Michaels

[fan13027]

I feel like a complete novice asking this question, but I have searched several sources and have not found an answer nor have I found any specific examples of this situation.

 

The specifics of the hand are not important, just looking for rules (or guidelines) in how to correctly use Michaels CueBid in this situation.

 

I was playing with a "pickup" partner in a tourney at BBO. Dealer is South, and opens 1♦. I am West and Pass. North responds 2♣. East has 5-5 in the majors. What is the correct cuebid -- is it 3♣ or 2♦?

 

Actual results :D South passed after East's 3♣ bid, I was confused (and did what I always do when confused) and passed. North also passed. Result=E3♣-7 vulnerable -- it was a most humbling experience. Thankfully my partner was gracious enough to reply with a "npp - we'll do better next time".

 

Had East bid 2♦ I would have interpreted THAT (rightly or wrongly) as Michaels. What should the bidding have been?

[han]

I would play 2D as Michaels in this auction. There are more auctions where the opponents have both bid a suit and it isn't quite clear which is "the cuebid". For example, after 1C - 1S I would play that both 2C and 2S are natural even though the opponents have bid both of these suits. However, if they bid 1H - 1S (with 1H showing 5) then I would play 2H as Michaels. In both of these auctions 2NT would show the two unbid suits.

 

It was probably not a good idea to pass 3C (given that the opponents bid 2C) but bridge is a humbling game, and everybody ends up in a silly spot every now and then. While we all should react as your partner did, not everybody would so I would definitely mark him or her as friend and see if you really can do better next time. :D

[jdonn]

You have a very nice partner.

[vuroth]

You have a very nice partner.

Agreed.

 

I would consider myself a decent intermediate, but I had no idea what the right answer was. I agree with han, though, that it's made even more complicated by the fact that sometimes minor suit bids don't show a real suit, so bidding them can sometimes be natural.

 

Good question.

 

V

[fan13027]

I would consider myself a decent intermediate, but I had no idea what the right answer was.

Well I consider myself as a "beginning" intermediate, and clearly I had no idea what the answer was either! ;)

 

But the question remains ... can anyone point me to a resource (preferably online) where I can read/research further to find out what would be considered "standard" or "normal" in this situation when the partnership has no specific prior understanding or agreement regarding use of the convention? Or, is there just no such thing as "standard" in this situation?

[ArtK78]

Maybe I am missing something.

 

The bidding is:

 

(1♦) - P - (2♣) - ?

 

Fourth hand has 5-5 in the majors.

 

It seems to me that the correct call is either:

 

1) Double with a good hand with 5-5 in the majors (or 5-4 or 4-5 or 4-4).

2) 2NT if you want to show distribution without power.

 

I would think that after (1♦) - P - (2♣), 2♦ would be natural.

[TylerE]

A good general rule of thumb is that when aren't sure what a bid shows, it is forcing.

[fan13027]

It seems to me that the correct call is either:

 

1)  Double with a good hand with 5-5 in the majors (or 5-4 or 4-5 or 4-4).

2)  2NT if you want to show distribution without power.

My original question was regarding the correct (or normally accepted - if there is such a thing) usage of Micheals CueBid in this situation.

 

Now, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Michaels should not even be used at all in this situation.

 

I'm getting more confused by the second ;)

[pclayton]

It seems to me that the correct call is either:

 

1)  Double with a good hand with 5-5 in the majors (or 5-4 or 4-5 or 4-4).

2)  2NT if you want to show distribution without power.

My original question was regarding the correct (or normally accepted - if there is such a thing) usage of Micheals CueBid in this situation.

 

Now, if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Michaels should not even be used at all in this situation.

 

I'm getting more confused by the second ;)

The general rule regarding action by the fourth seat bidder:

 

I'll assume a five card majors environment.

 

1. If the opening is three or more cards (or less), a bid of their suit is natural;

2. If the opening is five or more cards, a bid of their suit is conventional.

3. A bid of responder's suit is always natural.

 

4. In the case of 1x - 1y, 2N shows the unbid suits.

5. In the case of 1x - 1N, 2N shows the minors.

6. In the case of 1x - 2x, 2N shows two places to play (or it can be natural, depending on agreement).

 

So:

 

A. After 1♣ - pass - 1♥

 

--2♣ and 2♥ are natural.

 

--2N (or double) show spades and diamonds.

 

 

B, After 1♥ - pass - 1N - ?

 

2♥ is Michaels and 2N is the minors

 

 

These are the easy cases. Where confusion sets in is when there is a conflict in the rules.

 

1♥ - pass - 1♠ - ?

 

I would take 2♥ as spades and a minor and 2N as the minors.

 

 

1♠ - pass - 2♣ - ?

 

This is a true conflict. You can't have 2♠ and 2N to both mean "hearts and diamonds". At the table, I would probably take both to mean this without prior discussion.

 

 

In your auction, I would take 2♦ as natural (since 1♦ only promises 3) and 2N as the majors.

[ASkolnick]

I happen to agree with Art, but there are two theories you could use:

 

1) When the opponents show 2 suits, you have two options to "take-out" your opponents

X: Shows the other 2 suits with power.

XNT: Shows the other 2 suits with distribution. Since you have distribution, you don't want your partner to leave the double in.

 

So, the auction

 

P-1C-P-1S

1N (Shows D and H). Some would even play this if you are not a passed hand.

Dbl (Shows D and H) and a better hand.

 

An advantage of this is you can now play, 1C-P-1S-2S (As natural) as well as 1C-P-1S-2C (Also as natural).

 

2) Bid Lower ranking suit is michaels.

 

1D-P-2C-2D (Michaels)

 

You lose out on a natural 2D call, but you gained a level since the distribution would

need to be bid on the 3 level.

 

I use #1, but I am sure #2 is playable as well. So, to answer your question,

You can use Michaels in this auction,

some people do and some people don't but it is just a matter of an agreement with your partner.

[fan13027]

Well, with no disrespect intended towards anyone, I have to say I am beginning to agree with the comments from the original poster at this other topic/thread

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28203

 

This discussion is rapidly going off topic (and way over my head) in that the replies are geared towards how the hand should have been bid and whether or not the use of Michaels was justified/correct in the situation given.

 

Perhaps I did not phrase my original question clearly enough, but the original situation, as given, was that East (rightly or wrongly ) decided to apply Michaels to describe her hand. Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid?

 

To repeat and clarify, the auction went like this, with South as dealer ...

 

South - 1♦

West(Me) - Pass

North - 2♣

East(My Partner and our Partnerships Opening Bid) - 3♣

South - Pass

West - ?

[ArtK78]

In my opinion, the only ways to show the majors after 1♦ - P - 2♣ would be by doubling or by bidding 2NT. In other words, there is no Michaels cue bid here.

 

So, the 3♣ bid has to mean something else.

 

What else could it mean? Here is one suggestion:

 

Bid 3NT if you have clubs stopped. A possible hand:

 

Ax

Ax

AKQJTxx

xx

 

Not very likely, but as Sherlock Holmes once said (and this is probably not a direct quote), "If you eliminate the impossible, then whatever is left, no matter how unlikely, must be true."

 

The only other possibility would be long clubs - a preemptive 3♣ bid. That is not unlikely. I know of one pair in my area which likes to make 2/1 bids in clubs on 2 and 3 card holdings. So, it is possible that fourth hand might have long clubs.

[vuroth]

fan13027, do you play Michael's, but NOT Unusual 2NT? A lot of people see them as the same basic idea, and thus conceptually interchangeable.

 

The main reason that Unusual 2NT and Michael's exist is that, over a single bid suit, there are 3 suits to show, and 3 possible 5-5s (AB, AC, BC). Over 2 suits bid, there are only 2 unbid suits, so only 1 possible 5-5 in the unbid suits. So what would Michael's show that Unusal 2NT wouldn't?

 

Ergo, at least what some people are saying, both 2♦ and 3♣ would be natural.

 

Trying to understand here....

[pclayton]

Fan13027:

 

This is understandable. You are getting a lot of divergent opinions. Bridge is like that, since in different parts of the world, things are done differently.

 

Some of the best partnerships mess these auctions up. Michael Rosenberg and Zia played in a 1-3 fit at the four level last year in an important tournament.

 

More thoughts:

 

...whether or not the use of Michaels was justified/correct in the situation given.

We don't know if Michaels is justifed here or not until you post the hand.

 

Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid?

 

Several posters, including me, have suggested that perhaps neither 2♦ nor 3♣ is appropriate in the given auction to show the majors.

 

Earlier you said:

I have searched several sources and have not found an answer nor have I found any specific examples of this situation.

 

Maybe because there isn't a consensus?

[awm]

I'd say that Michaels applies only in the auctions:

 

1♣-2♣

1♦-2♦

1♥-2♥

1♠-2♠

 

It does not apply in any other situations.

 

Now obviously, there are many other situations where you might bid a suit the opponents have shown. In some of these situations it will be obvious that your bid should not be natural (typically when opponents have shown at least five cards in that suit); in other situations it may be ambiguous whether your bid should be natural or not.

 

In these other situations it is helpful to have an agreement about the meaning of bidding the opponents suit. There are some default rules that I'd assume opposite an expert partner without discussion. But in any case I would not say that these bids "are Michaels" or that an agreement to play "Michaels cuebids" implies any particular meaning for these calls.

[pclayton]

I'd say that Michaels applies only in the auctions:

 

1♣-2♣

1♦-2♦

1♥-2♥

1♠-2♠

 

It does not apply in any other situations.

 

Now obviously, there are many other situations where you might bid a suit the opponents have shown. In some of these situations it will be obvious that your bid should not be natural (typically when opponents have shown at least five cards in that suit); in other situations it may be ambiguous whether your bid should be natural or not.

 

In these other situations it is helpful to have an agreement about the meaning of bidding the opponents suit. There are some default rules that I'd assume opposite an expert partner without discussion. But in any case I would not say that these bids "are Michaels" or that an agreement to play "Michaels cuebids" implies any particular meaning for these calls.

Well, you can call it what you will, but Michaels extends way belong direct cue bids of a one bid, just as Unusual 2N does.

 

Unusual 2N can:

 

Be a jump or a non-jump,

 

Can be 2N, 4N, 5N, 1N and even 3N,

 

Can be in the direct seat, or in certain balancing seats.

 

 

Michaels isn't as universal, but its not inaccurate to call

 

(1♥) - pass - (1N) - 2♥ or

 

(3♥) - 4♥

 

and similar auctions as Michaels.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Perhaps I did not phrase my original question clearly enough, but the original situation, as given, was that East (rightly or wrongly ) decided to apply Michaels to describe her hand. Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid?

No.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[fan13027]

In other words, there is no Michaels cue bid here.

 

and also from awm

I'd say that Michaels applies only in the auctions ... It does not apply in any other situations.

 

It is getting very frustrating here, but I will give it one last attempt. After that I will probably be gone from here abandoning all hope of ever learning anything in these forums. Let me try, once again, to make it clear ... my question is not IF Michaels should be applied but HOW Michaels should be applied.

 

Let me try to draw a completely different (and entirely arbitrary) scenario here and pose my question once more ...

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=shd765432cakqjt98&w=shakqjt98765432dc&e=sakqjt98765432hdc&s=shdakqjt98c765432]399|300|[/hv]

 

You are East. The bidding goes like this ...

 

South - 1♦

West (for some inexplicable reason) - PASS

North - 2♣

 

Your bid! Despite the obvious advantages to your bidding 7♠ at this point, I am standing behind you (kibitzing) with a loaded gun in my hand pointed against the back of your head and I say "Bid Michaels Cue Bid and do it in such a manner that, regardless of who your partner is and regardless of their skill level, they are MOST LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND your bid to mean Michaels describing your hand as 5-5 in majors or you are a dead man!".

 

What is your bid?

[cherdano]

I don't care about finding a bit "regardless of who partner is and their skill level". Maybe it's a nice game you want to play, but I prefer bridge.

[ArtK78]

fan13027, I am sorry. In my opinion, there is no Michaels cue bid after both opponents have bid.

 

Michaels cue bid only applies in direct seat over an opening bid.

 

Phil has suggested otherwise. He suggested 1♥ - P - 1NT - 2♥ would be a Michaels Cue Bid. While I will say that this makes some sense, I do not agree that 2♥ on this auction is a Michaels Cue Bid unless the partnership has explicitly agreed that it is.

 

So, in saying that someone put a gun to my head and asked me to properly apply a Michaels Cue Bid after the auction 1♦ - P - 2♣, you might as well be saying that I should properly employ an opening 1NT bid after the auction 1♦ - P - 2♣.

 

It cannot be done. There is no Michaels Cue Bid on this auction.

[fan13027]

fan13027, do you play Michael's, but NOT Unusual 2NT?

No indeed! I play both, as did my partner in this scenario ... at least according to her BBO profile.

 

And had she bid 2NT I would have understood. That was the point of my original question ... not whether Michaels was appropriate in the situation or not. My partner (beyond my control) chose to describe her hand (which held 5-5 in majors) with Michaels. Her bid after (1♦) - P - (2♣) was 3♣.

 

The original question was, considering her intent to bid Michaels, was 3♣ a correct bid or would 2♦ have been better?

[Echognome]

fan13027, do you play Michael's, but NOT Unusual 2NT?

No indeed! I play both, as did my partner in this scenario ... at least according to her BBO profile.

 

And had she bid 2NT I would have understood. That was the point of my original question ... not whether Michaels was appropriate in the situation or not. My partner (beyond my control) chose to describe her hand (which held 5-5 in majors) with Michaels. Her bid after (1♦) - P - (2♣) was 3♣.

 

The original question was, considering her intent to bid Michaels, was 3♣ a correct bid or would 2♦ have been better?

I think, perhaps, the answer you are looking for is "2NT would have been better".

[jdonn]

Your bid! Despite the obvious advantages to your bidding 7♠ at this point, I am standing behind you (kibitzing) with a loaded gun in my hand pointed against the back of your head and I say "Bid Michaels Cue Bid and do it in such a manner that, regardless of who your partner is and regardless of their skill level, they are MOST LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND your bid to mean Michaels describing your hand as 5-5 in majors or you are a dead man!".

 

What is your bid?

I call the director of course.

 

Phil has suggested otherwise.  He suggested 1♥ - P - 1NT - 2♥ would be a Michaels Cue Bid.  While I will say that this makes some sense, I do not agree that 2♥ on this auction is a Michaels Cue Bid unless the partnership has explicitly agreed that it is.

I could not disagree more. Anyone who bids 2♥ there undiscussed intending it as natural in front of the five card major opener is so illogical that I can't believe they really exist. You are allowed to use common sense, nothing else but Michaels makes any sense there.

[fan13027]

<snip>

Perhaps I did not phrase my original question clearly enough, but the original situation, as given, was that East (rightly or wrongly ) decided to apply Michaels to describe her hand. Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid?

No.

I'm beginning to think people are being deliberately obtuse here ... I asked an either/or ( a pick one of these two) question and the reply I get is NO?

[jdonn]

<snip>

Perhaps I did not phrase my original question clearly enough, but the original situation, as given, was that East (rightly or wrongly ) decided to apply Michaels to describe her hand. Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid?

No.

I'm beginning to think people are being deliberately obtuse here ... I asked an either/or ( a pick one of these two) question and the reply I get is NO?

The answer "no" there means "neither of your either/or choices are correct". I don't think that is being obtuse.