pick up a weak hand with clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I wouldn't want to give up any preemptive jump overcalls, but especially not (1♣) 2♦. I'd prefer to lose the Michaels cue bid. I know there must be hands out there where bidding 1♠ and planning to bid hearts later is bad, but they don't seem to come up for me. I was playing a hand yesterday, with a noob who doesn't play Michaels yet. Partner dealt -P- (1♦) 1♠ (2♥)2♠ (3♣) -P- (-P-)3♠ (-X-) P/O I had Axxxx Qxxxx QJx --- Partner had a balanced hand with kings everywhere except clubs. Opps took 4 tricks. I seriously doubt that they'd have been so kind if I'd bid Michaels. Michaels over a minor doesn't come up much, and when it does come up often just bidding the hand naturally ends up better. And yet, it's standard. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Indeed, I am also confused by the value some place on michaels. Sure there will occasionally be a hand where you have a big fit in overcaller's lower suit and opponents are preempting aggressively, but there are also often hands where opponents play/defend the hand better because of the michaels call. I've dropped michaels in several regular partnerships and haven't missed it much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 I'm with the idea of keeping the single suit natural preempts, rather than creating varieties of Michaels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilgan Posted June 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Indeed, I am also confused by the value some place on michaels. Sure there will occasionally be a hand where you have a big fit in overcaller's lower suit and opponents are preempting aggressively, but there are also often hands where opponents play/defend the hand better because of the michaels call. I've dropped michaels in several regular partnerships and haven't missed it much. Ya, a better choice might just be giving up on Michael's, at least over 1♣ and the precision 1♦. It does seem about 50/50, I can think of many hands in the last month or so where bidding Michael's hurt the team that did it. Worth pondering at least. 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.