Four-handed ATB

[awm]

Our NS:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj864hj2da73ct742&w=sq953hk98d82ckj65&n=sakt72h743dkq4c83&e=shaqt65djt965caq9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1s2s(hearts%20+%20minor)3s4hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Result: 4♥+1, -450

 

Our EW:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sj864hj2da73ct742&w=sq953hk98d82ckj65&n=sakt72h743dkq4c83&e=shaqt65djt965caq9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1s2s(hearts%20+%20minor)3sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Result: 3♠-1, +50

 

Assess the blame for losing 9 IMPs.

[nigel_k]

Agree with all the actions except East's final pass. The void makes it worth another move. West is also close to bidding IMO but doesn't appear to have the right cards opposite most likely East hands.

[aguahombre]

West at the Table against you gets the credit for a bid I wouldn't have made.

 

Your team's East does not get blame. He has the appropriate Michaels bid for the colors, and he doesn't have any reason to restate what he already showed.

 

It is an oddity, IMO, that if East had AQXXX of Diamonds and JXX of clubs --- a better hand for offense --- and had taken another call, he would have been wrong.

[Fluffy]

I think East is worth a double of 3♠, or else not worth 2♠. Nobody vul I like split range michaels, but its close between upper range and middle. For strategic reasons I would upgrade to upper.

 

I am not sure how to find 4♠ by NS, I think the hidden diamond ' fit' is the key, so its more bad luck than anything else, but even with 1 less total trick 4♠ could be worth it (420 vs 300) so there should be something more to blame.

 

North is the guy who has ♠K10, ♦Q and a third heart, all of which happen to be offensive tricks but not defensive. So if someone has to bid 4♠ it gotta be him.

[MrAce]

I think your NS did fine.

 

Your EW, i am always bidding 4♥ with W hand. Pd has stiff or void spades and i have useful cards. Not that i am very happy with it, but it still is much better than passing with so many running cards and a fit. Perhaps double fit.

[WGF_Flame]

I think the blame is the system.

Playing this type of micheals where both the minor suit is not known and the range is width is the cause of missing the game here. (the competition in spade didnt change that much)

 

In my area no one play like this, when we play micheals its either sub opening or a very strong hand that will make a second bid later.

[paulg]

I think the blame is the system.

Playing this type of micheals where both the minor suit is not known and the range is width is the cause of missing the game here. (the competition in spade didnt change that much)

As it happens I think West would pass even quicker if he knew it was the red suits opposite.

[gwnn]

I blame their West but our East was maybe worth an X.

[Zelandakh]

I can only think that their E-W have their Michaels defined differently to your E-W, perhaps showing a few values. Split-rangers might start with 2♥ on the East hand instead. It is difficult to blame any one of your team but clearly the decision that cost was made by your E-W. That does not necessarily make it a bad decision though!

[WGF_Flame]

As it happens I think West would pass even quicker if he knew it was the red suits opposite.

 

This actually support my claim of how strong are e/w hands and how much of the east power west doesnt know of, so that even when the suit is not the one he wished for, he still has 11 tricks.

Anyway the total power of the e/w hands is enough for game, but the system if I understand it doesnt let them get to game. Even without the 3S competition, west I guess would bid 3H and easy will pass. I cant say plying this style of 2S is wrong since some good players play it, but on this hand it seems to cost a not reaching a game.

[Jinksy]

I think East is worth a double of 3♠, or else not worth 2♠. Nobody vul I like split range michaels, but its close between upper range and middle. For strategic reasons I would upgrade to upper.

 

I want more values for my X, but in circumstances like this where they've found a strong fit, I like 4th suit natural by overcaller - so how about 4C when 3S is passed back to him?

 

ETA didn't see E hadn't specified his minor, so never mind.

[ArtK78]

I want more values for my X, but in circumstances like this where they've found a strong fit, I like 4th suit natural by overcaller - so how about 4C when 3S is passed back to him?

 

ETA didn't see E hadn't specified his minor, so never mind.

Are you contending that East should bid to the 4 level on his own opposite a silent partner? That is too much for me.

 

The same goes for those who contend that after bidding Michaels and hearing the auction continue (3♠) - P - (P) back to him that East should double. This hand is just not worth that kind of action.

 

The 4♥ call on the West cards worked out nicely, but that was kind of lucky. I do not fault the pass and I find the team's result to be very unlucky.

[billw55]

Rather than blame anyone, I would say well done to the west who bid 4♥. Perhaps he was hoping to goad you into 4♠ and double it. Whatever, it worked, next board.

[mikeh]

Looks like the rub of the green. The W who guessed to bid 4♥ caught a great dummy.

 

The West who passed gets my sympathy and endorsement, which counts for about 9 imps less than the table result.

 

It's true that aggressive bidders get good dummies more than cowards like me want to admit, and maybe I'm too conservative. After all, even when 4♥ is 'wrong', in that both it and 3♠ fail, we're unlikely to get doubled and unlikely to lose more than 6 imps or so, while the upsides are somewhat better.

 

As for the other table, once East has bid michaels, the idea of balancing makes me ill. The only 'justification' would be a slow pass by West, but of course that makes balancing completely unacceptable rather than merely nausea-inducing.

[cherdano]

I completely agree with Mike, but: since when is "completely unacceptable" worse than "nausea-inducing"? I'd rather not get sick at the bridge table...

 

(Ok ok, neither do I want my partner to be unethical, that would probably make me sick as well...)

[rmnka447]

Your opponent's West made an aggressive call that worked out.

 

But it wasn't a call without some reason to it. There is a heart fit. West knows East has at most a stiff ♠ and very likely a void. West was probably thinking that if East had ♣s, they definitely must be in game. And if East had ♦, his hand also had a useful ruffing value to help set up that suit.

 

So, especially if South's 3 ♠ was defined as weak, I suspect West bid more out of fear of missing a making game than anything else.

 

This time it worked out. As others have suggested this is more rub of the green than anything else.

[mycroft]

It could easily be that "hearts and minor" is not the complete explanation of the call, and the complete information about potential strength (split range? Meckwell style? Specific loser count? "Willing to push to declare, because of what we've given away on defence?") may mean that both Wests made reasonable calls given their expectation of East's hand.

 

If N/S are playing different systems, then South's 3♠ call may be on different (i.e. more) strength at one table than another (similarly, North's hand could be more or less limited) - so that will influence how many and what cards West can expect from partner in her two suits.

 

I'd love to ATB, but I think it will boil down to system and a great guess (and if it had been wrong, your West would have made a great guess).

[MrAce]

If E had something slightly worse than what he had, it would still be an OK game to play at IMPS. (for example take out one of the queens he had and take out dia jack as well) Perhaps people have same standards for 1♥-2♥ michaels and 1♠ -2♠. I believe 1♠-2♠ should be better. But even if not, lets say pd has an A missing, then they would be making 3♠ vs your 4♥ down for -50 -100. Yes sometimes it can be doubled for -300 but then again they may also be making 4♠ for -420 or -170 or -140. Bidding 4♥ with W hand is way too under rated by replies here imo.

 

I am not saying you should be bidding it. But i think those who says they would pass in a split second are way too under rating their hand vs a very likely void or at least a stiff in spades and imps. As i said earlier, i am not proud of 4♥, but i would not be proud of my pass either had i chosen it.

 

But i voted "no blame" anyway. "Rub of the green" is not a familiar terminology to me. Anyway mine was never meant to assign blame to W. I said i would always bid 4 with W hand myself. That does not mean i would blame everyone who chooses another option, which i think it's close.

[mfa1010]

West. Michael's partner should be optimistic with fit. MC shows goodish hands.

There is not much to gain by being pessimistic as West. Reminds me of a quote from a friend´s teammate: Bridge is a simple game. You bid game, and either it makes or you go down.

[aguahombre]

West. Michael's partner should be optimistic with fit. MC shows goodish hands.

There is not much to gain by being pessimistic as West. Reminds me of a quote from a friend´s teammate: Bridge is a simple game. You bid game, and either it makes or you go down.

Bridge is a simple game until someone decides for us that MC shows goodish hands without defining the term so that we can change our Michaels style to conform with his.

[mfa1010]

Bridge is a simple game until someone decides for us that MC shows goodish hands without defining the term so that we can change our Michaels style to conform with his.

Ok :)

 

MC is (for me and in my bridge community) a constructive overcall, not a preemptive bid. It shows values that corresponds to an overcall at the level, we are forced to, here a 3-level overcall. I don't like a point definition, since a lot depends on shape and suit quality (playing strength). But we are surely talking opening bid+ values when at the 3-level with only 5-5.

 

The bad result is no surprise if the team were playing the good oldfashioned emmentaler style MC, where responder is not bidding his hand and Michael needs to make desperate reentries when he actually has his bid for his MC.

[ArtK78]

For most of my bridge playing life (which is longer than most posters here) Michaels represented either a weak 2 suiter or a good 2 suiter (split-range). In between hands were handled with overcalls. Monster hands were handled with doubles.

 

Over the last 10 years (during which my tournament play has been limited) I became aware of a trend in the expert community to show shape before values, and, in the case of Michaels, that meant that all two suiters (except monsters) were shown by the cuebid directly. Most better players that I know have done away with the split-range Michaels cue bid in favor of just showing shape first.

 

This does not mean that split-range is unplayable, nor does it denegrate any other restrictions, such as MFA's restriction that Michaels is a constructive call. Mostly it is a matter of style. In the case of the current trend of shape first, that is consistent with the general trend at the higher levels of the game for getting into the auction at the least provocation. It is aggressive, and it can lead to some spectacular failures. But it works more often than not, which is the primary reason for using this method at matchpoints.

[aguahombre]

My bone of contention was not with anyone's style; it was a continuation of my frequent rant about what "is". We are stodgy split-rangers, but that doesn't make our choice "what is", either.

 

However, I still do not feel that advancer with a mere KXX in Hearts and no particular help for Mike's likely minor is worthy of the fortunate 4H bid. And, if Mike does have clubs, West would be virtually bidding 4S for the opponents.

[mfa1010]

Sorry for my ignorance, arrogance and incompentence and for disturbing any ongoing rant, but I think split range is just bad - not a style issue.

 

Nowhere else in a normal system is a bid split range in strength. I wonder why it should be clever right here then, in the middle of a potentially competitive battle.

 

The middle strength hands are the ones where MC is most valuable. As the strength of the hand goes down, the value of a MC deminishes, because the upsides go down and the dangers and other downsides go up. At some point the bid becomes antipercentage. This is true regardsless of what interval(s) we agree to play. Where the 'equilibrium point' is depends on many factors.

[Zelandakh]

Nowhere else in a normal system is a bid split range in strength. I wonder why it should be clever right here then, in the middle of a potentially competitive battle.

You have never played minor suit transfers as weak or GF after a 1NT opening? or Texas as to play 4M or slammy, with slam invites going elsewhere? There are plenty of others - a 1♦ response to a strong 1♣ as double-negative or various GF hands; 2NT as either a drop dead raise or a GF raise (of a minor); my own 1M - 2M+1 response showing a mini-splinter or a maxi-splinter; various transfer schemes for competition in which a transfer is competitive or GF and bidding the suit itself is invitational. And so on.

 

Ben (Lessard)'s system relies upon this concept. I would say it is an underused one that is slowly increasing in frequency (due to the rise of transfers) rather than an outdated one being consigned to history. There are good arguments against split-range 2-suited overcalls though and these have been presented on BBF by Justin and others more than once. There is also a decent argument for playing split-range NV and a continuous range vulnerable. In any case, a choice of agreement between split-range and any strength with the right shape is pretty much irrelevant on this hand.