Style of overcalling I

[vincit]

What is your style of overcalling when making a michael's Q-bid

What about frequency?

[Fluffy]

I play preemptive or almost GF, to avoid the problem of partner just giving a preference opponents passing and having no bid.

 

But vulneralbe when it comits to the 3 level I am switching to intermediate or strong

[MFA]

Pretty wide range, a reasonable hand or better. I usually explain it as just below opening strength or better. And always 5-5. N vs V we start a bit lower. At the 3-level a Michaels shows an opening hand for sure with ok suits.

Our style is to bid aggressively opposite the Michaels, so that 'Michael' doesn't have to bid again unless he has significant extras.

 

I don't like a weak or very strong approach. The intermediate hands are very common and the most valuable hands to use the convention with.

[gwnn]

Intermediate (=almost opening strength) or better. Weak or strong I've never understood. Also I like 1M-(2M) as always major+clubs.

[paulg]

Pretty wide range, a reasonable hand or better. I usually explain it as just below opening strength or better. And always 5-5. N vs V we start a bit lower. At the 3-level a Michaels shows an opening hand for sure with ok suits.

Our style is to bid aggressively opposite the Michaels, so that 'Michael' doesn't have to bid again unless he has significant extras.

 

I don't like a weak or very strong approach. The intermediate hands are very common and the most valuable hands to use the convention with.

Exactly the same style for me. I also play specific 2-suiters (using cue bid, 3♣ and 2NT).

 

Paul

[Phil]

Pretty wide range, a reasonable hand or better. I usually explain it as just below opening strength or better. And always 5-5. N vs V we start a bit lower. At the 3-level a Michaels shows an opening hand for sure with ok suits.

Our style is to bid aggressively opposite the Michaels, so that 'Michael' doesn't have to bid again unless he has significant extras.

 

I don't like a weak or very strong approach. The intermediate hands are very common and the most valuable hands to use the convention with.

Agree. This, I believe is the modern style.

 

Playing 2N as an invitational hand and 3♣ as p/c is important in this style.

[ArtK78]

Wide range. Show distribution first, power second.

[aguahombre]

I guess the poll did not define "weak", so I voted differently than I use the bid.

 

I thought weak was just below or barely opening ---lower was comic -- and intermediate meant a decent opening hand. In that context, weak or very strong works for me.

[Cascade]

Always constructive.

 

Nominally we play this as 10+. However this varies a little by vulnerability. Something like KJTxx KJTxx would probably qualify at most vulnerabilities if we are not forcing to the three-level. Perhaps even a little ligher at favourable.

 

I strongly think it is wrong to bid Michaels with weak hands especially vulnerable where the reality is the hand almost always belongs to the opponents and we are just giving them information on how to play the hand.

 

I could be convinced that weak is ok at favourable.

[y66]

5-5 or better, any strength. Why? For frequency.

 

When I have a weak hand, all my strength is concentrated in my suits. What is weak? I'll q bid 2C with QJxxx, QJxxx, xx, x. Perhaps this is not wise at unfavorable. Still do it though.

[shevek]

Not relevant but we bid 2♣ over 1♣ with

 

♠7   ♥KT5   ♦A76   ♣KJT853

 

These hands are awkward for us if we have to pass and awkward for them if we bid. For instance, they always seem unsure about double.

Of course we have to bid 1♠ with 5-5 majors. We don't use the so-called "French Michaels" of 2♦ over 1♣ to show majors. That's another natural overcall we don't wish to forgo.

Sure, bidding 1♠ on 5-5s endangers the heart fit but losses have been rare -- can't recall any. Two boss suits usually equals a second chance.

 

However, we use (1♦) - 2♦ as Michaels. Simulations suggest that hands worth a natural 2♦ overcall are a bit too rare.

[peachy]

Either weak or strong, "normal" strength hands like about 10-14 (much depends on actual shape and location of the values) overcall naturally. For me, the aim of the Michaels bid is typically to find a sac or a game, not to just give free distribution info to the opponents while partner is in the dark as to what the Michaels bidder's values are.

 

There are many Michaels styles in all skill levels. I like this one because it seems to work.

[Cascade]

Not relevant but we bid 2♣ over 1♣ with

 

♠7   ♥KT5   ♦A76   ♣KJT853

 

These hands are awkward for us if we have to pass and awkward for them if we bid. For instance, they always seem unsure about double.

Of course we have to bid 1♠ with 5-5 majors. We don't use the so-called "French Michaels" of 2♦ over 1♣ to show majors. That's another natural overcall we don't wish to forgo.

Sure, bidding 1♠ on 5-5s endangers the heart fit but losses have been rare -- can't recall any. Two boss suits usually equals a second chance.

 

However, we use (1♦) - 2♦ as Michaels. Simulations suggest that hands worth a natural 2♦ overcall are a bit too rare.

The losses will come most likely when it goes PASS PASS PASS.

 

The idea of 2♣ natural does cater to a problem hand. It is non-trivial to defend well against a short 1♣ since we have four suits and no trumps that we might want to play in.

[Winstonm]

5-5 or better, any strength. Why? For frequency.

 

I, too, like frequent AiW (Alice in Wonderland) style: it means just what I want it to mean when I bid it and not one thing more! (Which makes it extremely convenient to frequently assign blame to partner because if he doesn't guess right it is always his fault.)

[aguahombre]

5-5 or better, any strength. Why? For frequency.

 

I, too, like frequent AiW (Alice in Wonderland) style: it means just what I want it to mean when I bid it and not one thing more! (Which makes it extremely convenient to frequently assign blame to partner because if he doesn't guess right it is always his fault.)

<_< Love it.

[Codo]

Like Gonzalo I play the old fashioned weak/strong approach. This is outdated, but I still like it and have no problem in bidding my intermedeate two suiters naturally.