[lamford]

You have ♠AKJxx ♥Kx ♦x ♣AKxxx. It is game all, IMPs, again a strong team event in London. It goes 1♥-P-P and you bid 2♥, Michaels. You have not discussed what strength is expected in the protective seat. It now goes P-2♠-P to you again. Your go. And what should your specific agreement be on 2♥?

[gordontd]

I think I'm worth a try (♥K notwithstanding) so I bid my second suit.

[han]

Lamford, what is the alternative to 3C? Do you think that we are too strong?

[dboxley]

lamford, on 2011-October-19, 04:41, said:

You have ♠AKJxx ♥Kx ♦x ♣AKxxx. It is game all, IMPs, again a strong team event in London. It goes 1♥-P-P and you bid 2♥, Michaels. You have not discussed what strength is expected in the protective seat. It now goes P-2♠-P to you again. Your go. And what should your specific agreement be on 2♥?

3♣ is plenty, even 3♠ may have no play. Of course you have to be playing with someone who can evaluate his/her hand.

[lamford]

han, on 2011-October-19, 04:59, said:

Lamford, what is the alternative to 3C? Do you think that we are too strong?

I mistakenly thought that a protective Michaels was always strong, based on some article I recalled in Bridge World. So I thought I had shown my hand and passed.

[Fluffy]

why do you post a no agreement hand in A/E?

[han]

There is strong and then there is strong.

[pooltuna]

I would bid 3♠ while biting my tongue to restrain myself from calling 4♠

[lamford]

Fluffy, on 2011-October-19, 07:35, said:

why do you post a no agreement hand in A/E?

There is an agreement to play Michaels, and I expect that many will have not discussed the exact range in the protective seat.

[kgr]

pooltuna, on 2011-October-19, 08:12, said:

I would bid 3♠ while biting my tongue to restrain myself from calling 4♠

I think that I will not be able to resist going to 4♠.
Maybe I first try with 3♣: If partner goes to 4♠ then they can not blame me

[han]

I take back my earlier comment, apparently there are already two people who want to bid spades. My understanding of Michaels is that 2H shows 5 spades. If so, why would we bid spades again? That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Fluffy]

nor to me, its either 2NT or 3♣ if I'm bidding again.

[kgr]

I didn't really want to suggest to keep bidding ♠ on my own.
The intention of my remark was that I would probably not pass - and bid 4♠ - after:
(1♥)-P-(P)-2♥
(p)-2♠-(P)-3♣
(p)-3♠-(p)-??
How strong a hand did we already show now?

[gwnn]

I think 4♣ is almost an alternative to 3♣, but it's far from a viable alternative.

[gordontd]

kgr, on 2011-October-19, 09:48, said:

I didn't really want to suggest to keep bidding ♠ on my own.
The intention of my remark was that I would probably not pass - and bid 4♠ - after:
(1♥)-P-(P)-2♥
(p)-2♠-(P)-3♣
(p)-3♠-(p)-??
How strong a hand did we already show now?

You better hope that partner doesn't think too much before bidding 3♠, if you really do intend to bid 4♠ irrespective of whether he signs off after 3♣.

[lamford]

Partner has ♠10x ♥AJxx ♦xx ♣QJxxx and you make 6♣, and 4♠ as the cards lie.

[han]

I don't know if any of your posts in this thread were honest or not. Did you really pass 2S?

[lamford]

han, on 2011-October-19, 15:17, said:

I don't know if any of your posts in this thread were honest or not. Did you really pass 2S?

Yes, I did. The hand was played by one or two others who post on here - gnasher I believe. It seems I am way off-beam on this, as I was under the impression that a protective Michaels showed a good hand, and that weaker hands just bid 1S. I would have bid 2NT on my partner's hand, and then 3NT if I had, as expected, diamonds. But it seems that nobody agrees with me, so I must give in to the weight of opinion. Sadly, I am honest on this one.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2011-October-19, 15:41, said:

It seems I am way off-beam on this, as I was under the impression that a protective Michaels showed a good hand, and that weaker hands just bid 1S.

I think it shows a good hand too, but it really doesn't need much from partner to make game.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-October-19, 15:41, said:

I was under the impression that a protective Michaels showed a good hand, and that weaker hands just bid 1S.

gordontd, on 2011-October-19, 16:17, said:

I think it shows a good hand too, but it really doesn't need much from partner to make game.

I'm glad I wasn't sitting opposite when you perpetrated this. Without discussion, I would have thought that a protective Michaels bid showed a decent opener or better.

By the way, does anyone play, or think that it is sensible to play, such a bid as any two suits?