Rethinking Michaels?

[Califdude]

I believe it is generally agreed that as a general principal showing point count should be given priority over showing suit. Given contract bridge scoring, if you are in the right suit but the wrong level for your point count, nothing can help you. If you are at the right level for your point count, but in the wrong suit, you might still be able to pull it out. For example, we've all saved many a game that was played in 4 of a major that should have been played in 3 NT and vice versa.

 

With that in mind, I ask the question whether the Michaels cue bid it worth its cost, which is to give up on the old strong cue bid.

 

Back in the day, before Michaels, this was pretty much the normal bidding pattern after opponent opened one in a suit:

a. Suit overcall=less than opening point count.

b. Takeout Double=opening point count.

c. Direct cue bid=barn burner, about same strength as a strong 2 opening.

 

Simple and direct...partner immediately has a good handle on whether we should be in part-score, game or slam.

 

By adopting Michaels, we have replaced c, which was a point-showing bid, with a suit and shape-showing bid. Now we have takeout double followed by cue bid in oponent's suit to show a super-strong hand in the overcall position, which of course, can run into difficulties depending on the intervening bids before we can make the cue bid. Opponents may jump to game in their suit, or partner might assume takeout double implies support for his major, which you may not have, and jump to game.

 

My impression is that the opportunities to gain from Michaels are very rare and the desire to show a very strong hand sitting in the overcall position are rare but more frequent than the Michaels situation. Secondly, by adopting Michaels we seem to be giving suit and shape showing priority over point showing.

 

What do you think? Is there a case to be made that Michaels is not worth its cost?

 

;)

[awm]

Actually I think exactly the opposite is true -- it is generally more important to show suit/shape than point count. Several reasons:

 

(1) If we have a big fit, we can easily make a lot of tricks without any points.

(2) If we have a big fit, we will usually be right to play at a high level in that suit, regardless of whether our contract makes (if it fails, it is normally a good sacrifice against the opponents).

(3) When both sides have a fit, the auction often accelerates and it's essential to get in early. If neither side has a fit, we normally have plenty of time to negotiate level.

(4) Determining how many tricks you can take is not an exact science. Often you will get away with being a level higher or lower than you should be. But playing in the right strain is almost invariably better than playing in the wrong strain.

 

Personally I'm not in love with the Michaels cuebid. The 5-5 hands are not that common, and I don't really feel compelled to "preempt the auction" when I have both the major suits. I prefer to use the cuebid to show awkward hands with a four-card major/longer minor combination. But certainly the "strong two hand" treatment does not appeal -- these hands are incredibly rare and usually can be bid reasonably well without a special method for them (you have more or less game in hand, and opponents opened so partner's usually broke and slam is unlikely, why not just bid game?)

[skjaeran]

Points Schmoints....

[NickRW]

I believe it is generally agreed that as a general principal showing point count should be given priority over showing suit.

I think you may well find that is the belief among a great many ordinary bridge players. But it will probably find only qualified support on this forum - and some here will disagree fairly strongly - including me ;)

 

Nick

[rogerclee]

Wow, I disagree with everything said in this post.

 

1) I don't know how old fashioned your methods for overcalling are, but double has, for a long time, been takeout oriented, and overcalls can still be good (opening or better) hands.

 

2) On the issue of frequency, it is not worth it to have a direct cuebid show a very strong hand (though it used to be this way). There are so many other problem hands that arise when they open that it is unthinkable to a modern player to use this bid to show a hand that will come up maybe once in 400 deals, especially when doubling and cuebidding will be similarly effective.

 

3) Above all, it is false that points are more important than shape.

 

"Simple and direct...partner immediately has a good handle on whether we should be in part-score, game or slam."

 

This statement is also completely false, I don't know how you came to this conclusion.

[Hanoi5]

I agree with rogerclee.

[kenrexford]

I was thinking the same thing about Stayman.

[the hog]

I believe it is generally agreed that as a general principal showing point count should be given priority over showing suit.

Totally disagree with this assertion. Shape is far more important than point count.

You can make a grand on a combined 5 count with the right distribution.

[OleBerg]

I sing along with the choir.

[Codo]

I like the title: Rethinking Michaels.

 

You may rethink if you use it too often, giving a road map for declarer if you don't buy the contract.

You may think if you don't use it enough, because you wait till you have enough points.

You may rethink if the concept of showing weak or strong hands is better or worse then the newer concept of showing just the shape.

 

You may rethink later bidding strategies.

 

But what you wrote in your statements was plain wrong. I agree with anybody to disagree with you.

[SoTired]

I have a half-written article about "general principles" that were developed during the early days of bridge that have been superceded by newer ideas taken from more experience, simulations and the vast online database available for hand analysis. (It took science 1000's of years to get rid of the 4-element theory, but it still seems engrained in our conscience, so asking bridge players in one generation to change is asking alot.)

 

Although the poster is being scolded for the "general principle" that points are more important than shape, I would remind everyone that in other threads, the modern practice of opening 1N on a more wide range of hands is one case where it is true. So experts appear to be sending a mixed message here.

 

I would also mention that the poster is dividing defensive hands by point count into the 3 incredibly broad categories of :

1) less than opener, 2) opener, 3) monster

 

If those are our only 3 categories, it is likely that shape is more important.

[kenrexford]

Although the poster is being scolded for the "general principle" that points are more important than shape, I would remind everyone that in other threads, the modern practice of opening 1N on a more wide range of hands is one case where it is true. So experts appear to be sending a mixed message here.

I think you are missing the concept here and actually reaching the wrong and opposite conclusion.

 

If points were King, then 15-17 would mean 15-17.

 

However, the wider ranges (some 14's for example) expands the HCP range because of observations of actual trick-taking power of controls and shape. Thus, if anything, I'd say that the one bid in bridge that is very tight as to HCP and that historically denied "shape" is being re-evaluated because of shape concerns.

[dake50]

Modify Michaels so that the MM verses 1m /Mm vs. 1M bid is a jump 2M. Now cue is cue.

Eg. <1c> 2h =5-5MM, but 2c freed; <1h> 2s =5s5m, 2h freed.

Even an artificial 2-other minor overcall as arbitrary strong force(+other cases) could work.

[dake50]

Yea, Ken, rethink Stayman 2C as xfer to D, follow-ups show 4cM(s)/real D.

[vang]

nice article, Califdude! was it published in Bridge World 1950?

;-)

[helene_t]

Although the poster is being scolded for the "general principle" that points are more important than shape, I would remind everyone that in other threads, the modern practice of opening 1N on a more wide range of hands is one case where it is true. So experts appear to be sending a mixed message here.

Depends what the alternative to a 1NT opening is.

 

Suppose you have a 2425 15-16 count. If the alternative to a 1NT opening is a reverse than yes, by opening 1NT we emphasize strength at the expense of shape.

 

But if the alternative is to rebid clubs, or to open 1♥, then we open 1NT in order to give a better picture of our shape.

 

The same is true if we open 1NT with a 5-card in a major. You can open 1NT or you can bid it as a two-suiter. In either case we are accurate with respect to strength. So you chose the strategy that you feel gives the best picture of your shape.

[NickRW]

Yea, Ken, rethink Stayman 2C as xfer to D, follow-ups show 4cM(s)/real D.

I use 2C over 1N, not specifically as a transfer to 2D, but 2D is the 90%+ usual relay response (and responder can then pass with a weak t/o in diamonds) - it is a very old convention (from the 50s originally from the CAB system) that at least used to be called the "Gladiator" convention. These days it is more commonly and functionally described "puppet to 2D".

 

2D is then Stayman with inv+ values and 2H/2S are natural, invitational. Whether this is strictly better than 2C = stayman + transfers is debatable - but it is certainly very playable anyway.

 

Over a weak NT being able to stop at the 2 level is more important than over a strong NT - and as I play weak NT I was initially attracted by the ability to stop in 2D. One can also stop at the 2 level with an invitational hand in a major - when the lie of the cards is poor and opener can't raise to game you do well to make 2M while the transfer people are one down in 2N or 3M. (But there are also downsides as well to this approach).

 

Anyway, they say "there is nothing new under the sun"

 

Nick

[Free]

This post reminds me of some old pair I played against which played every 2♣ overcall as a semi GF hand (and obviously 4♣ was always g3rb3r)! Your thoughts are really old fashioned... Distribution is important, points can easily be shown with a Dbl if opponents keep bidding.