Where do you stop if partner shows nothing?

[kgr]

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=sakjxxhaqxxdxxcaq]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

(1♦)-2♦!!-(P)-2♥

(p)-3♦-(DBL)-P

(p)-4♥-All pass

 

2♦=both majors, from 4-4, strength like overcall or better.

3♦=Not discussed, but clearly an invite for 4

4♥=♠Q and a 4-card ♥ could be enough for 4♥, so I better bid it myself.

...Comments?

[655321]

Abstain, hate the methods.

[P_Marlowe]

You did bid the game on your own.

The hand is not nearly strong enoughfor

this, 3D followed by 3H after the X would

be more than enough.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Hanoi5]

I would have x 1♦ and shown spades if partner had bid clubs. On the present auction I would have bid 3♥.

[jdonn]

If the cuebid only promised 4-4 then it seems clear to me to bid 2♠ over 2♥ in case partner is 3-3 in the majors or something. That should also show extra values.

[Free]

You have to bid 2♦ with 20HCP???

 

I agree with Josh that 2♠ is a lot better than 3♦.

[whereagles]

I'm ok with 3♦. Over the dbl, 3♠ seems normal.

[kgr]

Abstain, hate the methods.

I don't understand this. You can also DBL as take-out iso 2♦ if you want.

What exactly do you think is so bad of the method?

[Winstonm]

If the cuebid only promised 4-4 then it seems clear to me to bid 2♠ over 2♥ in case partner is 3-3 in the majors or something. That should also show extra values.

Stop the quiz. This is the right answer.

[helene_t]

If the cuebid only promised 4-4 then it seems clear to me to bid 2♠ over 2♥ in case partner is 3-3 in the majors or something. That should also show extra values.

Right. But maybe 20 points is a little much for 2♠. Then again, game may not be on if we don't have a fit.

[mikeh]

Silly methods... why not double first?

 

Anyway, a partnership that plays this method probably hasn't discussed what partner's pass of the double of 3♦ shows, but experienced partnerships do discuss this situation... it arises quite often.

 

While I am not claiming that the way I and my partners play it is standard, I do think that it is reasonably common to play that the weakest call partner could have made would be to have bid 3♥... thus, pass shows a little more than a minimum.. and thus this would be enough to get me to bid game.

 

I stress that I very much doubt that the OP played this, and I concur with those who dislike the method, and who suggest that (if forced to play this) bidding 2♠ over 2♥ makes sense... this hand has 20 hcp, but it is not that good a hand without a real fit, and nothing about this auction, to that point, suggested a real fit.

[kgr]

Silly methods... why not double first?

 

Anyway, a partnership that plays this method ...

 

..and I concur with those who dislike the method,..

I can understand that you prefer DBL over 2♦ and that the bid I choose was very very bad and utterly stupid, but I don't understand how you can say that you dislike the method when I only said that 2♦ shows both majors. I don't see how it can be that much worse then f.i. 2♦ showing 5-5 majors.

...so if you say 3 times that it is a very bad method, can you explain why?

 

While I am not claiming that the way I and my partners play it is standard, I do think that it is reasonably common to play that the weakest call partner could have made would be to have bid 3♥... thus, pass shows a little more than a minimum.. and thus this would be enough to get me to bid game.

 

I stress that I very much doubt that the OP played this,

I agreed this with my partner (if forced to fi 3♥ then bidding 3♥ is weaker then pass), but he forgot it.

[gnasher]

Silly methods... why not double first?

The methods allow you to bid 2D-2H-2S with a strong 5-4 in the majors, and double-2C-2S with a good hand that doesn't contain five spades. Playing standard Michaels, double-2C-2S has to cover both hand types.

 

There are good reasons for disliking these methods, but on this hand I'd be grateful for the extra definition.

[MFA]

Since partner could easily be equally long in the majors, it doesn't make sense to insist on hearts.

 

One option is to bid 2♠ over 2♥. I don't know these methods very well, but it seems likely that we are too strong for that.

 

Then we could bid 3♦, 3♣ or 3♠ whatever these means. It's worth discussing, if we should play this convention! I think it's sensible to define 3♦ as a gametry+ with longer spades, so we could pass partner's 3♥. Absent agreements, I would surely try 3♠ instead of 4♥.

[mikeh]

Silly methods... why not double first?

 

Anyway, a partnership that plays this method ...

 

..and I concur with those who dislike the method,..

I can understand that you prefer DBL over 2♦ and that the bid I choose was very very bad and utterly stupid, but I don't understand how you can say that you dislike the method when I only said that 2♦ shows both majors. I don't see how it can be that much worse then f.i. 2♦ showing 5-5 majors.

...so if you say 3 times that it is a very bad method, can you explain why?

 

While I am not claiming that the way I and my partners play it is standard, I do think that it is reasonably common to play that the weakest call partner could have made would be to have bid 3♥... thus, pass shows a little more than a minimum.. and thus this would be enough to get me to bid game.

 

I stress that I very much doubt that the OP played this,

I agreed this with my partner (if forced to fi 3♥ then bidding 3♥ is weaker then pass), but he forgot it.

You described the cue as 'strength like overcall' 4-4 or better in the majors.

 

You used it with 20 hcp and AKJxx in spades, in addition to the hearts. I asked why not double? You haven't responded to that question.

 

I like wide ranging overcalls, but 20 hcp with a decent 5 card spade suit is too good a hand for me, and, I suspect, for most. I assume that we would make the same initial call with 6 or 7 points, and maybe less, especially if 5-5 in the majors.. of course, vulnerability would matter... and, if so, then I am worried that we may never really be able to show this hand... our range is too great...and not merely in hcp but also in shape. There is a huge difference, in my opinion, between 5-5 (or better) and 4-4 or better. The differences are defensive as well as offensive AKxx AKxx xx xxx is far worse offensively and far better defensively (against a minor contract) than AKxxx AKxxx x xx. So I disagree with your notion that this treatment is equivalent to using the cue bid as 5-5.

 

However, to have a detailed discussion does require that we know why double is anti-systemic.

[brianshark]

What's with all the people advocating double instead of 2♦? You have a Major 2-suiter and you have a way of immediately showing a Major 2-suiter which is not limited in strength so why would you not use it?

 

Regarding how high you should bid, I agree with JDonn about 2♠, but it's clear you shouldn't be bidding to 4 on your own as that would show a hand that has 10 tricks in it's own hand opposite as little as 3-card preference and was looking for slam. Even with ♠Q and 4 hearts (very idealistic) game is not cold. And partner can find a bid with as little as a Q in your suit and 4 card support.

[kgr]

...

 

However, to have a detailed discussion does require that we know why double is anti-systemic.

DBL is not anti-systemic.

..I thought about it and I know think it is far better to start with a DBL with a strong hand.

For me the problem is not that 2D would to too wide ranging - it is forcing anyway - but rather that partner is supposed to choose a Major. And with this strong hand you prefer to have an idea of partner's length in the suit bid (eg if he has 3=3=4=4, 2=2=4=5...).

I think we can agree that even with the 2♦ bid available that DBL is a better start.

(Partner had 2=3=4=4 hand and no useful points).

[han]

Playing this gadget I agree that 2D followed by 2S should work out well, but I don't understand why you would play it. Note that you are behind every time you pick up a true Michaels hand since the rest of the room is showing at least 5-5 and you are showing 4-4. Maybe you do ok when the opponents leave you alone but if it goes (1D) - 2D - (4D) then partner would really like to know you are 5-5.

[kgr]

Playing this gadget I agree that 2D followed by 2S should work out well, but I don't understand why you would play it. Note that you are behind every time you pick up a true Michaels hand since the rest of the room is showing at least 5-5 and you are showing 4-4. Maybe you do ok when the opponents leave you alone but if it goes (1D) - 2D - (4D) then partner would really like to know you are 5-5.

I agree that we have a disadvantage in the bidding if 5-5 Majors (If 15+ and 5-5 then we bid 3♦). But I think that 4-4/4-5 is more frequent then 5-5.

[cherdano]

Playing this gadget I agree that 2D followed by 2S should work out well, but I don't understand why you would play it. Note that you are behind every time you pick up a true Michaels hand since the rest of the room is showing at least 5-5 and you are showing 4-4. Maybe you do ok when the opponents leave you alone but if it goes (1D) - 2D - (4D) then partner would really like to know you are 5-5.

I agree that we have a disadvantage in the bidding if 5-5 Majors (If 15+ and 5-5 then we bid 3♦). But I think that 4-4/4-5 is more frequent then 5-5.

Well, the rest of us also have a bid for 4-4 majors. It is called "double".

More seriously, what do you play double as?

[mikeh]

Playing this gadget I agree that 2D followed by 2S should work out well, but I don't understand why you would play it. Note that you are behind every time you pick up a true Michaels hand since the rest of the room is showing at least 5-5 and you are showing 4-4. Maybe you do ok when the opponents leave you alone but if it goes (1D) - 2D - (4D) then partner would really like to know you are 5-5.

I agree that we have a disadvantage in the bidding if 5-5 Majors (If 15+ and 5-5 then we bid 3♦). But I think that 4-4/4-5 is more frequent then 5-5.

no-one argues with this.

 

but, imagine partner with 4 card support for a major, and a weakish shapely hand... if playing with a partner who uses michaels, he can jump to game (or at least compete higher) since he has the protection of a good fit... if partner is strong, maybe the contract makes, if he is weak, maybe it is a good save (btw, this is one reason a lot of michaels players use it with strong or weak, but not intermediate hands.. when done with an intermediate hand, the weak, shapely jump is neither fish nor fowl... too weak to allow a make and too strong to make it a sacrifice).

 

And with a competitive hand, with both opps bidding, entering the auction on a 3 card major, to compete for the partscore, is easy when partner promises a 5 card suit, but dangerous when partner could be 4=4.

 

Generally speaking, the more hand-types, or the more variation within hand-types, permitted in the definition of a competitive bid, the less effective the bid will be, because partner, who is often under pressure if/when both opps bid, has more guessing to do (amongst other consequences). That doesn;t render all wide range methods unsound, but it does suggest that we try to spread the various hand-types across other possible sequences.. which would include, for most of us, the use of double with opening or near opening values and 4=4 in the majors, and (when the minor shapes are unsuitable for a takeout double) a 4 card overcall, or a pass...intending, if appropriate, to bid later. There is no need to bid with every hand, btw :P

[kgr]

Well, the rest of us also have a bid for 4-4 majors. It is called "double".

More seriously, what do you play double as?

DBL is normal takeout with 12+ and the cue bid of the minor can be done with weaker hands (something like 7-12)

[ArtK78]

I am not going to argue about the method used. It is your choice to use this method, and you may very well get some good results using it.

 

However, you have to think about the logic of your calls.

 

2♦ was forcing and showed the majors with a good hand. Fine. You certainly have the majors and a good hand.

 

2♥ - partner is forced to express a preference. He could bid 2♥ on a hand with real hearts or a hand like x x xxxxx xxxxxx.

 

3♦ - a clear overbid. As has already been pointed out, 2♠ would have shown a very good hand with more spades than hearts, since you are forcing partner to bid again at the 3 level with a signficant preference for hearts. That bid happens to show your hand very nicely. 3♦ should show a monster, about 9 playing tricks in the majors - something like AKQTx AKQTx x xx. You can give partner an out at 3♥ in case he has something truely dreadful, like the hand I gave as an example above. Partner should bid game with a zero count with a real fit for one of your suits. Even xx xxx xxxx xxxx might be enough if you really have a 3♦ call. If you had a real good hand with 5 hearts but not quite the absolute monster that the 3♦ call shows you could bid 3♥ to invite game. Something like AKJxx AKJxx xx x would be worth a 3♥ call - this hand is likely to produce 10 tricks opposite QTx of hearts and a doubleton spade. I am sure you can come up with a meaning for a 3♣ call, but that is up to you.

 

Finally, after double - pass - pass you bid game. That was the worst bid of the auction. If partner couldn't bid game over 3♦, then there was no game on your hand.

[jdonn]

2♦ was forcing and showed the majors with a good hand.  Fine.  You certainly have the majors and a good hand.

You might want to reread the post right before yours.

 

2♥ - partner is forced to express a preference.  He could bid 2♥ on a hand with real hearts or a hand like x x xxxxx xxxxxx.

I would surely pass the 2♦ bid before partner goes nuts. If he has an absolutely certain game in hand then sorry partner!

 

3♦ - a clear overbid.

Even though I advocated 2♠, I do think it's close. It's not like you need game in hand to bid 3♦. In competition you just have to take a chance on a little bit of help sometimes.

[Winstonm]

Even though I advocated 2♠, I do think it's close. It's not like you need game in hand to bid 3♦.

 

This hand isn't all that wonderful when you look at it. 5-losers and flat shape. If partner is broke, 9 tricks is probably impossible without an 8-card fit.