Michaels?

[dickiegera]

[hv=pc=n&w=shkjt863dqcakjt95&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s]133|200[/hv]

 

Would you Michael's or bid 2♥?

 

If you bid 2♠ East will bid 3♠ and partner will pass.

Now would you bid?

[wyman]

2h

Yes, 4c

[aguahombre]

I would Mike it. For starters, it muddies the waters for the opponents about the nature of 3S (presumably you meant North bid 3S, not East).

 

Now, after:

(1S) 2S (3S) P

(P)...I would bid 4H, not 4C. Why? Because I have six of them, and will have shown 6 of a minor as well --- an inference because I chose Michaels instead of 2H on the previous round. Am willing to play 5C if Pard is stiff or void in hearts and asks via 4N. If I bid 4C instead, I don't think Pard will bid 4H with only two of them.

[the hog]

Michael's of course. Why on earth not?

[Free]

I have "at least 5-5" don't I? Obvious Michaels.

[gszes]

I would Mike it. For starters, it muddies the waters for the opponents about the nature of 3S (presumably you meant North bid 3S, not East).

 

Now, after:

(1S) 2S (3S) P

(P)...I would bid 4H, not 4C. Why? Because I have six of them, and will have shown 6 of a minor as well --- an inference because I chose Michaels instead of 2H on the previous round. Am willing to play 5C if Pard is stiff or void in hearts and asks via 4N. If I bid 4C instead, I don't think Pard will bid 4H with only two of them.

 

 

perfect

[CamHenry]

What range do you play Michaels? I play split-range, either weak or very strong, and I think this hand is worth treating as very strong. I therefore cue-bid, then bid ♥ again - partner should get the message.

[mcphee]

Some pairs play that mike can be any range, as Lawrence suggests. I prefer the weak or strong which has suited my approach well over time. So I show the 2 suited nature at once and then over 3S we have the option of bidding again, we can bid clubs which would clear up which our other suit was and indicate a strong playing hand. Or you can choose to dble allowing partner to pass with his bazillion trumps.

[helene_t]

 

 

Now, after:

(1S) 2S (3S) P

(P)...I would bid 4H, not 4C. Why? Because I have six of them, and will have shown 6 of a minor as well --- an inference because I chose Michaels instead of 2H on the previous round

I don't think 4h shows six clubs. I could be 6-5 and too strong for a 2h overcall

[aguahombre]

I don't think 4h shows six clubs. I could be 6-5 and too strong for a 2h overcall

Sorry to be unclear. I meant the inference was there for us. Didn't mean to assume it was yours, too --- or insist it had to be anyone's, for that matter.

[PhilKing]

I would only Michaels if not playing 2/1.

[ggwhiz]

I love Mike Lawrence stuff but this michaels on any range never worked for me.

 

I'm more concerned with the opponents bouncing into 4♠ which would get pretty much an auto pass from pard. They pretty much have an auto pass over 3♠ too.

 

After 2♥ and the same bounce I'll still bid but at least pard had a chance to smash them in 4 or in 5 if they get out of line. And of course lho can now bid 2♠ instead of 3 giving pard a chance to show a pulse with modest values.

[akhare]

2♥ -- the sensational shape and great offensive potential seem too good for 2♠.

[PhilKing]

2♥ -- the sensational shape and great offensive potential seem too good for 2♠.

 

I'm pretty confused by this. :(

[akhare]

♥ -- the sensational shape and great offensive potential seem too good for 2♠.

 

I'm pretty confused by this. :(

 

 

Thought it was more clear than the below, but I digress B-).

 

I would only Michaels if not playing 2/1.

 

Regardless, if it helps, I would bid 2♠ with a 5-5 or even 5-6, but consider this shape too good for Michaels (fully intending to compete with 5♣ if 4♠ comes around to me). Over 4♠, 4N would likely emphasize ♥ and show a second side suit. 5♣ would presumably show a desire to play in either suit.

[PhilKing]

Thought it was more clear than the below, but I digress B-).

 

 

 

Regardless, if it helps, I would bid 2♠ with a 5-5 or even 5-6, but consider this shape too good for Michaels (fully intending to compete with 5♣ if 4♠ comes around to me). Over 4♠, 4N would likely emphasize ♥ and show a second side suit. 5♣ would presumably show a desire to play in either suit.

 

Were I to overcall, it would doubtless go all pass. Partner would then be really confused when I told him I was "too good" to force to game via Michael's.

[akhare]

Were I to overcall, it would doubtless go all pass. Partner would then be really confused when I told him I was "too good" to force to game via Michael's.

 

 

Perhaps, doubletless reflects what actually happened at the table, but IMO, 2♥ being passed out seems improbable.

[aguahombre]

In case you didn't catch Phil's joke about only bidding Michaels if not playing 2/1, it has 3 entendres. Truly one of the better posts of the year.

[the hog]

In case you didn't catch Phil's joke about only bidding Michaels if not playing 2/1, it has 3 intendres. Truly one of the better posts of the year.

 

That s "entendre", not "intendre", or was that an intendre?

[aguahombre]

Fixed.