Michaels?

[jdonn]

...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)

It's not backwards, if partner bids hearts he may well have short spades and the hand could be an excellent fit. Short hearts do nothing. If he bids spades and he has Qxx or Kxx that is probably three losers, and you would need no losers in the minors. To say nothing of the fact you would probably need a heart ruff as well.

 

Also, who says we are stuck? That part you made up, I feel fine with my bid.

[skjaeran]

Agree with 2♣.

 

Having bid vulnerable, this is a clear pass now IMO. Partner wouldn't just take preference with 4-card support and short spades.