[ArcLight]

Imps, All Red

LHO deals and opens 1♦ - pass - pass
You hold:
S: A J 9 8 x
H: A Q T 8 x
D: A
C: x x


1♦ - p - p - 2D
p - 2♠ - p -?


What do you do??


1♦ - p - p - 2D
p - 2♠ - p - p
3♣ - p - p -??

Now what?


Responders hand below:

How should the bidding go?

Spoiler

♠ K Q x
♥ K x
♦ J x x x x
♣ x x x

[han]

Too good to pass, make a gametry.

[whereagles]

depends a bit on agreements. with none, I'd just bid 3♦ over 2♠.

[nick_s]

I was taught that Michaels (or UNT) was either weak (< 12) or strong (16+). With an intermediate hand, bid the suits one at a time.
Partner will assume you have the weak type, and won't get over-excited with eg. a 10 count. Here you have the strong type, so let partner know by making a game try. I'd raise 2♠ to 3♠.

[whereagles]

nick_s, on Dec 22 2007, 02:08 AM, said:

I was taught that Michaels (or UNT) was either weak (< 12) or strong (16+). With an intermediate hand, bid the suits one at a time.

that's one of the schools, the older one. These days people lean more to the other: "with a 55 you cue first and think later"

[ArtK78]

It seems that current thinking is to bid both suits as soon as possible. Fewer and fewer players are playing the good/bad Michaels bids.

This hand is too good to pass the 2♠ preference. I would raise to 3♠. It is clear that responder would bid game.

[jdonn]

I agree with the last posts the 5-5 hand should raise to 3♠, and should have doubled when 3♣ came back. But no one has mentioned that the 2♠ bidder has automatic action to take over 3♣ himself, look how good his hand is for the majors!

[pclayton]

3♠ - nothing specific to show here but too much too pass.

[helene_t]

In SAYC, a cuebid in balancing seat is not Michaels. I thought it wasn't in "expert standard" either.

If one want to play Michaels in balancing seat, I think the range should be more specific than in direct seat.

[ArtK78]

helene_t, on Dec 22 2007, 12:30 PM, said:

In SAYC, a cuebid in balancing seat is not Michaels. I thought it wasn't in "expert standard" either.

I am not aware that a cuebid in passout seat is not Michaels in SAYC. Quite frankly, I don't think that SAYC says anything about a cuebid in passout seat.

If nothing else, it is a matter of partnership agreement. But I suspect that it is expert standard that the cuebid is Michaels. What else could it be? Certainly not natural. There is no reason for it to be a blockbuster type of hand - double works just fine. Western cue bid?

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Dec 22 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

I agree with the last posts the 5-5 hand should raise to 3♠, and should have doubled when 3♣ came back. But no one has mentioned that the 2♠ bidder has automatic action to take over 3♣ himself, look how good his hand is for the majors!

Yes, the responding hand is very good opposite a major two suiter. But I was ignorning the fact that the auction was passed around to the balancing bid of 3♣ since there is no way that would happen in real life.

[ArtK78]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 22 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

I agree with the last posts the 5-5 hand should raise to 3♠, and should have doubled when 3♣ came back. But no one has mentioned that the 2♠ bidder has automatic action to take over 3♣ himself, look how good his hand is for the majors!

Didnt even see his hand, he had a hand way too good for 2S to begin with anyways.

While the responding hand had many honors in partner's suits, it did not have great length in partner's suits. So, opposite a possible weak hand, it is not unreasonable to bid only 2♠.

Give the hand a fourth spade, and 3♠ (maybe even 4♠) is clear.

[ArtK78]

Jlall, on Dec 22 2007, 01:32 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Dec 22 2007, 01:22 PM, said:

Jlall, on Dec 22 2007, 01:09 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 22 2007, 12:26 PM, said:

I agree with the last posts the 5-5 hand should raise to 3♠, and should have doubled when 3♣ came back. But no one has mentioned that the 2♠ bidder has automatic action to take over 3♣ himself, look how good his hand is for the majors!

Didnt even see his hand, he had a hand way too good for 2S to begin with anyways.

While the responding hand had many honors in partner's suits, it did not have great length in partner's suits. So, opposite a possible weak hand, it is not unreasonable to bid only 2♠.

Give the hand a fourth spade, and 3♠ (maybe even 4♠) is clear.

Hi,

Opposite a hand like AT9xx AQxxx xx x game is very good. This is a weak hand. If partner is much weaker than this they are cold for something.

When partner shows a 5-5 hand the only things to look at are your holdings in his suit and your aces in the other suits. To me KQx and Kx on the side is a very strong holding. I think you will miss a lot of games if you bid 2S with such a strong hand for partner.

That is an awfully good weak hand.

I have certainly seen a lot worse.

But I agree, there is a lot to be said for bidding more than 2♠ on the responding hand.