BBO Discussion Forums: Followups? - BBO Discussion Forums

Playing a standardish 2/1, I've forced a Michaels cue-bid on you for now, if you disagree with that, feel free to say so & explain your reasoning.

What is your general plan for this hand?

3♥ nat F first. Then 4♦ over 3♠, then 5♣ over 4♠ and partner should get the picture almost exactly as to my hand and realise that the only cards I care about are A♣ and Q♠. If pard is 2146 I'll take my medicine (which if partner is awake will be in 5♥ which hasn't gone off yet).

to be clear, you haven't agreed to play 3♥ as natural and forcing. If you believe that is standard, go ahead and bid it - my knowledge of this auction is insufficient to say that it is NOT standard, but I certainly didn't think it would be forcing at the table.

CSGibson, on 2012-December-18, 03:28, said:

If you play split range Michaels as I do, it's not uncommon that the upper part of the range is GF, hence why for me it would be forcing. If you don't play split range it's much more awkward.

I would bid 3 ♥ too. If you do not play split range- what do I know what is standard 2/1... you need to jump to 4 or even 5 Heart to show a strong hand with longer hearts and I would do that, as a yarb with 4233 will be sufficent for a slam, I will try 5 ♥.

I learned it that any action by Overcaller other than a direct raise shows a strong hand type. Bidding the other suit shows extra length there; bidding one of the short suits shows a void; bidding NT shows none of the above (you do sometimes have to adjust this due to space considerations). That is an old-fashioned style these days and unpopular on BBF, partly because Justin has strongly advocated a different and more modern approach.

I simply bid 4♥.
With about 2.5 losers I am a bit strong for this action, but otherwise I consider it a good description of the hand.
5♥ is too much. The bidding does not suggest we have a huge fit.
I am more concerned playing the right major than the right level, which is simply guesswork.

Rainer Herrmann

Zelandakh, on 2012-December-18, 04:01, said:

Can you provide a reference to this more modern approach?

Rainer Herrmann

Justin has posted often on this subject. Here is just one, on this occasion discussing UNT. You can run your own search for further threads on the subject.

6H (maybe 5H)

Should show the hand, the start with the Michaels Cue was ok.

With kind regards
Marlowe

3♥ is not forcing. I don't play split-range Michaels (or Bergen Raises, 2 way reverse drury, Cappeletti or other hopeless treatments espoused by intermediates who read the Bulletin and books on bidding), so this isn't an option anyway.

4♥ is kind of weird, although I admit it was my first reaction.

I think I'll start with 3♦. My general plan is to follow up with 4♥ which I think shows this hand type.

Forcing this hand to slam is pretty rich.

Phil, on 2012-December-18, 10:04, said:

I disagree,I think east seat repeat to rebid known suit is to show the feature of strong hand ,so 3♥ is forcing with slammish.

Why does split range matter here? Surely you are allowed to Michaels with a good 6-5 hand that does not have game in its own hand. Playing bids like 3h forcing does not make a lot of sense to me, you can always just bid game or cuebid. Sure it works well for hands like this where you have almost slam in your own hand but that does not come up often for me. However I have good 6-5 hands that cannot force to game especially if opposite a misfit pretty often. I mean akxxx kqjxxx x x is undoubtedly a very good hand unless you are counting high cards only, I would have trouble believing anyone who told me they would not kichaels with that hand because it's not good enough, but if partner wanted to pass 3h that is fine with me.

My point is obviously 3h is a strong bid no matter how you play michaels, that doesn't mean it should be forcing.

As far as this hand goes I would have trouble stopping below the five level. Even 4h seems like an underbid. I would probably start with 3d and see what happened.

Whether you Michaels is split range or wide range, 3H should show an uneven monster such as this hand and be forcing. To me this is logic, and logic is probably not standard.

With a lesser hand of disparity in the majors, we wouldn't start with Michaels and pull partner's choice. If we did play wide-range, so that partner is immediately in the dark about how to contribute (preemptively or constructively), then with the in-between range we would simply raise her choice if we can.

We are not pulling his choice, we are continuing to bid in a constructive and descriptive manner.

JLOGIC, on 2012-December-18, 10:58, said:

I didn't see your posts until I had posted. But, your 5-6 hand is not the 2-card disparity I was basing my thoughts on.
If we did employ the wide range, our 2NT rebid and other tools would be different; 2S/2H and 3H/2S would still be uneven monsters; and it would all be workable.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2012-December-18, 11:20

Phil, on 2012-December-18, 10:04, said:

Bergen is an intermediate?

aguahombre, on 2012-December-18, 11:04, said:

Fair enough, though 7-5 hands are extremely rare, that it is not worth reserving a common bid for this purpose.
You will have to bid at least 50 times Michaels, before you will encounter a suitable 7-5 hand. My remaining life span is too short for that.
If you hold a strong hand with 6 cards in hearts and 5 cards in spades it is well known that you are frequently better off playing in your 6-2 heart fit than in your 5-3 spade fit, where you may get forced much more easily. When this happens there is often a huge discrepancy in tricks taken between hearts and spades.
Such 6-5 hands are more than ten times as likely than 7-5

I agree with Justin that there seems to be little justification why 3♥ should be forcing.
The reason I reject a cuebid of 3♦ with the actual hand is that I think it will be difficult thereafter to convince partner that we belong in hearts.
Make the hand weaker by changing a major suit ace into a small card of the same color, say ♠AK863,♥KJ97432,♦-,♣8. This is still a strong hand.
Would you now pass 2♠?
I am pretty sure we belong in hearts if partner can not do more than bid 2♠.
3♥ is a good description and if partner passes game may have little play.

Rainer Herrmann

If partner has 2-1 in the majors and a yarborough, spades is going to play better than hearts, typically making ten tricks (if they force us, ruff a heart, cash the ♠ AK and claim) where hearts can sometimes be held to nine if they stwitch to a heart (spades 4-2 plus heart loser).

Here, I am happy to bid 3♦ and evaluate, since the slam potential is more important than stressing hearts.