lamford Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 You have ♠AKJxx ♥Kx ♦x ♣AKxxx. It is game all, IMPs, again a strong team event in London. It goes 1♥-P-P and you bid 2♥, Michaels. You have not discussed what strength is expected in the protective seat. It now goes P-2♠-P to you again. Your go. And what should your specific agreement be on 2♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I think I'm worth a try (♥K notwithstanding) so I bid my second suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Lamford, what is the alternative to 3C? Do you think that we are too strong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dboxley Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 You have ♠AKJxx ♥Kx ♦x ♣AKxxx. It is game all, IMPs, again a strong team event in London. It goes 1♥-P-P and you bid 2♥, Michaels. You have not discussed what strength is expected in the protective seat. It now goes P-2♠-P to you again. Your go. And what should your specific agreement be on 2♥? 3♣ is plenty, even 3♠ may have no play. Of course you have to be playing with someone who can evaluate his/her hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Lamford, what is the alternative to 3C? Do you think that we are too strong?I mistakenly thought that a protective Michaels was always strong, based on some article I recalled in Bridge World. So I thought I had shown my hand and passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 why do you post a no agreement hand in A/E? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 There is strong and then there is strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I would bid 3♠ while biting my tongue to restrain myself from calling 4♠ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 why do you post a no agreement hand in A/E?There is an agreement to play Michaels, and I expect that many will have not discussed the exact range in the protective seat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I would bid 3♠ while biting my tongue to restrain myself from calling 4♠I think that I will not be able to resist going to 4♠.Maybe I first try with 3♣: If partner goes to 4♠ then they can not blame me :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I take back my earlier comment, apparently there are already two people who want to bid spades. My understanding of Michaels is that 2H shows 5 spades. If so, why would we bid spades again? That doesn't make much sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 nor to me, its either 2NT or 3♣ if I'm bidding again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kgr Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I didn't really want to suggest to keep bidding ♠ on my own.The intention of my remark was that I would probably not pass - and bid 4♠ - after:(1♥)-P-(P)-2♥(p)-2♠-(P)-3♣(p)-3♠-(p)-??How strong a hand did we already show now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I think 4♣ is almost an alternative to 3♣, but it's far from a viable alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I didn't really want to suggest to keep bidding ♠ on my own.The intention of my remark was that I would probably not pass - and bid 4♠ - after:(1♥)-P-(P)-2♥(p)-2♠-(P)-3♣(p)-3♠-(p)-??How strong a hand did we already show now?You better hope that partner doesn't think too much before bidding 3♠, if you really do intend to bid 4♠ irrespective of whether he signs off after 3♣. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 Partner has ♠10x ♥AJxx ♦xx ♣QJxxx and you make 6♣, and 4♠ as the cards lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I don't know if any of your posts in this thread were honest or not. Did you really pass 2S? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 I don't know if any of your posts in this thread were honest or not. Did you really pass 2S?Yes, I did. The hand was played by one or two others who post on here - gnasher I believe. It seems I am way off-beam on this, as I was under the impression that a protective Michaels showed a good hand, and that weaker hands just bid 1S. I would have bid 2NT on my partner's hand, and then 3NT if I had, as expected, diamonds. But it seems that nobody agrees with me, so I must give in to the weight of opinion. Sadly, I am honest on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted October 19, 2011 Report Share Posted October 19, 2011 It seems I am way off-beam on this, as I was under the impression that a protective Michaels showed a good hand, and that weaker hands just bid 1S. I think it shows a good hand too, but it really doesn't need much from partner to make game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I was under the impression that a protective Michaels showed a good hand, and that weaker hands just bid 1S. I think it shows a good hand too, but it really doesn't need much from partner to make game. I'm glad I wasn't sitting opposite when you perpetrated this. Without discussion, I would have thought that a protective Michaels bid showed a decent opener or better. By the way, does anyone play, or think that it is sensible to play, such a bid as any two suits? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I would bid 3S. Bidding 3C is a possibility as it does show the second suit, but is inferior as it could easily show a weaker hand with 5S and 6C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 Lamford, you keep saying "good hand" and "strong hand" without specifying what it means. No wonder you and your partner had different ideas on this. In this setting I would consider a 5-5 12-count already a good hand, I don't think Michaels shows more than that. Obvious if that is the agreement, this hand has a lot of extra strength. If you say, a protective Michaels shows at least an 18-count and with less than an 18-count you have to bid 1S, ok then this hand does not have extras at all. But I think that that would be a really unusual agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 By the way, does anyone play, or think that it is sensible to play, such a bid as any two suits?I would expect that to be the undiscussed meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhm Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I think it shows a good hand too, but it really doesn't need much from partner to make game.Did partner's 2♠ bid show more than 2 small cards in ♠? I would bid 2NT now, which must show a strong hand with a ♥ stopper and at least hint on your exact distribution. 3NT from this side might well be our only game.♣ or ♠ bids at this point should show more distribution or at least better suits. I am not really convinced that Michaels in balancing position is such a clever tool for this hand. Simply bidding 1♠ and see partner's reaction would be more helpful, than forcing him to bid. If partner raises ♠ you know where you want to play and if he bids anything else you can jump to 3NT. If opponents keep the bidding open for you, you can introduce your ♣ suit next. It is important that you get to be declarer to protect your ♥K and to put opening bidder on lead. 1♠ is unlikely to get passed out when you have game from partner's side. The few times this might happen are more than compensated for by the many times you will not languish in a hopeless game that way. All in all I am not impressed by the 2♥ bid. Rainer Herrmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 I would expect that to be the undiscussed meaning.I think it might be the better meaning, but untangling the suits can be messy if the opener now bids 3 of his suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.