[MrAce]

---

Cross imps.

[Fluffy]

What is the style?, I have some partners that would only bid 2♦ with 5-5 around opening values at least, but I know others who would do it with 5-4 with 6 HCP. Probably the standard is in the middle.

It is a missfit, so going low seems best, 2♠ is what I would bid unless partner is really solid.

[mike777]

2s no problem yet

[nige1]

MrAce's cross-imp problem.

I rank
1. 2♠ = NAT. You might miss game but it's non-vul. IMO partner promises no more than ♠ KJxxx ♥ AJxxx ♦ xx ♣ x
2. 2N = ASK. Suggested responses: 3♣ = MIN. 3♦ = MIN longer ♠s. 3♥ = MAX. 3♠ = MAX longer ♥s.
3. 3N = NAT. to play.
4. 3S = INV. Would prefer to have another ♠.
5. 4S = NAT. Brave,

---

[MrAce]

Fluffy, on 2016-October-09, 03:18, said:

What is the style?, I have some partners that would only bid 2♦ with 5-5 around opening values at least, but I know others who would do it with 5-4 with 6 HCP. Probably the standard is in the middle.

It is a missfit, so going low seems best, 2♠ is what I would bid unless partner is really solid.

5-5 minimum shape. No hcp restrictions. But not total trash.

[rmnka447]

Here you are with an opening bid equivalent and partner shows the two suits you really don't have. But you do have honors in the suits partner has. What to do???

Anything could be right or wrong. It seems likely that West has ♦ length and the hand is a misfit all around. There's always a slight chance that West has 3 ♦ and both majors which isn't much better. Anyhow, experience should be telling you to be conservative with potential misfits.

I'm bidding 2 ♠ also. I find it hard to bid more especially NV when partner can have less than an opener and be pushing the bidding envelope. If partner makes 4, that's just due to the fog of the hand. Of course, if partner makes any further move showing good values/distribution, then you can come to life. Hey, and on a good day, the opponents may decide to compete further in the minors which wouldn't exactly displease you.

[Phil]

Even if partner has extras blockages in the majors are a concern. I'd just bid 2S. A normal minimum looks like ATxxx AJxxx x xx. Why would I want to try for game across from this?

This is actually a good time for split range Michaels.

[ggwhiz]

2♠ seems like enough here with an outside chance that partner can move or the opponents aren't done bidding yet.

Red I would probably try 2nt and depending on our methods and end up in 3♠ down 1, sigh. I HATE any notion that partner can be 5-4 opposite my unpassed hand and mediocre 5-5's overcall 1♠ (red) in my partnership.

[jogs]

They opened in a minor. Our chances of 25+ HCP is about 3%. Looks like we have 13 major suit cards and 13 minor suit cards. Not conclusive to making lots of tricks. Cross imps. A small plus score of 2♠+2 is only a disaster if a large portion of the field finds 4♠=. The conservative 2♠ is enough.

[MrAce]

Thanks to all replies.
I also bid 2♠

Pd had

K9652
QJ943
A
K5


1♦ opener held

AJT8
AT72
JT5
Q7

I made 2♠ +1 for +1.64 imps. 4♠ is makeable but noone bid 4♠
9 out of 15 bid 3 NT. 4 of them made it and gained +8 imps.

[Zelandakh]

MrAce, on 2016-October-11, 05:02, said:

Thanks to all replies.

A silent win for the style where this is a 1♠ overcall followed by a heart rebid. This is the issue with wide-ranging Michaels although its practitioners will say that the wins vastly outweigh the problem hands. You do not have to change the hands very much for game to be almost certain with 2♠ remaining the mainstream choice. Both split-range and strong (10 or so +) Michaels are both considerably easier to handle for mere mortals, even if the trend is running against this.

[ggwhiz]

Zelandakh, on 2016-October-11, 09:26, said:

Both split-range and strong Michaels are both considerably easier to handle for mere mortals, even if the trend is running against this.

Not a trend I will be following.

It's legit style wise but 6 pts in the majors with no particular body cards and 1/2 a quick trick versus 7 in the minors with 1 1/2 quick doesn't fly with me.

Sure it wins its share but perhaps the losses are masked by opponents playing the same thing and turning them into pushes? Maybe not this hand but if the offence/defence ratio can be this skewed I can see some competitive bidding and defensive disasters on opening lead happening.