After [1C] X [XX] - what's your choice?

[han]

Nigel's first post was downvoted 3 times while he makes a perfectly reasonable argument for pass. Pass and 1S both have something going for them. Pass is of course safer, partner does not always have 4 spades. Also, if partner will be on lead then we don't want to encourage a spade lead over a diamond lead.

 

An advantage of 1S is that it slightly preempts hearts. I don't think that we want to encourage partner to bid 2S, our hand is not good.

 

Helene, pass is normal with xxxx xx xxxx xxx, it just shows more than one place to play. Pass followed by 1S over 1H (or 1H over 1D) cannot show strength here. We can show strength by bidding 2C next, or jumping to 2S. Pass followed by 1S says we were just looking for out best fit.

[han]

Whoa, it was downvoted by Mtvesuvius, Gwnn, Bunnygo.... what's wrong with you guys? Are you going to downvote any post you disagree with?

[mgoetze]

Whoa, it was downvoted by Mtvesuvius, Gwnn, Bunnygo.... what's wrong with you guys? Are you going to downvote any post you disagree with?

 

I suspect the issue was more with labelling an (apparently) controversial decision as "easy, textbook, mandatory".

[Free]

Not sure what was wrong with Michaels with South hand given difference in suit quality, but hey I'm the beginner and pard is the expert!

Your partner is not as expert as you think...

[mtvesuvius]

I downvoted Nigel's post because passing does create problems for partner, and is certainly not mandatory or textbook.

[Vampyr]

Bidding Michaels is completely clear cut, and I agree with 1♠

 

I don't know what the "standard" treatment is on BBO, but in England it is very popular to make a Michaels cue-bid with a weak or a very strong hand, and not with a hand of about opening strength. I consider the hand in question an averagy opener (good shape balanced by poor defense), so people who have agreed or assumed the above criterion would not have made the call.

 

I have no idea, of course, if this was the case, but it might be a possibility.

 

Double ridiculous.

[han]

I downvoted Nigel's post because passing does create problems for partner, and is certainly not mandatory or textbook.

 

Did you notice that "easy" and "mandatory" were the words used in the posts above Nigel's post? That part of his post was clearly a reaction to those two posts that he disagreed with.

 

Right above Nigel's post:

 

Spelling it out a little more clearly for OP... it's a mandatory 1S bid.

 

Nigel made a constructive bridge post that went against the crowd. The thread might have been a unanimous "OBVIOUS 1S" if it wasn't for Nigel's contribution. As a result he was downvoted by 6 different posters.

[mgoetze]

Did you notice that "easy" and "mandatory" were the words used in the posts above Nigel's post? That part of his post was clearly a reaction to those two posts that he disagreed with.

 

I only saw "mandatory", not "easy". But it doesn't matter. I don't mind at all if Nigel wishes to say that 1♠ is not mandatory. But if he wants to do it sarcastically by claiming the opposite he had better add a big smiley or sarcasm tag. The fact of the matter is, if some beginner happens to just read, "Pass is easy, textbook, mandatory, and doesn't cause any problem for partner that I can see." then (s)he will be seeing a minority view framed as if it were an obvious piece of mainstream bridge wisdom.

 

Nigel made a constructive bridge post that went against the crowd. The thread might have been a unanimous "OBVIOUS 1S" if it wasn't for Nigel's contribution. As a result he was downvoted by 6 different posters.

 

Nigel was not downvoted for making a constructive bridge post. He was downvoted for tacking on a very wrong claim about the standing of his position.

[nigel_k]

I only saw "mandatory", not "easy". But it doesn't matter. I don't mind at all if Nigel wishes to say that 1♠ is not mandatory. But if he wants to do it sarcastically by claiming the opposite he had better add a big smiley or sarcasm tag. The fact of the matter is, if some beginner happens to just read, "Pass is easy, textbook, mandatory, and doesn't cause any problem for partner that I can see." then (s)he will be seeing a minority view framed as if it were an obvious piece of mainstream bridge wisdom.

 

Nigel was not downvoted for making a constructive bridge post. He was downvoted for tacking on a very wrong claim about the standing of his position.

Everything in the last sentence was a combination of descriptions used by the three previous posters. But you would have had to read those three posts, a total of five lines of text, in order to see that.

[paulg]

I don't know what the "standard" treatment is on BBO, but in England it is very popular to make a Michaels cue-bid with a weak or a very strong hand, and not with a hand of about opening strength. I consider the hand in question an averagy opener (good shape balanced by poor defense), so people who have agreed or assumed the above criterion would not have made the call.

In Scotland, where this all happened, there are still a few players who play this way. But the majority play any strength, not least because it was advocated when Mike Lawrence was on tour here a few years ago.