Taking the Micky

[nige1]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sjxxxhtxxdxxcqtxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

(_P) _P (1♠) 2♠

(_P) ??

2♠ = Michaels [/hv]

[han]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sjxxxhtxxdxxcqtxx]133|100|Scoring: MP

---- -- (_P) _P

(1♠) 2♠ (_P) ??

2♠ = Michaels [/hv]

IMO 3H = 10, 3C = 7, 2NT = 0.

[P_Marlowe]

2NT is out, ... at least if you plan to convert

3D to 3H, because 2NT usually showes at least

inv. values.

 

I would go with 3H direct, you have found a fit,

bid it, dont give the opponents the opportunity

to start doubling.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[the hog]

3H. I guess this question means you had a C fit?

[paulg]

3♣ - no desire to overexcite partner.

[Finch]

I don't understand the 3H bidders. What's wrong with 3C (unless you don't think it is pass-or-correct)? 3C is likely to play much better than 3H if partner has clubs, particularly if hearts are 4-1.

 

I would have thought that an immediately 3H will excite partner more than a gruding preference.

[ArtK78]

Unless you have some unusual agreement as to the meaning of 2NT (in the context of Michaels), 2NT asks partner to bid his minor suit. 3♣ is not pass or correct, it means that you have long clubs and no fit for either red suit.

 

So, if your intention is to play in clubs if partner's minor suit is clubs, you have to bid 2NT (with the intention of correcting 3♦ to 3♥).

 

Personally, I would just bid 3♥ and not mess around trying to locate a club fit.

[Finch]

Unless you have some unusual agreement as to the meaning of 2NT (in the context of Michaels), 2NT asks partner to bid his minor suit. 3♣ is not pass or correct, it means that you have long clubs and no fit for either red suit.

 

So, if your intention is to play in clubs if partner's minor suit is clubs, you have to bid 2NT (with the intention of correcting 3♦ to 3♥).

2NT is out, ... at least if you plan to convert

3D to 3H, because 2NT usually showes at least

inv. values.

 

I see we have the usual uniform agreement as to what is 'usual' and what is 'unusual'

 

 

Let me rephrase: I will play in 3C if partner has clubs, otherwise 3H.

 

For me, that means bidding 3C pass-or-correct because I play that 2NT promises INV+ values. For you, that would mean bidding 2NT.

[peachy]

Unless you have some unusual agreement as to the meaning of 2NT (in the context of Michaels), 2NT asks partner to bid his minor suit. 3♣ is not pass or correct, it means that you have long clubs and no fit for either red suit.

 

So, if your intention is to play in clubs if partner's minor suit is clubs, you have to bid 2NT (with the intention of correcting 3♦ to 3♥).

 

Personally, I would just bid 3♥ and not mess around trying to locate a club fit.

Such authority in your voice... Many play that 2NT is the only strength showing bid (while also asking for the minor) and 3C or 3D are p/c. The agreement is not unusual.

[ArtK78]

I checked out 10 web sites that discussed Michaels Cue Bids.

 

The first nine stated that 2NT requests partner to bid his minor suit. No further discussion followed (other than example hands).

 

The tenth stated that 2NT over 1♥ -2♥ - P showed invitational values IN SPADES. This tenth website also stated that 3♣ would be pass or correct. Again, no further discussion followed (other than example hands).

 

So, while I continue to assert that the 2NT = bid your minor suit is the most common agreement, and is likely the default agreement (and is also the way that Mike Michaels originally wrote up the bid - see the article on the ACBL website), I cannot dispute that there are players who use 2NT as invitational and 3♣ as pass or correct. I have never seen it in North America (but I don't get around much anymore) and this is an SAYC or 2/1 Forum.

 

The funny thing is that those who play it one way do not seem to recognize that there is another way of playing it.

[Free]

This is MP, just bid 3♥. At imps I'd probably try 3♣.

[han]

Art you are hilarious, we've been through this so many times.

[paulg]

I have never seen it in North America (but I don't get around much anymore) and this is an SAYC or 2/1 Forum.

Maybe we should just move this forum to a North American board in the International Section?

 

With the advantage that us aliens would probably comment less.

 

Paul

[ArtK78]

I suppose that quoting the man who invented the bid is not relevant. Mike Michaels states (in an article posted on the ACBL website) that 2NT asks for partner to bid his minor suit.

[jdonn]

I suppose that quoting the man who invented the bid is not relevant.  Mike Michaels states (in an article posted on the ACBL website) that 2NT asks for partner to bid his minor suit.

You should see how Sam Stayman describes the responses and followups to Stayman, it makes for entertaining reading!

 

I have to admit no bid but 3♥ would really occur to me. Which is not to say I don't see the point of bidding 3♣ instead.

[ArtK78]

Anyone who knows anything about Sam Stayman knows that he was only a fair player and that he didn't invent the bid named for him.

[jdonn]

Anyone who knows anything about Sam Stayman knows that he was only a fair player and that he didn't invent the bid named for him.

I'll give a multiple choice quiz:

 

A - You think George Rapee played the followups to Stayman differently than his partner did, or would have described them differently.

B - When discussing a WBF Grand Master with 20 NABC championships and 14 runner up finishes who is a member of the Bridge Hall of Fame and who won three world championships including the first Bermuda Bowl, you believe that claiming he was only a fair player makes you seem smarter.

C - You enjoy distracting from the obvious point that was being implied when it shows your prior post to have been ridiculous.

D - All of the above.

 

I'll be reasonable and answer C.

[kenrexford]

I like:

 

2NT asks for minor. If Advancer has a weak hand with long diamonds, he corrects the quite-likely 3♣ to a drop-dead 3♦.

 

3♣ shows weak with long diamonds.

 

3♦ is invitational.

 

2NT...3♥ shows either that partner bid the wrong minor for game purposes (and that Advancer had a fit-dependent hand) or that partner did not have the minor of interest (this hand).

[ArtK78]

Anyone who knows anything about Sam Stayman knows that he was only a fair player and that he didn't invent the bid named for him.

I'll give a multiple choice quiz:

 

A - You think George Rapee played the followups to Stayman differently than his partner did, or would have described them differently.

B - When discussing a WBF Grand Master with 20 NABC championships and 14 runner up finishes who is a member of the Bridge Hall of Fame and who won three world championships including the first Bermuda Bowl, you believe that claiming he was only a fair player makes you seem smarter.

C - You enjoy distracting from the obvious point that was being implied when it shows your prior post to have been ridiculous.

D - All of the above.

 

I'll be reasonable and answer C.

Ask anyone you know who might be a contemporary of Sam Stayman. You might be surprised.

[the hog]

Unless you have some unusual agreement as to the meaning of 2NT (in the context of Michaels), 2NT asks partner to bid his minor suit. 3♣ is not pass or correct, it means that you have long clubs and no fit for either red suit.

 

So, if your intention is to play in clubs if partner's minor suit is clubs, you have to bid 2NT (with the intention of correcting 3♦ to 3♥).

 

Personally, I would just bid 3♥ and not mess around trying to locate a club fit.

Not for me and not for anyone I know. 3C is played as Pass/correct and 2NT shows invit values +

[awm]

I like 3♥. It is true that 3♣ might play better, however bidding 3♣ is more likely to help opponents find their diamond fit (if we have a club fit they have a big diamond fit) and also more likely to lead to opponents doubling for penalty (3♣...3♥ sounds like a grudging preference, direct 3♥ sounds like a real fit).

[655321]

I think Han is the only poster who has properly addressed the subject.

[peachy]

I checked out 10 web sites that discussed Michaels Cue Bids.

 

The first nine stated that 2NT requests partner to bid his minor suit. No further discussion followed (other than example hands).

 

The tenth stated that 2NT over 1♥ -2♥ - P showed invitational values IN SPADES. This tenth website also stated that 3♣ would be pass or correct. Again, no further discussion followed (other than example hands).

 

So, while I continue to assert that the 2NT = bid your minor suit is the most common agreement, and is likely the default agreement (and is also the way that Mike Michaels originally wrote up the bid - see the article on the ACBL website), I cannot dispute that there are players who use 2NT as invitational and 3♣ as pass or correct. I have never seen it in North America (but I don't get around much anymore) and this is an SAYC or 2/1 Forum.

 

The funny thing is that those who play it one way do not seem to recognize that there is another way of playing it.

My point was to disagree that the agreement to use 3C as p/c and 2NT to "BOTH ask for the minor AND show a strong hand" is an UNUSUAL AGREEMENT. It is not unusual IMO, I have seen it used that way by others and use it myself with one partner.

[skjaeran]

Add me in on 3♣ p/c, 2NT=asking showing values. That's how I've always played it (though these days I play 1M-2M as OM+♣), and it's more or less standard where I play, I believe.

 

It's the same thing as playing 2-suited 2M openings showing the bid major and a minor. You should play 2NT as a valueshowing (inv+) asking bid and 3♣ as p/c.

 

This is an approach where you give yourself space to investigate and at the same time involve partner (essential if opps bid).

[benlessard]

I think 3C as P/C is superior because it doesnt allow a free double of 2Nt.

 

(1S)----2S------(P)-------2Nt

????

 

 

allowing the almost free double here is costly.