Michaels Hand: Bid Right?

[bucky]

I have thought a little and the following schema seems better than the one I posted earlier:

 

 

0-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if mandatory

6-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if voluntary ie. over intervention

6-9hcp and 4 card support = 3 level bid

9hcp+ and 5 card support = 4 level bid

 

without support:

better suit if mandatory

2N asking for minor, where appropriate

2N with 12-13hcp over both majors

3N with 15hcp+

 

 

Could someone please comment on the viability of this proposed schema?

 

Many thanks.

Depending on your level (and your partner's). This is a playable scheme for beginners, but once you advanced you will learn that not all HCPs are equal.

[P_Marlowe]

0-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if mandatory

<snip>

without support:

better suit if mandatory

<snip>

This means just bidding on the 2 level the one of the known suits,

does not gurantee a fit.

 

The way you descirbed the agreement set makes it easy to overlook

this.

[gurgistan]

I have thought a little and the following schema seems better than the one I posted earlier:

 

 

0-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if mandatory

6-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if voluntary ie. over intervention

6-9hcp and 4 card support = 3 level bid

9hcp+ and 5 card support = 4 level bid

 

without support:

better suit if mandatory

2N asking for minor, where appropriate

2N with 12-13hcp over both majors

3N with 15hcp+

 

 

Could someone please comment on the viability of this proposed schema?

 

Many thanks.

Depending on your level (and your partner's). This is a playable scheme for beginners, but once you advanced you will learn that not all HCPs are equal.

Thanks for your post bucky.

 

Are you saying I need to be aware just where my HCPs are? It is a better if they are in "our" suits and worse if in the suit bid by the opponent, yes?

[jonottawa]

Recurring theme, people need to open opening hands. 100% blame North.

 

Would never occur to me in a million years to bid game to make with a 4x3 8 count with 5 points in quacks opposite a passed hand. Yes, you have no wastage in diamonds, that's nice. That's not worth a 5 point upgrade.

 

2♠ is fine. Presumably you bid 2♠ hoping to buy it for 2♠.

 

3♠ is frisky but having passed already and with the void I can live with it.

 

I would encourage your partner to open opening hands and leave it at that.

[Bbradley62]

Recurring theme, people need to open opening hands. 100% blame North.

I would have opened North, but...

 

Couldn't the auction go 1♠-(P)-2♠-all pass? The first-seat pass did not doom the auction and a first-seat opener would not have guaranteed it.

[bucky]

Thanks for your post bucky.

 

Are you saying I need to be aware just where my HCPs are? It is a better if they are in "our" suits and worse if in the suit bid by the opponent, yes?

Yes, the honor cards on "your" suits are more useful. In the case that partner showed majors, aces in minor suits are good (but not guaranteed to pull full weight, as partner can easily have void), kings are doubtful, and queens and jacks in minors are usually worthless.

 

But there is also a saying "points shmoints"; the degree of fit with your partner's suit(s) will be a more reliable guidance on how high you should bid. You may want to consider this alternative scheme (not necessarily optimal but better than just point count IMO):

 

After partner bids 2m as michaels:

2H/2S = simple preference, typically a boring hand with 2-3 card support

3H/3S = preemptive, typically 4-card support but no game aspiration

2NT = forward-going, FORCING, invitational or better in one of major suits

 

You can also design a simple scheme for the continuation after 2NT, for example:

3C = minimum hand with equal or better hearts

3D = minimum hand with better spades

3H = extra value with equal or better hearts (accepts invitation, therefore forcing)

3S = extra value with better spades (accepts invitation, therefore forcing)

I am sure the above is not optimal, but it is playable and easy to remember

 

There are lots of other possibilities. Serious partnership should also define what 3m cuebid by you would mean, and what 4-level jumps in a minor suit should show. I hope that I have got you thinking outside of the HCP box.

[gurgistan]

Thanks for your post bucky.

 

Are you saying I need to be aware just where my HCPs are? It is a better if they are in "our" suits and worse if in the suit bid by the opponent, yes?

Yes, the honor cards on "your" suits are more useful. In the case that partner showed majors, aces in minor suits are good (but not guaranteed to pull full weight, as partner can easily have void), kings are doubtful, and queens and jacks in minors are usually worthless.

 

But there is also a saying "points shmoints"; the degree of fit with your partner's suit(s) will be a more reliable guidance on how high you should bid. You may want to consider this alternative scheme (not necessarily optimal but better than just point count IMO):

 

After partner bids 2m as michaels:

2H/2S = simple preference, typically a boring hand with 2-3 card support

3H/3S = preemptive, typically 4-card support but no game aspiration

2NT = forward-going, FORCING, invitational or better in one of major suits

 

You can also design a simple scheme for the continuation after 2NT, for example:

3C = minimum hand with equal or better hearts

3D = minimum hand with better spades

3H = extra value with equal or better hearts (accepts invitation, therefore forcing)

3S = extra value with better spades (accepts invitation, therefore forcing)

I am sure the above is not optimal, but it is playable and easy to remember

 

There are lots of other possibilities. Serious partnership should also define what 3m cuebid by you would mean, and what 4-level jumps in a minor suit should show. I hope that I have got you thinking outside of the HCP box.

Thanks very much for this bucky,

 

I do try to think about the game though I am often guilty of just playing on autopilot.

[2Macchiato]

2 ♦ correct - 3 ♠ incorrect

 

Michaels is, ideally 55 (but obviously sometimes 65/56 (66 if you're really lucky) - 54/45 for the adventurous. In any event I believe it's best served for hands with < 12 and > 15/16 points (and with those in between it's often right to pattern the hand out and bid the 2 suits (higher one first).

 

Since partner had the weaker end of the Michaels bid he had nothing further to contribute to the bidding - even if acknowledging your 'free-ish' bid and his inclination to say 'I have a maximum passed hand partner' . Had the 'responder' had more he could have invited (by bidding 3S) or forced by bidding 3 ♦ etc - on other occasions.

 

I agree partner could have opened. Given his failure to do so he is already limited in any event. If 4 ♠ is making this strikes me as a Post Mortem argument - since your moderate (albeit complementary) values can scarcely be known to partner at the time of his 3 ♠ bid. Get in and Get Out - for me you have to have a pretty unusual or strong hand to justify a 2nd bite. It's the responder (to the Michael's bid) who makes the decisions - and of course will depend on a) your prospects b.) the cost of 3s failing and c) the potential to persuade the opponents to bid a making game

 

I have a great deal of sympathy for the 'BID 4S' brigade after the (extremely poor) 3S bid tho. Any subsequent downside in the final result will be from the first bad bid - which is 3S IMO.