A nice 6-5

[SelfGovern]

Hi, folks. Your suggestions requested. Assume 'advanced'; feel free to answer for that as well as (identified) 'expert'.

 

You pick up AKQ643, 2, QJT82, J.

 

With no one vulnerable, RHO deals and opens 1!H.

 

Q1: Do you make a Michaels call? If not, what?

 

You do make a 2!H Michaels call; LHO doubles, partner passes.

 

Q2: What is partner's pass?

 

RHO passes.

 

Q3: What is your rebid?

 

Thanks for your input.

[MrAce]

Hi, make sure to always mention the scoring. MP or IMPs

 

Anyway, I would bid 4♠ over 1♥

[mike777]

nonexpert here. I will try 1s overcall. I doubt the bidding will end here.

[rmnka447]

This isn't just a nice 6-5, it's a really good hand -- 4 losers.

 

With the ♠ suit so much better than the ♦ suit, I'm not bidding Michaels as I want to emphasize the ♠. The question is whether to double and bid ♠ or simply start out with a 1 ♠ bid leaving more room for showing ♦ later. Although it's not likely, bidding 1 ♠ does risk being passed out though. I think I'd take that risk and bid 1 ♠ here.

 

If the suits were more equal in strength, say KQxxxx x KQxxx x or even AKQxx x QJ10xxx x,then I think Michaels would be more appropriate.

 

Given that you do bid Michaels, partner's pass ought to show no firm preference for ♠ and probably not enough to ask about which minor is held via a 2 NT bid.

 

If double is passed back to this hand, I'd be apt to bid 3 ♠ which suggests 6 good ♠ (playable opposite xx or x). Bidding 2 ♠ wouldn't show any thing extra in length or strength, just starting to run from 2 ♥x.

 

I have no problem with MrAce's 4 ♠ call as a tactical bid. I might make it myself if my table sense suggested it was right.

[The_Badger]

hi SelfGovern,

 

I personally don't like Michaels with uneven strength/length with the suits. I tend to stick to 5/5 or 6/5 with the 6 card suit being weak.

 

Also, don't like Michaels with this hand too, especially non-vulnerable, as Michaels is more a competitive bid, I feel, than showing this nice 6-1-5-1 shape (A 17.75 count on K&R).

 

Sort of agree with 4♠ as a tactical bid, but personally prefer a 1♠ overcall. As mike777 rightly says: I doubt the bidding will end here.

[Cyberyeti]

I would overcall 1♠ largely because we play our Michaels good or bad, and while offensively this is just about powerful enough to count as good, it doesn't have much if any defence, but it's too powerful offensively to count as bad.

[eagles123]

it seems to me like a choice between 1s and 4s (personally i would go for 4) - when our spades are so much better than our minor i'd rather just treat it as single suiter

[WesleyC]

I like a simple 1♠ overcall although a tactical 4♠ might also work.

 

For me the deciding factor is strong and self supporting Major. Even if partner holds something like [xx xxxx Kxxx KQx] then we need to get to 4♠ not 5♦

 

If the diamonds and spades were reversed i'd be more tempted to bid 2H.

 

I think it's most common to play partner's pass as 'no preference and no constructive ambitions' in this situation but it's really something that needs discussion.

 

2S and 3S on the next round would both be reasonable.

[ggwhiz]

4♠ could certainly work but I prefer 1♠.

 

In the (somewhat unlikely) event that my lho bids 5 clubs or hearts partner often won't know what to do and if lho makes a strong bid over the simple overcall I can judge to take the dive, even to the 5 level if partner squeeks a raise. Most of the time I just bid 4♠ next.

[Kaitlyn S]

I like 4S. Happiness is +790.