[the hog]

I would bid 3S. Bidding 3C is a possibility as it does show the second suit, but is inferior as it could easily show a weaker hand with 5S and 6C.

[han]

Lamford, you keep saying "good hand" and "strong hand" without specifying what it means. No wonder you and your partner had different ideas on this.

In this setting I would consider a 5-5 12-count already a good hand, I don't think Michaels shows more than that. Obvious if that is the agreement, this hand has a lot of extra strength. If you say, a protective Michaels shows at least an 18-count and with less than an 18-count you have to bid 1S, ok then this hand does not have extras at all. But I think that that would be a really unusual agreement.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-19, 18:52, said:

By the way, does anyone play, or think that it is sensible to play, such a bid as any two suits?

I would expect that to be the undiscussed meaning.

[rhm]

gordontd, on 2011-October-19, 16:17, said:

I think it shows a good hand too, but it really doesn't need much from partner to make game.

Did partner's 2♠ bid show more than 2 small cards in ♠?

I would bid 2NT now, which must show a strong hand with a ♥ stopper and at least hint on your exact distribution. 3NT from this side might well be our only game.
♣ or ♠ bids at this point should show more distribution or at least better suits.

I am not really convinced that Michaels in balancing position is such a clever tool for this hand.
Simply bidding 1♠ and see partner's reaction would be more helpful, than forcing him to bid.
If partner raises ♠ you know where you want to play and if he bids anything else you can jump to 3NT.
If opponents keep the bidding open for you, you can introduce your ♣ suit next.
It is important that you get to be declarer to protect your ♥K and to put opening bidder on lead.
1♠ is unlikely to get passed out when you have game from partner's side.
The few times this might happen are more than compensated for by the many times you will not languish in a hopeless game that way.

All in all I am not impressed by the 2♥ bid.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-October-20, 01:56, said:

I would expect that to be the undiscussed meaning.

I think it might be the better meaning, but untangling the suits can be messy if the opener now bids 3 of his suit.

[lamford]

han, on 2011-October-20, 01:04, said:

Lamford, you keep saying "good hand" and "strong hand" without specifying what it means. No wonder you and your partner had different ideas on this.

I would completely agree that I was just as much at sea as my partner on this hand. I would have regarded a protective Michaels as a minimum of AKxxx xx x AKxxx or with the minors or the singleton transposed. I would play partner for this when responding. I would only respond Two Spades on a doubleton with a weak 2-4 (2 5). Some people play Michaels as weak or strong, and the strong hand I have seen sometimes described as five losers or fewer. If partner has three spades, then he needs about a five count for game to be favourite. Qxx xxx KQxx xxx for example is almost hopeless (opposite AKJxx Kx x AKxxx) - requiring the ace of hearts with the person who could not respond.

[lamford]

rhm, on 2011-October-20, 03:28, said:

All in all I am not impressed by the 2♥ bid.

It was found by the two other (internationals) I knew held the hand. One bid 3C after 2S by partner, the other asked with 2NT opposite.

I think the problem was, as Han states, the lack of definition.

[gnasher]

In my match, my team had the opening side's hands at both tables. This was unfortunate from the point of view of obtaining a result, but at least it saved us from any risk of ignominy. Our opponents reached 1♠ at one table and 3NT at the other. Maybe it's trickier than it looks.

I think that, regardless of what you do in second seat, it's normal to play the protective cue-bid as Michaels, opening strength or better. (It's probably better to play it as any two suits, but you'd need some methods to cope with that.)

One sequence that was suggested was
... - 2♥
2♠ - 3♣
4♥ - etc

[JLOGIC]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-19, 18:52, said:

By the way, does anyone play, or think that it is sensible to play, such a bid as any two suits?

Definitely sensible since 2N would be natural, you have no bid for the minors, and doubling on all hands with minors is undesirable. I do not actually play this with anyone though.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2011-October-19, 06:16, said:

I mistakenly thought that a protective Michaels was always strong, based on some article I recalled in Bridge World. So I thought I had shown my hand and passed.

lamford, on 2011-October-19, 15:41, said:

It seems I am way off-beam on this, as I was under the impression that a protective Michaels showed a good hand, and that weaker hands just bid 1S. I would have bid 2NT on my partner's hand, and then 3NT if I had, as expected, diamonds. But it seems that nobody agrees with me, so I must give in to the weight of opinion. Sadly, I am honest on this one.

You are not, IMO, way off-beam on this. You were just on a different beam from your partner. My partner would have gone thru 2NT as you mentioned, and then cuebid 3H when she got the 3C response because we, too, believe a balancing michaels is big. Her expectation would probably be the same hand without the heart king. Slam went away with the 2S advance.

But, I think the OP hand should still move again with 2NT; the other posters are right in disliking your pass of 2S.