(1S) 2H (2S) P; (P) 3C

[Trick13]

(1♠) 2♥ (2♠) P

(P) 3♣

 

What inferences do you take from this sequence, given you have a re-opening double and Michaels available. And if the re-opening bid was 3♦ you had ELC available to convert 3♣ to 3♦.

Advancer also had a weak, non-invitational, raise to 3♥ available.

[TylerE]

Opening-ish. I'm a fan of traditional (gap) michaels so 2♠ would be, say, 6-10 or 17+. So this is like 13-16ish. (11-12 just grins and passes in tempo over 1♠...)

[gordontd]

Opening-ish. I'm a fan of traditional (gap) michaels so 2♠ would be, say, 6-10 or 17+. So this is like 13-16ish. (11-12 just grins and passes in tempo over 1♠...)

So you have a gap within your gap? What's the point of that?

[helene_t]

6+♥4+♣ with better hearts or 2-card disparity.

[pescetom]

6+♥4+♣ with better hearts or 2-card disparity.

For me not necessarily better hearts, but certainly a length disparity (otherwise non-gap Michaels).

[apollo1201]

Same as others. Nice hand with concentrated values with H and C however no Mikael first implies no 55, so 64 then.

 

I suspect 1534 could be ok if really good H/C and max Jxx D, or 2524 that was just short of a power double, but those cases are probably rare so a minimum hand could be

 

x

KQxxxx

xx

AKxx

[msjennifer]

Sir,in my opinion, as we play it, should show 6H and 4C with all HCP well divided between the two suits.

[Tramticket]

Double would promise extra values - happy for partner to pass for penalties (with a suitable hand). Bidding a new suit shows shape and playing strength, but not defensive strength (not wanting partner to pass for penalties). Failure to use Michael's suggests that hearts are longer than clubs (6+ hearts).