[the hog]

I agree with Richard's first post. South should value the double fit. Bidding 3S by Nth is not showing extra shape here - as Bucky says, this is a poor bid as he is bidding his values twice. Finally Fluffy, most DO play 5/5. I have seen some international players who play that you can have 4S and 5H for this bid.

[Zelandakh]

Taking North first, this hand appears to be a normal opening of 1S. Having accidentally passed I would personally overcall 1S planning to rebid something like 3H. This would show a maximum pass with the majors. Having decided against that action and gone with Michaels I would prefer 3H on the 3rd round as a game try; for me 3S is purely competitive often with a 6 card spade suit.

From South's side, 2S is just not enough. With a 9 card spades fit and an 8 card heart fit it seems clear to bid 3S even at red. Unlike some of the other posters I do not mind the pass of 3S. That is simply because I do not play it as showing the same hand type though.

Gurg, the response scheme you have is one that is sometimes given to beginners and you would perhaps get a different set of responses had you posted this in the B/I forum. It is actually quite poor but at least gives them somewhere to start that matches with their hcp counting. It is better to treat Michaels as a form of preempt and count suit lengths and tricks.

A common method of using Michaels is to use it only for weak (less than opening) and very strong (say 16+) hand. With in-between hands you overcall in the higher major and rebid the second suit. Then the cue bidder makes an 'unusual' call to show the strong type. The unusual call is typically a suit that cannot be held, or NT. Direct raises are always competitive showing extra shape. Finally, be aware that most beginners overuse Michaels and the UNT. If you have little prospect of winning the contract or directing a good lead then it is better to pass than show the eventual declarer how to play the hand.

Responder then follows a similar pattern - all direct raises are competitive. With a stronger hand you make a different call such as 2NT or a cue bid. Where the second suit is an unknown minor you have to decide if 2NT asks only for the second suit or if it asks both for the second suit and also for range - in the latter case you would use 3C as pass/correct for the minor with a weak hand. With such a weak hand never tip off the opponents that there is a misfit by trying to bid NT naturally or introducing your own suit. Just show preference for partner and hope they bid again.

Naturally there are alternative treatments to the above.

[bucky]

gurgistan, on Sep 21 2010, 09:33 PM, said:

The schema I am using is (as responder to Michaels):

Show support: 0-12 hcp with 3 card support
Jump Raise: 13-15 hcp
Bid Game: 16+hcp

I think what you missed is this question: what do you bid when you don't have 3-card support?

[nige1]

gurgistan, on Sep 20 2010, 04:39 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ AQ942 ♥ KJ984 ♦   ♣ 982 ♠ J865 ♥ QT3 ♦ T73 ♣ KQ6

This is with a semi-regular partner. It is passed out to West who opens 1♦. Partner bids 2♦. East doubles. I bid 2♠. West bids 3♦. Partner bids 3♠. It is passed out. Could someone comment on the bidding please?

IMO: Nobody did much wrong. North could open 1♠. South should probably bid 3♠. North's 3♠ is brave/foolhardy. A 4♠ raise would be OK but it is hard for South to advance when he knows opponents have more HCP and double-fit. If partner has:
♠ KQxxx ♥ KJxxxx ♦ x ♣ x,
then 4♠X goes down and either opponent may be grateful for the opportunity to bid 5/6♦

[gurgistan]

I have thought a little and the following schema seems better than the one I posted earlier:


0-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if mandatory
6-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if voluntary ie. over intervention
6-9hcp and 4 card support = 3 level bid
9hcp+ and 5 card support = 4 level bid

without support:
better suit if mandatory
2N asking for minor, where appropriate
2N with 12-13hcp over both majors
3N with 15hcp+


Could someone please comment on the viability of this proposed schema?

Many thanks.

[bucky]

gurgistan, on Sep 25 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

I have thought a little and the following schema seems better than the one I posted earlier:


0-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if mandatory
6-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if voluntary ie. over intervention
6-9hcp and 4 card support = 3 level bid
9hcp+ and 5 card support = 4 level bid

without support:
better suit if mandatory
2N asking for minor, where appropriate
2N with 12-13hcp over both majors
3N with 15hcp+


Could someone please comment on the viability of this proposed schema?

Many thanks.

Depending on your level (and your partner's). This is a playable scheme for beginners, but once you advanced you will learn that not all HCPs are equal.

[P_Marlowe]

gurgistan, on Sep 25 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

0-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if mandatory
<snip>
without support:
better suit if mandatory
<snip>

This means just bidding on the 2 level the one of the known suits,
does not gurantee a fit.

The way you descirbed the agreement set makes it easy to overlook
this.

[gurgistan]

bucky, on Sep 25 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

gurgistan, on Sep 25 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

I have thought a little and the following schema seems better than the one I posted earlier:


0-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if mandatory
6-9hcp and 3 card support = 2 level bid if voluntary ie. over intervention
6-9hcp and 4 card support = 3 level bid
9hcp+ and 5 card support = 4 level bid

without support:
better suit if mandatory
2N asking for minor, where appropriate
2N with 12-13hcp over both majors
3N with 15hcp+


Could someone please comment on the viability of this proposed schema?

Many thanks.

Depending on your level (and your partner's). This is a playable scheme for beginners, but once you advanced you will learn that not all HCPs are equal.

Thanks for your post bucky.

Are you saying I need to be aware just where my HCPs are? It is a better if they are in "our" suits and worse if in the suit bid by the opponent, yes?

[jonottawa]

Recurring theme, people need to open opening hands. 100% blame North.

Would never occur to me in a million years to bid game to make with a 4x3 8 count with 5 points in quacks opposite a passed hand. Yes, you have no wastage in diamonds, that's nice. That's not worth a 5 point upgrade.

2♠ is fine. Presumably you bid 2♠ hoping to buy it for 2♠.

3♠ is frisky but having passed already and with the void I can live with it.

I would encourage your partner to open opening hands and leave it at that.

[Bbradley62]

jonottawa, on Sep 26 2010, 03:51 AM, said:

Recurring theme, people need to open opening hands. 100% blame North.

I would have opened North, but...

Couldn't the auction go 1♠-(P)-2♠-all pass? The first-seat pass did not doom the auction and a first-seat opener would not have guaranteed it.

[bucky]

gurgistan, on Sep 26 2010, 02:31 AM, said:

Thanks for your post bucky.

Are you saying I need to be aware just where my HCPs are? It is a better if they are in "our" suits and worse if in the suit bid by the opponent, yes?

Yes, the honor cards on "your" suits are more useful. In the case that partner showed majors, aces in minor suits are good (but not guaranteed to pull full weight, as partner can easily have void), kings are doubtful, and queens and jacks in minors are usually worthless.

But there is also a saying "points shmoints"; the degree of fit with your partner's suit(s) will be a more reliable guidance on how high you should bid. You may want to consider this alternative scheme (not necessarily optimal but better than just point count IMO):

After partner bids 2m as michaels:
2H/2S = simple preference, typically a boring hand with 2-3 card support
3H/3S = preemptive, typically 4-card support but no game aspiration
2NT = forward-going, FORCING, invitational or better in one of major suits

You can also design a simple scheme for the continuation after 2NT, for example:
3C = minimum hand with equal or better hearts
3D = minimum hand with better spades
3H = extra value with equal or better hearts (accepts invitation, therefore forcing)
3S = extra value with better spades (accepts invitation, therefore forcing)
I am sure the above is not optimal, but it is playable and easy to remember

There are lots of other possibilities. Serious partnership should also define what 3m cuebid by you would mean, and what 4-level jumps in a minor suit should show. I hope that I have got you thinking outside of the HCP box.

[gurgistan]

bucky, on Sep 26 2010, 09:05 PM, said:

gurgistan, on Sep 26 2010, 02:31 AM, said:

Thanks for your post bucky.

Are you saying I need to be aware just where my HCPs are? It is a better if they are in "our" suits and worse if in the suit bid by the opponent, yes?

Yes, the honor cards on "your" suits are more useful. In the case that partner showed majors, aces in minor suits are good (but not guaranteed to pull full weight, as partner can easily have void), kings are doubtful, and queens and jacks in minors are usually worthless.

But there is also a saying "points shmoints"; the degree of fit with your partner's suit(s) will be a more reliable guidance on how high you should bid. You may want to consider this alternative scheme (not necessarily optimal but better than just point count IMO):

After partner bids 2m as michaels:
2H/2S = simple preference, typically a boring hand with 2-3 card support
3H/3S = preemptive, typically 4-card support but no game aspiration
2NT = forward-going, FORCING, invitational or better in one of major suits

You can also design a simple scheme for the continuation after 2NT, for example:
3C = minimum hand with equal or better hearts
3D = minimum hand with better spades
3H = extra value with equal or better hearts (accepts invitation, therefore forcing)
3S = extra value with better spades (accepts invitation, therefore forcing)
I am sure the above is not optimal, but it is playable and easy to remember

There are lots of other possibilities. Serious partnership should also define what 3m cuebid by you would mean, and what 4-level jumps in a minor suit should show. I hope that I have got you thinking outside of the HCP box.

Thanks very much for this bucky,

I do try to think about the game though I am often guilty of just playing on autopilot.

[2Macchiato]

2 ♦ correct - 3 ♠ incorrect

Michaels is, ideally 55 (but obviously sometimes 65/56 (66 if you're really lucky) - 54/45 for the adventurous. In any event I believe it's best served for hands with < 12 and > 15/16 points (and with those in between it's often right to pattern the hand out and bid the 2 suits (higher one first).

Since partner had the weaker end of the Michaels bid he had nothing further to contribute to the bidding - even if acknowledging your 'free-ish' bid and his inclination to say 'I have a maximum passed hand partner' . Had the 'responder' had more he could have invited (by bidding 3S) or forced by bidding 3 ♦ etc - on other occasions.

I agree partner could have opened. Given his failure to do so he is already limited in any event. If 4 ♠ is making this strikes me as a Post Mortem argument - since your moderate (albeit complementary) values can scarcely be known to partner at the time of his 3 ♠ bid. Get in and Get Out - for me you have to have a pretty unusual or strong hand to justify a 2nd bite. It's the responder (to the Michael's bid) who makes the decisions - and of course will depend on a) your prospects b.) the cost of 3s failing and c) the potential to persuade the opponents to bid a making game

I have a great deal of sympathy for the 'BID 4S' brigade after the (extremely poor) 3S bid tho. Any subsequent downside in the final result will be from the first bad bid - which is 3S IMO.