Michaels?

[jonottawa]

♠T7542 ♥AKQ92 ♦J ♣A2

 

RvW IMPs

 

Righty opens 1♣ You bid 2♣ (would you?) Pard bids 2♥ Are you done?

 

1♣ - 2♣? - P - 2♥

P - ?

[rogerclee]

I am done.

[jillybean]

3♥ this hand is at the top of my range for michaels

[the hog]

No Michaels on this hand for me. Spade suit is too weak and the range is outside what I play - weak or strong, not intermediate.

Under the given conditions, I would definitely pass now.

[pclayton]

Surely I had another call in mind when I bid Michaels and I see no reason to deviate from this plan.

 

3♥ for me.

[effervesce]

The hand is slightly too weak for a weak-strong Michaels. I'd prefer 1♠ then 2♥.

 

Having bid 2♣, I'm forced to bid 3♥- partner does not know that you have this good a hand.

[Lobowolf]

Another one of those hands with a possible wide range of values depending on partner's fit. I don't think I'd have chosen to treat it as a strong Michaels; if partner'd bid spades on Qxx, he could have three losers before he even gets out of the trump suit. On the other hand, it IS a five-loser hand. I think I'd have bid 1S to start, possibly encouraging a bad lead, but there's a good chance we won't be defending. I wouldn't complain about partner's choice, if he Michaelsed. If I stepped in for someone who had a sneezing attack midway through the auction, I'm boosting it to 3♥ now, for sure. It's arguable whether or not it's worth a strong Michaels; it's certainly not worth a weak Michaels. Especially red at IMPs. Too much game potential, and even if I get us too high, neither opponent has good trump with which to whack me. I love being red at IMPs. I can rationalize all of my overbids.

[kenrexford]

I am done.

Ditto.

[655321]

Agree this hand is between weak range and strong range, so would Michaels unless playing weak or strong only.

 

Now, I make one try (3♥, else 3♣ if 3♥ would show a 6th heart).

[gnasher]

This is obviously not weak, and doesn't look especially strong, so out of range when playing a split range. Playing any-strength Michaels, 3♥ looks normal.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 no, although I play continuious

#2 yes, if you play continius (always 5-5?), the partnership

should have a way for responder to check with an inv.

hand, he does not have one.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

i overcall 1h....at unfav.

[ochinko]

This hand is a very good example of why one should play weak/strong Michaels. If you do, you bid 1♠, then 2♥ here. Partner never invites after 2♣, as you could be weak. If you make another move after partner makes a choice, you're showing the strong version.

 

♠K7542 ♥AKQ92 ♦x ♣A2 goes through 2♣, rebids 3♥ after 2♥

 

♠AQ542 ♥AKQ92 ♦x ♣A2 goes through 2♣, rebids 3♣ after 2♥

[mike777]

i give up

 

I bid 1H

 

no one but me bids 1h at unfav. vul.?\

yes you invite hands that is bad but really ......but really I am the only one bidding the longest and strongest suit at unfav vul?

[helene_t]

I am done. This is close to a minimum in my style.

[Gerben42]

I would have overcalled 1♥, playing split-range. Not playing split range, I would now consider that hearing 2♥ is good news, because partner will now have less ♠. But because I'm still not sure if I can actually ruff the ♠ in dummy, I would still pass.

[ochinko]

i give up

 

I bid 1H

 

no one but me bids 1h at unfav. vul.?\

yes you invite hands that is bad but really ......but really I am the only one bidding the longest and strongest suit at unfav vul?

No wonder you're alone. Bidding 1♥ is far too pessimistic as it implies you won't have the ability or the wish to bid again. You are 5:5 in the majors with quite a good hand, partner hasn't passed yet, sky is the limit.

 

Furthermore, if you bid ♠ then ♥ you're still likely to get a ♥ lead if opps stop at some ♦ or NT contract, for example.

 

LHO and partner are likely to have 14 points split between them. Even if partner is aceless, and has less than half of the remaining points, if they are the ones you need 4♠ will still have a chance: KQxx-xx-xxxx-xxx.

[P_Marlowe]

This hand is a very good example of why one should play weak/strong Michaels. If you do, you bid 1♠, then 2♥ here. Partner never invites after 2♣, as you could be weak. If you make another move after partner makes a choice, you're showing the strong version.

 

♠K7542 ♥AKQ92 ♦x ♣A2 goes through 2♣, rebids 3♥ after 2♥

 

♠AQ542 ♥AKQ92 ♦x ♣A2 goes through 2♣, rebids 3♣ after 2♥

A 1S overcall?

 

How about suit quality?

 

# for lead directing purposes?

# with xx in spades and hearts,

which suit do you want to play?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

i give up

 

I bid 1H

 

no one but me bids 1h at unfav. vul.?\

<snip>

Well, maybe it was not clear from my first post, but I

overcall 1H. And this, despite the fact, that I do play

the Michaels cue with continious strength.

 

For that matter vulnerability has nothing to do with

the decision, you have AKQxx in hearts vs. xxxxx

in spades.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: I am not sure, if having me on your side, means

you are not the odd man out, but knowing there is

someone else lurking in the shadow may help anyway.

[ochinko]

# with xx in spades and hearts,

  which suit do you want to play?

How would you know anything about partner's hand when his turn to bid is yet to come?

 

I want to play in the suit in which we have a fit. In order to achieve that I have to describe my hand to partner the best I can. Masterminding the deal with 1♥ is exactly the way to miss our best spot.

[Lobowolf]

This hand is a very good example of why one should play weak/strong Michaels. If you do, you bid 1♠, then 2♥ here. Partner never invites after 2♣, as you could be weak. If you make another move after partner makes a choice, you're showing the strong version.

 

♠K7542 ♥AKQ92 ♦x ♣A2 goes through 2♣, rebids 3♥ after 2♥

 

♠AQ542 ♥AKQ92 ♦x ♣A2 goes through 2♣, rebids 3♣ after 2♥

A 1S overcall?

 

How about suit quality?

 

# for lead directing purposes?

# with xx in spades and hearts,

which suit do you want to play?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I agree with the considerations of suit quality/lead direction and potential trump quality, but for me they're overcome by a couple of offsetting factors:

 

1. I think there's a very good chance we'll be declaring. If we're not, I'll wish I'd overcalled in hearts.

 

2. I'm a fan of flexibility when appropriate, and I think the advantages of showing both of our 5-card majors outweigh the advantages of emphasizing the best one. Yes, if partner has xx xx, I'd rather we were in spades, but if partner's hearts are longer, that's the one we'll end up in anyway, and if his spades are longer, I'll want him to know that I have a suit other than hearts.

 

1♥ has definite plusses, but on balance, I think it's too unilateral.

[han]

I would never bid 1H.

[kfay]

I would never bid 1H.

Agree. I have two suits....

 

Now I pass. I didn't plan on taking another call.

[jdonn]

I think a 1♥ overcall is hopeless. If you play split range Michaels you have to overcall 1♠, if not (I don't) then I like Michaels, and raise 2♥ to 3♥ (but I would have passed 2♠).

 

If you say after a 1♠ overcall you could get to the wrong suit, I agree. That's why you should not play split range Michaels. If you do play that, there is one way and only one to reach 5-3 (or sometimes even 5-4) spade fits, and you just can't give that up.

[xcurt]

...then I like Michaels, and raise 2♥ to 3♥ (but I would have passed 2♠).

Isn't this backwards? 2♠ is more likely to be a real suit. Also, we can take the tap with small trumps.* Playing hearts we're unlikely to make any spade tricks unless partner has a nice fit for spades as well (or more hearts than is consistent with bidding only 2♥).

 

I would pass 2♥. I don't consider this close. But why is this a problem? If we're stuck over partner's most likely reply then maybe we should not have bid 2♣ in the first place.

 

* ♠Axx and the ♥T makes 4♠ on 3-2 trumps and 3-3 hearts, or 4-2 with the HJ falling (edit -- assuming we can get enough clubs out of the dummy before they ruff in to avoid 4 fast losers)