Michaels

[gwnn]

wow this is genius I never would have thought of it (I had similar concerns as mich_:unsure:. 2NT as highest+lowest... great stuff I will definitely try it.. what do you do with both minors over 1M from the right? what are your general experiences? do you play the same over 1m?

[gnasher]

wow this is genius I never would have thought of it (I had similar concerns as mich_:unsure:. 2NT as highest+lowest... great stuff I will definitely try it..

I'll pass that on to the person who suggested it to me. But let's not go overboard: it makes two hands easier to bid whilst making another rather harder.

 

what do you do with both minors over 1M from the right?

Bid one and then decide whether to bid the other. That's less than ideal, obviously.

 

what are your general experiences?

I don't have a list of triumphs to offer you, I'm afraid. I just know I no longer face any awkward guesses after (1M) 2M (4M).

 

do you play the same over 1m?

Yes. Of course, everybody already plays specific two-suiters over 1m; the only difference is that I use 2NT to show spades + the other minor, rather than hearts + the other minor.

[Free]

I never bid 1M 2M with bad hands, I always just overcall or pass, so I guess mine are intermediate or strong? Seems like a bad idea to make 2 suited bids on terrible hands that drive you to the 3 level.

 

For 1m-2m though I'm a big fan of having a very wide range, with the majors there's a lot more reason to get in, and you only force to the 2 level.

What about the borderline case 1♥-2♥? You can still play at 2-level, but you might as well be forced to the 3-level if partner doesn't have a ♠ fit.

[blackshoe]

Max Hardy, Competitive Bidding With Two Suited Hands.

[Fluffy]

I've been latelly playing 3♣ shows highest+lowest, poor clubs, they always become artificial, nobody likes them :)

 

So far all I got from this is a bad result due to forgetting the system, and a good result due to forgetting the system lol.

[nick_s]

I've wondered about using 1NT to show the other 2-suiter. Does anyone else think this is reasonable?

[bluecalm]

More more world class pairs doesn't use "micheals" anymore. They use ghestem and variations. I think bidding 2 suiter without known second suit is pointless as you won't know about fit in most deals anyway (if they compete) and you can't make any fast action to make life difficult for them. On the other hand you make it very easy for them in if they end up playing the hand.

Some pairs which play Ghestem (or similar) 2suiters:

 

All italians:

Fantoni - Nunes

Lauria - Versace

Duboin - Sementa

 

Helgemo - Helness

Brogeland - Lindqvist

Garner - Weinstein (other variation, 1H-2S = S/D)

Brink - Drijver

Fallenius - Fredin (yet another variation)

 

I would prefer to play all cuebids as highest + lowest and to have no way to directly show others than using it as "micheals". Apparently most elite pairs agree about my assesment of "micheals" :)

[jjbrr]

I'd be shocked if current expert standard is theoretically inferior to anything currently played. michaels seems fine. I'd be eager to learn, though.

[whereagles]

I've been playing a michaels variation with unknown MAJOR, e.g.

 

(1m) 2NT = other m + a major

 

and it's served me fine thus far, even with an undefined range! (Starting from 7 losers.)

[jvage]

More more world class pairs doesn't use "micheals" anymore. They use ghestem and variations. I think bidding 2 suiter without known second suit is pointless as you won't know about fit in most deals anyway (if they compete) and you can't make any fast action to make life difficult for them. On the other hand you make it very easy for them in if they end up playing the hand.

Some pairs which play Ghestem (or similar) 2suiters:

 

All italians:

Fantoni - Nunes

Lauria - Versace

Duboin - Sementa

 

Helgemo - Helness

Brogeland - Lindqvist

Garner - Weinstein (other variation, 1H-2S = S/D)

Brink - Drijver

Fallenius - Fredin (yet another variation)

 

I would prefer to play all cuebids as highest + lowest and to have no way to directly show others than using it as "micheals". Apparently most elite pairs agree about my assesment of "micheals" <_<

I am quite sure that neither Helgemo-Helness nor Brogeland-Lindqvist (the ones on this list that I know) would agree that they play Ghestem. They both play a cuebid of opponents suit as specified suits (both majors/other major+club) and 2NT as the 2 lowest, but they don't have a bid to show the last two-suiter (have to bid each suit naturally).

 

John

 

Edit: After checking their notes I saw that Brogeland-Lindqvist actually use a jump-cue-bid over a minor (not over a major) to show the last two-suiter (spades+other minor). My comment above about not having any way to show the last two-suiter was inaccurate.

[nige1]

A cue-overcall used to designate an artificial game-force (usually a two or three-suiter) before modern conventions like Michaels and Ghestem became popular. I prefer the wide-ranging version of Michaels. It accords with the theory that, in a competitive and pre-emptive auction, reaching the right strain is more important than the right level. You may have the chance to differentiate, later. For example ...

• Pass with normal strength and shape
  
• Bid again with extra shape (A suit with 6-5. Notrump with 6-6).
  
• Double with extra power.
  
• Cue-bid again with extra strength and length.
  

[Free]

I've been playing a michaels variation with unknown MAJOR, e.g.

 

(1m) 2NT = other m + a major

 

and it's served me fine thus far, even with an undefined range! (Starting from 7 losers.)

You also have another variation: Baileys. Don't know if it works good or not (haven't played it, but seems interesting to me). 2NT always shows the 2 lowest unbid suits, cuebid shows the highest unbid suit + another. At least you don't need to look for a Major fit at 3-level, but 1m-2m may be a loser opposite Michaels... :)

[aguahombre]

I'd be shocked if current expert standard is theoretically inferior to anything currently played. michaels seems fine. I'd be eager to learn, though.

Bluecalm's observations seem to apply to several non-ACBL world class pairs.

 

I checked the 2009 CC's of some ACBL pairs, that I could find:

 

Bates/Sontag; Cohen/Berk;Git/Moss;Stansby/Martel;Meckwell --all showed Michaels.

 

Well, sort of: I got a big LOL when I looked at the Git/Moss card. The people on the other thread who bashed the appearance and clarity of Meckwell's hand-written CC should look at the "Direct Cue:" section of Git/Moss :lol:

 

usbf.org/docs/2009usbc/acblcards/GitelmanMoss.jpg

[jjbrr]

I guess I just don't see what the problem is. That CC looks fine to me, too. They seem to play natural over a 1♣ opener, Michaels over 1♦ and astro over majors.

[aguahombre]

I guess I just don't see what the problem is. That CC looks fine to me, too. They seem to play natural over a 1♣ opener, Michaels over 1♦ and astro over majors.

So they put a big "D", not a circle, around the checkbox for Majors to mean they use Mike over one diamond? Ok, then that is clear

[jdonn]

I have no problem understanding it?

[bluecalm]

I am quite sure that neither Helgemo-Helness nor Brogeland-Lindqvist (the ones on this list that I know) would agree that they play Ghestem. They both play a cuebid of opponents suit as specified suits (both majors/other major+club) and 2NT as the 2 lowest, but they don't have a bid to show the last two-suiter (have to bid each suit naturally).

 

By "Ghestem and variations" I meant known 2suiter. I didn't want to imply that all those pairs play 3m jumps as two suiters. Just that their 2suiter bids show specific suits and not one specific, one unknown like michaels.

 

Bates/Sontag; Cohen/Berk;Git/Moss;Stansby/Martel;Meckwell --all showed Michaels.

 

Meckwell is interesting because their cc from 2009 shows that:

 

1c - 3c = strong majors

1d - 3d = strong majors

1s - 2s = H/D or strong H/C

1H - 2H = S - min (classical michaels)

 

I would say they are in "classical michaels" camp though as it seems they don't think having 2 known suits is important.

 

I'd be shocked if current expert standard is theoretically inferior to anything currently played. michaels seems fine. I'd be eager to learn, though.

 

Why, this is how progress happens: expert standard is inferior to something else.

It's hard to say what "expert standard" is by the way, it seems to me that most elite pairs these days don't use michaels anymore but probably it depends on how we define "elite" pair.