[han]

A friend asked me about this hand:

Qxx
xx
KJ10xxx
Kx

none vul, IMPs

(1H)-2H-(p)-2S
(3H)-3S-(4H)-??

You play that Michaels shows either a good or a bad hand. Do you agree with 2!s? What's your call now?

[Rebound]

Well, with my record lately I should probably keep this to myself but just for fun I'm going to jump in and say I'd call 4♠.

Theoretically, partner needs the better hand type to bid over 3♥ (in which case 4♠ is a no-brainer, if you ask me) but the 4♥ call argues against this in my mind. On the other hand, depending on the quality of partner's minor suit, say, Qxxxx it may not be too bad in any case. If partner does have a poor hand, 4♥ looks to be making so if it all goes to pot and you're down 3 doubled, the imp loss would be a small one.

Incidentally, I agree with 2♠. I can understand the value of inquiring about partner's minor first; although it's expected to be clubs, stranger things have happened than for you to have a 10-card minor fit on this hand. However, partner is more often than not going to have the weak hand type and then the in quick-out quick principle ought to apply.

[P_Marlowe]

Does the cue promise 5-5?

For whats it worth, I pass, I have
enough defence, I dont believe 4H
makes, and I dont believe we make
4S.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

4S. If partner is willing to contract for 9 tricks, one of my minor kings has to be gold and my spade Q is elevated. If 4S doesn't have a reasonable play then partner's bid was wrong.

[Fluffy]

Winstonm, on May 13 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

4S. If partner is willing to contract for 9 tricks, one of my minor kings has to be gold and my spade Q is elevated. If 4S doesn't have a reasonable play then partner's bid was wrong.

I think the same

[jdonn]

I'll agree, definitely 4♠. Just think how much worse this hand could have been, we might even have had a doubleton for our 2♠ bid.

I also agree with our 2♠ bid, it just happens to be pretty maximum for that choice.

[pclayton]

Yes - 4♠. Pard shouldn't be bidding 3♠ on some maxi-min, or a hand where he has a min with an 11th card somewhere.

If pard has a max; I'm a little worried about missing a slam.

[mikeh]

I would have bid 2N over 2♥. It is not that I am looking for a magic ♦ fit, altho I wouldn't object to learning about it if it exists, but that I intend to make an invitational 3♠ bid next: I see this hand as too good for 2♠..... AJ10xx x xx Axxxx gives me some play for game, and he'd have a (slightly)better hand than that to accept... at least, the way I play michaels.


Having underbid at my first turn, then, if I trust partner, I have to bid 4♠. His 3♠ bid, if based solely on a desire to compete, was a mistake... after all, there is no way he can play me for such working cards... he can, probably, play me for some values on the auction, but not such prime ones.

[han]

Thanks for your posts, my friend also bid 4S and his partner gave him a hard time about it. I also thought that 4S was automatic much for the same reasons.

Partner's hand was AK109x x xx Axxxx and 4S does have some play. Do you think that this qualifies as a "bad" hand playing G/B? Is this what you would expect for the 3S bid? What would a double of 3H show?

[pclayton]

Playing Good / Bad Michaels, I think your friend's hand is a clear tweener. The spades are a lot better than the clubs, so there's less incentive to look for a club contract.

If he overcalls 1♠, I imagine that RHO overcalls and we can bid a heavy 2♠ or overbid slightly with 3♥. These hands mesh well and I wouldn't be surprised if many miss game.

A double of 3♥ would normally be maximal, but this cuts into the 3♠ = max argument, so perhaps 3♠ should be a maxi-min

[Trinidad]

Hannie, on May 13 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

Thanks for your posts, my friend also bid 4S and his partner gave him a hard time about it. I also thought that 4S was automatic much for the same reasons.

Partner's hand was AK109x x xx Axxxx and 4S does have some play. Do you think that this qualifies as a "bad" hand playing G/B? Is this what you would expect for the 3S bid? What would a double of 3H show?

Partner made the classic error of believing that I showed spades when I bid 2♠. Well, I didn't show any spades. I picked the suit that he already showed and it could just be the least of evils. I could have had a 1561 distribution for my 2♠ bid.

To me partner's 3♠ bid doesn't show a maximum hand. It shows the minimum version with extra distribution, happy that you picked spades and suggesting a save against their contract. A save is automatic, given that you have (undisclosed!) three card support for partner.

If partner wants to show a maximum hand with 5-5, he will double. If partner has a nice freak, he will cuebid or show his minor.

As an aside, I also play Michaels as weak or strong and partner's hand couldn't be more "in between". A simple 1♠ overcall would have been much better than a Michaels cue.

Rik

[Winstonm]

Phil is dead on, and some of the problem may be in the thinking about the meaning of strong/weak. The weak should not be thought of as weak in high cards compared to strong but rather weak in high cards and strong in playability.

Maybe another way to get this point across is to describe the holdings as strong and defensively weak rather than strong and weak. For some, the idea of weak just means 11 points, whether an AK A or KQ, KQJ.

[jtfanclub]

Hannie, on May 13 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

Partner's hand was AK109x x xx Axxxx and 4S does have some play.

So does 4♥.

It would be nice if 3♠ said 'I know what I'm going to do over 4♥', since the auction may very well die at 3♥ if he doesn't make another call. I mean, seriously, was he planning on X'ing 4♥ if it came back around to him? Or did he just mindlessly push them to game?

[mike777]

Hannie, on May 13 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

Thanks for your posts, my friend also bid 4S and his partner gave him a hard time about it. I also thought that 4S was automatic much for the same reasons.

Partner's hand was AK109x x xx Axxxx and 4S does have some play. Do you think that this qualifies as a "bad" hand playing G/B? Is this what you would expect for the 3S bid? What would a double of 3H show?

Think one spade, never 2s, overcall is clear and easy. Sure partner may play us for 5 spades some outside hcp and some shape but I think we need to take that risk. If you play one spade overcalls deny a two suiter we got a problem.

Perhaps if we keep the bidding one level lower we may learn something by listening.

[whereagles]

I interpret pard's 3♠ as an invite to a save. I'll accept and "save" in 4♠

[Rebound]

Hannie, on May 13 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

Thanks for your posts, my friend also bid 4S and his partner gave him a hard time about it. I also thought that 4S was automatic much for the same reasons.

Partner's hand was AK109x x xx Axxxx and 4S does have some play. Do you think that this qualifies as a "bad" hand playing G/B? Is this what you would expect for the 3S bid? What would a double of 3H show?

This is strictly the opinion of an amateur, of course, but I think the given hand is just wrong for a micheals call, it is both too strong for a weak 2♥ and not good enough for a strong one. The rest of the auction bears this out.

[Fluffy]

I agree with rebound, not the hand for weak/strong michaels, and not the hand for 3♠ that bid needs at least a 6th spade, or at least something you haven't already bid.

[skjaeran]

I agree with 2♠ initially. To show the strong hand partner should double 3♥. Thus 3♠ shows a "good" bad - that means maybe 6-5 and good interiors. The hand he held didn't fit the description - it's inbetween, and should overcall 1♠. Before seeing partner's hand I expected opps to make 4♥. I'd bid 4♠ as a save. On a good day it might make too.

[jdonn]

skaeran, on May 14 2007, 02:17 PM, said:

I agree with 2♠ initially. To show the strong hand partner should double 3♥. Thus 3♠ shows a "good" bad - that means maybe 6-5 and good interiors. The hand he held didn't fit the description - it's inbetween, and should overcall 1♠. Before seeing partner's hand I expected opps to make 4♥. I'd bid 4♠ as a save. On a good day it might make too.

I agree with this 100%, to me it is the most accurate post yet on this topic.

[Apollo81]

Hannie, on May 13 2007, 01:19 PM, said:

Partner's hand was AK109x x xx Axxxx

3♠ was not a good bid. This hand isn't even close to what I'd expect.