lamford Posted October 20, 2011 Author 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.I would completely agree that I was just as much at sea as my partner on this hand. I would have regarded a protective Michaels as a minimum of AKxxx xx x AKxxx or with the minors or the singleton transposed. I would play partner for this when responding. I would only respond Two Spades on a doubleton with a weak 2-4 (2 5). Some people play Michaels as weak or strong, and the strong hand I have seen sometimes described as five losers or fewer. If partner has three spades, then he needs about a five count for game to be favourite. Qxx xxx KQxx xxx for example is almost hopeless (opposite AKJxx Kx x AKxxx) - requiring the ace of hearts with the person who could not respond. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 All in all I am not impressed by the 2♥ bid.It was found by the two other (internationals) I knew held the hand. One bid 3C after 2S by partner, the other asked with 2NT opposite. I think the problem was, as Han states, the lack of definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 In my match, my team had the opening side's hands at both tables. This was unfortunate from the point of view of obtaining a result, but at least it saved us from any risk of ignominy. Our opponents reached 1♠ at one table and 3NT at the other. Maybe it's trickier than it looks. I think that, regardless of what you do in second seat, it's normal to play the protective cue-bid as Michaels, opening strength or better. (It's probably better to play it as any two suits, but you'd need some methods to cope with that.) One sequence that was suggested was... - 2♥2♠ - 3♣4♥ - etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC 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? Definitely sensible since 2N would be natural, you have no bid for the minors, and doubling on all hands with minors is undesirable. I do not actually play this with anyone though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted October 20, 2011 Report Share Posted October 20, 2011 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.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.You are not, IMO, way off-beam on this. You were just on a different beam from your partner. My partner would have gone thru 2NT as you mentioned, and then cuebid 3H when she got the 3C response because we, too, believe a balancing michaels is big. Her expectation would probably be the same hand without the heart king. Slam went away with the 2S advance. But, I think the OP hand should still move again with 2NT; the other posters are right in disliking your pass of 2S. 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.