[mikeh]

kgr, on Dec 8 2008, 05:26 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.

no-one argues with this.

but, imagine partner with 4 card support for a major, and a weakish shapely hand... if playing with a partner who uses michaels, he can jump to game (or at least compete higher) since he has the protection of a good fit... if partner is strong, maybe the contract makes, if he is weak, maybe it is a good save (btw, this is one reason a lot of michaels players use it with strong or weak, but not intermediate hands.. when done with an intermediate hand, the weak, shapely jump is neither fish nor fowl... too weak to allow a make and too strong to make it a sacrifice).

And with a competitive hand, with both opps bidding, entering the auction on a 3 card major, to compete for the partscore, is easy when partner promises a 5 card suit, but dangerous when partner could be 4=4.

Generally speaking, the more hand-types, or the more variation within hand-types, permitted in the definition of a competitive bid, the less effective the bid will be, because partner, who is often under pressure if/when both opps bid, has more guessing to do (amongst other consequences). That doesn;t render all wide range methods unsound, but it does suggest that we try to spread the various hand-types across other possible sequences.. which would include, for most of us, the use of double with opening or near opening values and 4=4 in the majors, and (when the minor shapes are unsuitable for a takeout double) a 4 card overcall, or a pass...intending, if appropriate, to bid later. There is no need to bid with every hand, btw

[kgr]

cherdano, on Dec 9 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

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?

DBL is normal takeout with 12+ and the cue bid of the minor can be done with weaker hands (something like 7-12)

[ArtK78]

I am not going to argue about the method used. It is your choice to use this method, and you may very well get some good results using it.

However, you have to think about the logic of your calls.

2♦ was forcing and showed the majors with a good hand. Fine. You certainly have the majors and a good hand.

2♥ - partner is forced to express a preference. He could bid 2♥ on a hand with real hearts or a hand like x x xxxxx xxxxxx.

3♦ - a clear overbid. As has already been pointed out, 2♠ would have shown a very good hand with more spades than hearts, since you are forcing partner to bid again at the 3 level with a signficant preference for hearts. That bid happens to show your hand very nicely. 3♦ should show a monster, about 9 playing tricks in the majors - something like AKQTx AKQTx x xx. You can give partner an out at 3♥ in case he has something truely dreadful, like the hand I gave as an example above. Partner should bid game with a zero count with a real fit for one of your suits. Even xx xxx xxxx xxxx might be enough if you really have a 3♦ call. If you had a real good hand with 5 hearts but not quite the absolute monster that the 3♦ call shows you could bid 3♥ to invite game. Something like AKJxx AKJxx xx x would be worth a 3♥ call - this hand is likely to produce 10 tricks opposite QTx of hearts and a doubleton spade. I am sure you can come up with a meaning for a 3♣ call, but that is up to you.

Finally, after double - pass - pass you bid game. That was the worst bid of the auction. If partner couldn't bid game over 3♦, then there was no game on your hand.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Dec 8 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

2♦ was forcing and showed the majors with a good hand.  Fine.  You certainly have the majors and a good hand.

You might want to reread the post right before yours.

Quote

2♥ - partner is forced to express a preference.  He could bid 2♥ on a hand with real hearts or a hand like x x xxxxx xxxxxx.

I would surely pass the 2♦ bid before partner goes nuts. If he has an absolutely certain game in hand then sorry partner!

Quote

3♦ - a clear overbid.

Even though I advocated 2♠, I do think it's close. It's not like you need game in hand to bid 3♦. In competition you just have to take a chance on a little bit of help sometimes.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Even though I advocated 2♠, I do think it's close. It's not like you need game in hand to bid 3♦.

This hand isn't all that wonderful when you look at it. 5-losers and flat shape. If partner is broke, 9 tricks is probably impossible without an 8-card fit.

[jdonn]

If I claim that "this bid is reasonable since you may need to take the chance partner has a little something" and you reply "but it will work badly if partner has nothing at all" then I don't think we have anything to argue about.

[MFA]

ArtK78, on Dec 8 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

3♦ - a clear overbid.  As has already been pointed out, 2♠ would have shown a very good hand with more spades than hearts, since you are forcing partner to bid again at the 3 level with a signficant preference for hearts.  That bid happens to show your hand very nicely.  3♦ should show a monster, about 9 playing tricks in the majors - something like AKQTx AKQTx x xx.  You can give partner an out at 3♥ in case he has something truely dreadful, like the hand I gave as an example above.  Partner should bid game with a zero count with a real fit for one of your suits.  Even xx xxx xxxx xxxx might be enough if you really have a 3♦ call.

This has nothing to do with practical bridge.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Dec 8 2008, 07:18 PM, said:

If I claim that "this bid is reasonable since you may need to take the chance partner has a little something" and you reply "but it will work badly if partner has nothing at all" then I don't think we have anything to argue about.

It's virtually the same argument from opposing worldviews.