[kgr]

Scoring: IMP

---

(1♦)-2♦!!-(P)-2♥
(p)-3♦-(DBL)-P
(p)-4♥-All pass
 
2♦=both majors, from 4-4, strength like overcall or better.
3♦=Not discussed, but clearly an invite for 4
4♥=♠Q and a 4-card ♥ could be enough for 4♥, so I better bid it myself.
...Comments?

[655321]

Abstain, hate the methods.

[P_Marlowe]

You did bid the game on your own.
The hand is not nearly strong enoughfor
this, 3D followed by 3H after the X would
be more than enough.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Hanoi5]

I would have x 1♦ and shown spades if partner had bid clubs. On the present auction I would have bid 3♥.

[jdonn]

If the cuebid only promised 4-4 then it seems clear to me to bid 2♠ over 2♥ in case partner is 3-3 in the majors or something. That should also show extra values.

[Free]

You have to bid 2♦ with 20HCP???

I agree with Josh that 2♠ is a lot better than 3♦.

[whereagles]

I'm ok with 3♦. Over the dbl, 3♠ seems normal.

[kgr]

655321, on Dec 7 2008, 01:26 PM, said:

Abstain, hate the methods.

I don't understand this. You can also DBL as take-out iso 2♦ if you want.
What exactly do you think is so bad of the method?

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Dec 7 2008, 12:13 PM, said:

If the cuebid only promised 4-4 then it seems clear to me to bid 2♠ over 2♥ in case partner is 3-3 in the majors or something. That should also show extra values.

Stop the quiz. This is the right answer.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Dec 7 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

If the cuebid only promised 4-4 then it seems clear to me to bid 2♠ over 2♥ in case partner is 3-3 in the majors or something. That should also show extra values.

Right. But maybe 20 points is a little much for 2♠. Then again, game may not be on if we don't have a fit.

[mikeh]

Silly methods... why not double first?

Anyway, a partnership that plays this method probably hasn't discussed what partner's pass of the double of 3♦ shows, but experienced partnerships do discuss this situation... it arises quite often.

While I am not claiming that the way I and my partners play it is standard, I do think that it is reasonably common to play that the weakest call partner could have made would be to have bid 3♥... thus, pass shows a little more than a minimum.. and thus this would be enough to get me to bid game.

I stress that I very much doubt that the OP played this, and I concur with those who dislike the method, and who suggest that (if forced to play this) bidding 2♠ over 2♥ makes sense... this hand has 20 hcp, but it is not that good a hand without a real fit, and nothing about this auction, to that point, suggested a real fit.

[kgr]

mikeh, on Dec 7 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

Silly methods... why not double first?

Anyway, a partnership that plays this method ...

..and I concur with those who dislike the method,..

I can understand that you prefer DBL over 2♦ and that the bid I choose was very very bad and utterly stupid, but I don't understand how you can say that you dislike the method when I only said that 2♦ shows both majors. I don't see how it can be that much worse then f.i. 2♦ showing 5-5 majors.
...so if you say 3 times that it is a very bad method, can you explain why?

Quote

While I am not claiming that the way I and my partners play it is standard, I do think that it is reasonably common to play that the weakest call partner could have made would be to have bid 3♥... thus, pass shows a little more than a minimum.. and thus this would be enough to get me to bid game.

I stress that I very much doubt that the OP played this,

I agreed this with my partner (if forced to fi 3♥ then bidding 3♥ is weaker then pass), but he forgot it.

[gnasher]

mikeh, on Dec 7 2008, 10:47 PM, said:

Silly methods... why not double first?

The methods allow you to bid 2D-2H-2S with a strong 5-4 in the majors, and double-2C-2S with a good hand that doesn't contain five spades. Playing standard Michaels, double-2C-2S has to cover both hand types.

There are good reasons for disliking these methods, but on this hand I'd be grateful for the extra definition.

[MFA]

Since partner could easily be equally long in the majors, it doesn't make sense to insist on hearts.

One option is to bid 2♠ over 2♥. I don't know these methods very well, but it seems likely that we are too strong for that.

Then we could bid 3♦, 3♣ or 3♠ whatever these means. It's worth discussing, if we should play this convention! I think it's sensible to define 3♦ as a gametry+ with longer spades, so we could pass partner's 3♥. Absent agreements, I would surely try 3♠ instead of 4♥.

[mikeh]

kgr, on Dec 7 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

mikeh, on Dec 7 2008, 11:47 PM, said:

Silly methods... why not double first?

Anyway, a partnership that plays this method ...

..and I concur with those who dislike the method,..

I can understand that you prefer DBL over 2♦ and that the bid I choose was very very bad and utterly stupid, but I don't understand how you can say that you dislike the method when I only said that 2♦ shows both majors. I don't see how it can be that much worse then f.i. 2♦ showing 5-5 majors.
...so if you say 3 times that it is a very bad method, can you explain why?

Quote

While I am not claiming that the way I and my partners play it is standard, I do think that it is reasonably common to play that the weakest call partner could have made would be to have bid 3♥... thus, pass shows a little more than a minimum.. and thus this would be enough to get me to bid game.

I stress that I very much doubt that the OP played this,

I agreed this with my partner (if forced to fi 3♥ then bidding 3♥ is weaker then pass), but he forgot it.

You described the cue as 'strength like overcall' 4-4 or better in the majors.

You used it with 20 hcp and AKJxx in spades, in addition to the hearts. I asked why not double? You haven't responded to that question.

I like wide ranging overcalls, but 20 hcp with a decent 5 card spade suit is too good a hand for me, and, I suspect, for most. I assume that we would make the same initial call with 6 or 7 points, and maybe less, especially if 5-5 in the majors.. of course, vulnerability would matter... and, if so, then I am worried that we may never really be able to show this hand... our range is too great...and not merely in hcp but also in shape. There is a huge difference, in my opinion, between 5-5 (or better) and 4-4 or better. The differences are defensive as well as offensive AKxx AKxx xx xxx is far worse offensively and far better defensively (against a minor contract) than AKxxx AKxxx x xx. So I disagree with your notion that this treatment is equivalent to using the cue bid as 5-5.

However, to have a detailed discussion does require that we know why double is anti-systemic.

[brianshark]

What's with all the people advocating double instead of 2♦? You have a Major 2-suiter and you have a way of immediately showing a Major 2-suiter which is not limited in strength so why would you not use it?

Regarding how high you should bid, I agree with JDonn about 2♠, but it's clear you shouldn't be bidding to 4 on your own as that would show a hand that has 10 tricks in it's own hand opposite as little as 3-card preference and was looking for slam. Even with ♠Q and 4 hearts (very idealistic) game is not cold. And partner can find a bid with as little as a Q in your suit and 4 card support.

[kgr]

mikeh, on Dec 8 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

...

However, to have a detailed discussion does require that we know why double is anti-systemic.

DBL is not anti-systemic.
..I thought about it and I know think it is far better to start with a DBL with a strong hand.
For me the problem is not that 2D would to too wide ranging - it is forcing anyway - but rather that partner is supposed to choose a Major. And with this strong hand you prefer to have an idea of partner's length in the suit bid (eg if he has 3=3=4=4, 2=2=4=5...).
I think we can agree that even with the 2♦ bid available that DBL is a better start.
(Partner had 2=3=4=4 hand and no useful points).

[han]

Playing this gadget I agree that 2D followed by 2S should work out well, but I don't understand why you would play it. Note that you are behind every time you pick up a true Michaels hand since the rest of the room is showing at least 5-5 and you are showing 4-4. Maybe you do ok when the opponents leave you alone but if it goes (1D) - 2D - (4D) then partner would really like to know you are 5-5.

[kgr]

han, on Dec 9 2008, 12:22 AM, said:

Playing this gadget I agree that 2D followed by 2S should work out well, but I don't understand why you would play it. Note that you are behind every time you pick up a true Michaels hand since the rest of the room is showing at least 5-5 and you are showing 4-4. Maybe you do ok when the opponents leave you alone but if it goes (1D) - 2D - (4D) then partner would really like to know you are 5-5.

I agree that we have a disadvantage in the bidding if 5-5 Majors (If 15+ and 5-5 then we bid 3♦). But I think that 4-4/4-5 is more frequent then 5-5.

[cherdano]

kgr, on Dec 8 2008, 04:26 PM, said:

han, on Dec 9 2008, 12:22 AM, said:

Playing this gadget I agree that 2D followed by 2S should work out well, but I don't understand why you would play it. Note that you are behind every time you pick up a true Michaels hand since the rest of the room is showing at least 5-5 and you are showing 4-4. Maybe you do ok when the opponents leave you alone but if it goes (1D) - 2D - (4D) then partner would really like to know you are 5-5.

I agree that we have a disadvantage in the bidding if 5-5 Majors (If 15+ and 5-5 then we bid 3♦). But I think that 4-4/4-5 is more frequent then 5-5.

Well, the rest of us also have a bid for 4-4 majors. It is called "double".
More seriously, what do you play double as?