[Lobowolf]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 15 2008, 06:13 AM, said:

ochinko, on Aug 15 2008, 04:14 AM, said:

This hand is a very good example of why one should play weak/strong Michaels. If you do, you bid 1♠, then 2♥ here. Partner never invites after 2♣, as you could be weak. If you make another move after partner makes a choice, you're showing the strong version.

♠K7542 ♥AKQ92 ♦x ♣A2 goes through 2♣, rebids 3♥ after 2♥

♠AQ542 ♥AKQ92 ♦x ♣A2 goes through 2♣, rebids 3♣ after 2♥

A 1S overcall?

How about suit quality?

# for lead directing purposes?
# with xx in spades and hearts,
which suit do you want to play?

With kind regards
Marlowe

I agree with the considerations of suit quality/lead direction and potential trump quality, but for me they're overcome by a couple of offsetting factors:

1. I think there's a very good chance we'll be declaring. If we're not, I'll wish I'd overcalled in hearts.

2. I'm a fan of flexibility when appropriate, and I think the advantages of showing both of our 5-card majors outweigh the advantages of emphasizing the best one. Yes, if partner has xx xx, I'd rather we were in spades, but if partner's hearts are longer, that's the one we'll end up in anyway, and if his spades are longer, I'll want him to know that I have a suit other than hearts.

1♥ has definite plusses, but on balance, I think it's too unilateral.

[han]

I would never bid 1H.

[kfay]

han, on Aug 15 2008, 10:25 AM, said:

I would never bid 1H.

Agree. I have two suits....

Now I pass. I didn't plan on taking another call.

[jdonn]

I think a 1♥ overcall is hopeless. If you play split range Michaels you have to overcall 1♠, if not (I don't) then I like Michaels, and raise 2♥ to 3♥ (but I would have passed 2♠).

If you say after a 1♠ overcall you could get to the wrong suit, I agree. That's why you should not play split range Michaels. If you do play that, there is one way and only one to reach 5-3 (or sometimes even 5-4) spade fits, and you just can't give that up.

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Aug 15 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

...then I like Michaels, and raise 2♥ to 3♥ (but I would have passed 2♠).

Isn't this backwards? 2♠ is more likely to be a real suit. Also, we can take the tap with small trumps.* Playing hearts we're unlikely to make any spade tricks unless partner has a nice fit for spades as well (or more hearts than is consistent with bidding only 2♥).

I would pass 2♥. I don't consider this close. But why is this a problem? If we're stuck over partner's most likely reply then maybe we should not have bid 2♣ in the first place.

* ♠Axx and the ♥T makes 4♠ on 3-2 trumps and 3-3 hearts, or 4-2 with the HJ falling (edit -- assuming we can get enough clubs out of the dummy before they ruff in to avoid 4 fast losers)

[jdonn]

xcurt, on Aug 15 2008, 11:37 AM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 15 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

...then I like Michaels, and raise 2♥ to 3♥ (but I would have passed 2♠).

Isn't this backwards? 2♠ is more likely to be a real suit. Also, we can take the tap with small trumps.* Playing hearts we're unlikely to make any spade tricks unless partner has a nice fit for spades as well (or more hearts than is consistent with bidding only 2♥).

I would pass 2♥. I don't consider this close. But why is this a problem? If we're stuck over partner's most likely reply then maybe we should not have bid 2♣ in the first place.

* ♠Axx and the ♥T makes 4♠ on 3-2 trumps and 3-3 hearts, or 4-2 with the HJ falling (edit -- assuming we can get enough clubs out of the dummy before they ruff in to avoid 4 fast losers)

It's not backwards, if partner bids hearts he may well have short spades and the hand could be an excellent fit. Short hearts do nothing. If he bids spades and he has Qxx or Kxx that is probably three losers, and you would need no losers in the minors. To say nothing of the fact you would probably need a heart ruff as well.

Also, who says we are stuck? That part you made up, I feel fine with my bid.

[skjaeran]

Agree with 2♣.

Having bid vulnerable, this is a clear pass now IMO. Partner wouldn't just take preference with 4-card support and short spades.