[phoenixmj]

Everywhere I read it says at least 5-5 in the indicated suits when you make a 2 suited bid. So, unusual 2NT would "guarantee" the shape of 5-5 and similarly, a michaels bid would also show 5-5.

As an opponent of a 2-suited bidder, this shape can be very important in planning either defense or declarer play.

What happens when someone makes an unusual 2NT bid with 5-4 shape - same question for michaels.

Is this allowed under acbl rules or is this an issue without some sort of announcement that it could be 5-4?

I have come accross this a few times and also, I have to confess to making a two suited bid with 5-4 on very rare occasions. I had not really thought through the impact on opponents playing the hand. But now I see it as a real issue.

As always - any help is appreciated.

[Zelandakh]

The reason why UNT is (almost) universally 5-5 is because this level of shape provides enough protection that a fit suitable for play at the 3 level becomes mathematically likely enough to justify bidding. This is also true for Michaels sequences when the opponents open 1♠.

It is somewhat different when a 2 level contract is available. Thus the original (1m) - 2m Michaels call was actually 5-4 or more in the majors and not 5-5. I believe many pairs do indeed still play it like that too. It is also perfectly feasible, particularly NV, to play the (1♥) - 2♥ cue bid as "5+ spades, 4+ minor", since 2♠ is available as a resting place. As long as you explain clearly to your opponents your real agreements upon request there is no issue providing the minimum shape is 5-4 and at least one suit is known. You can find that explicitly stated on the GCC under 3a in the Competitive section.

[barmar]

Zel, the GCC is obsolete. It was superceded a couple of years ago by the new Basic/Basic+/Open/Open+ convention charts here. But the Basic Chart has similar language about Unusual 2NT under "Overcalls and Competitive Bids". There's no similar language regarding Michaels Cuebids, though; it simply says that all artificial cuebids are allowed, except that if it could be weak there has to be at least one known suit.

There's no requirement to alert, but you can always ask the partner of the bidder what their style is.

The problem I have with partners who make these bids with 5-4 is that it makes it hard for me to judge how high to compete. If I think we have a double fit I might sacrifice, which could end up being a phantom when partner's shape is not what I expected.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-October-30, 09:19, said:

The problem I have with partners who make these bids with 5-4 is that it makes it hard for me to judge how high to compete. If I think we have a double fit I might sacrifice, which could end up being a phantom when partner's shape is not what I expected.

I have always played Michaels as 5-4 but my current main partner is very disciplined, so I traded this one off in exchange for some liberty when opening preempts. I'm sure that 5-5 makes partner's life easier but it also helps opponents, and 5-4 is about six times more frequent than 5-5 so we end up shifting some uncertainty to doubles, or regress to bidding the longer suit and missing the other fit.

[spotlight7]

phoenixmj, on 2019-October-29, 22:32, said:

Everywhere I read it says at least 5-5 in the indicated suits when you make a 2 suited bid. So, unusual 2NT would "guarantee" the shape of 5-5 and similarly, a michaels bid would also show 5-5.

As an opponent of a 2-suited bidder, this shape can be very important in planning either defense or declarer play.

What happens when someone makes an unusual 2NT bid with 5-4 shape - same question for michaels.

Is this allowed under acbl rules or is this an issue without some sort of announcement that it could be 5-4?

I have come accross this a few times and also, I have to confess to making a two suited bid with 5-4 on very rare occasions. I had not really thought through the impact on opponents playing the hand. But now I see it as a real issue.

As always - any help is appreciated.

I have seen them both used with 4-4 shapes.


Some books by well known players also show example with 5-4.


I strongly prefer the 5-5 types.

[msjennifer]

barmar, on 2019-October-30, 09:19, said:

Zel, the GCC is obsolete. It was superceded a couple of years ago by the new Basic/Basic+/Open/Open+ convention charts here. But the Basic Chart has similar language about Unusual 2NT under "Overcalls and Competitive Bids". There's no similar language regarding Michaels Cuebids, though; it simply says that all artificial cuebids are allowed, except that if it could be weak there has to be at least one known suit.

There's no requirement to alert, but you can always ask the partner of the bidder what their style is.

The problem I have with partners who make these bids with 5-4 is that it makes it hard for me to judge how high to compete. If I think we have a double fit I might sacrifice, which could end up being a phantom when partner's shape is not what I expected.

Sirs,zealandakh and barmar have summed it up very nicely.It is not quite suitable ( my personal opinion only) to play 2NT with a 5/4 pattern as it remains really doubtful to make out the exact level tor a sacrifice.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2019-October-30, 09:19, said:

Zel, the GCC is obsolete.

Thanks for this Barry. As a non-American these things sometimes do not filter down. I am actually somewhat surprised that I have not seen it come up in a thread from Ed that "Strong" is now defined and not "whatever the person bidding thinks it means". I will add your link as a Favourite for future reference.

barmar, on 2019-October-30, 09:19, said:

The problem I have with partners who make these bids with 5-4 is that it makes it hard for me to judge how high to compete. If I think we have a double fit I might sacrifice, which could end up being a phantom when partner's shape is not what I expected.

Do you have a similar objection when playing Muiderberg rather than 5-5 2-suited openings? The (1♥) - 2♥ auction I mentioned earlier could potentially be seen as analogous, particularly if you restrict it to weaker hands and use a different sequence for stronger ♠+minor 2-suiters. What I think causes more issues is when the 5-4 can be either way but perhaps an even bigger issue than shading down to 5-4 is making the call on hands with too low of an ODR. These calls provide a very large amount of information to Declarer so it is typically only sensible to be making them on hands where you have a reasonable expectation of playing the hand. If your 5-4s remain very pure then this probably causes fewer problems than making the call on very low ODR 5-5s. As you point out, the key in the end is that partner is in a position to push when holding a suitable hand.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-31, 06:57, said:

Do you have a similar objection when playing Muiderberg rather than 5-5 2-suited openings?

I've never played any 2-suited openings, so I can't answer that.

OTOH, I play 2-suited overcalls of 1NT (DONT, Meckwell), and there I have no problem with 5-4 shape (and I'll do it with 4-4 in the balancing seat). These are usually "get in and get out" bids, we usually don't compete much or sacrifice, so the issues I raised earlier are not as significant.

[blackshoe]

There are two issues here, one of bridge bidding theory, and one of disclosure.

On the question of bidding theory, I think two suited competitive bids (UNT and cue bids) should show 5-5 for the reasons stated above. I don't know if Mike Michaels originally posited that the Michaels cue bid could be made on 5=4 or 4=5 hands in the two suits, but I'm certain that people do it. That does make it difficult for both sides to know what to do next.

As for the disclosure issue, the simple answer is to always ask when your opponent makes one of these bids. The proper question is "please explain your auction" and when they just say "unusual" or "Michaels" or whatever to say "please explain further". Then when they don't give full disclosure, ask one more question: "please tell me about style". When that does not elicit the information you need, call the director and explain that you asked them three times trying to get a full explanation of their understanding, and you still don't have it. Of course, in a club game the correct answer is probably "we don't know what we're doing", but they'll never admit that.

[barmar]

I suspect many less experienced players might not understand what you're trying to learn when you ask a question like "tell me about style".

If you prefer a less passive-aggressive questioning style than blackshoe, you could ask a more direct question like "How many cards are they showing in the two suits?"

[blackshoe]

Passive-aggressive? Pfui.

Asking specific questions like that increases the chance of an adverse UI ruling.

Also, read this.

[pescetom]

Style is not just number of cards. But yes that's about all you can hope for in a club game so I think it makes sense to ask more directly but without leading of course - we have one lady who will ask innocently "5-5 I suppose".

[blackshoe]

If you want to know things like "when would you bid with 5-4 instead of 5-5" you'll have to ask more questions, because club players in particular generally either answer the specific question asked, or have no idea how to answer the question at all. In the former case, they will not give any additional information, even if they have such information, in which case the laws require them to give it. You need pliers or other instruments of torture to get full disclosure out of most club players.

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-02, 12:25, said:

Asking specific questions like that increases the chance of an adverse UI ruling.

Also, read this.

Not sure why you quoted that FAQ in a UI context, maybe for this?
4. OVERCALLS
a) JUMP OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.
b) SIMPLE OVERCALLS INTO A SUIT to indicate a minimum of 10 HCP, at least 5–4 distribution in two known suits and responses thereto.

Requiring 5-4 seems fair enough. That 10 HCP is a surprisingly heavy requirement though, I would have no complaint about Axxxxx Axxxx x x for instance.

OT a curiosity reading the FAQs: Suction is listed as non-destructive but nevertheless is not approved as a defense on the GCC for direct seat overcalls of natural notrump opening bids. Is that still true post-GCC and if so any idea why? Here I could play it to overcall 1NT or anything else, just not as an opening bid.

[blackshoe]

I made an incorrect assumption about the competence of whoever wrote that web page. I was trying to refer to the 8th entry in that list, titled "Explaining Partnership Agreements".

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-02, 12:48, said:

I made an incorrect assumption about the competence of whoever wrote that web page. I was trying to refer to the 8th entry in that list, titled "Explaining Partnership Agreements".

OK, so I guess you were getting at:
The proper way to ask for information is “Please Explain”.

Quite right, of course, but as barmar pointed out that assumes capacity to understand the obligation to provide information and willingness to respect it.
I'm seriously considering the suggestion of a pair of pliers.
A case in point from last night, relaxed tournament at the club:
Opponents bid unopposed 1NT (no announcement) - 2C (no alert) - 2NT (no alert).
"Please explain the bidding so far?" - "it's natural".
"1NT?" - (hesitation) "15-18".
"2C?" - "Stayman of course!".
"And 2NT?" - "what do you want to know, it's natural".
"Natural meaning no major and no willingness to play 2C?" - "no of course, both majors and mininum!".
"Thank you " .

[blackshoe]

pescetom, on 2019-November-02, 14:59, said:

"And 2NT?" - "what do you want to know, it's natural".

"I want to know what special agreements you have regarding responses to Stayman, given that 2NT is not usually a valid response to the convention these days."

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-02, 22:32, said:

"I want to know what special agreements you have regarding responses to Stayman, given that 2NT is not usually a valid response to the convention these days."

Yes but 2NT or higher is still quite common around here, and of course everyone is convinced that their own meaning is the only or at least normal meaning. Some will also get upset when they discover that 2H does not deny spades - although they have a right to know that of course, and Goren preferred it to deny spades come to that.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-02, 12:25, said:

Asking specific questions like that increases the chance of an adverse UI ruling.

Before I posted that I tried to think of any serious UI that could be passed by such a question. I couldn't, so I posted. And I think asking for "style" would pass much the same UI -- your partner probably knows that what you're looking for is the minimum shape.

So all you're doing is confusing the opponent and frustrating both of you, for little benefit.

I know that the regulations state that all you have to do is ask for an explanation and the opponent should volunteer every relevant detail. But they don't always realize what details need to be stated explicitly.

Maybe try something in between. Ask "What is your partnership style?" and if they give you a quizzical look, you clarify "What is the minimum length in the two suits?"

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-November-04, 09:23, said:

Before I posted that I tried to think of any serious UI that could be passed by such a question. I couldn't, so I posted. And I think asking for "style" would pass much the same UI -- your partner probably knows that what you're looking for is the minimum shape.

So all you're doing is confusing the opponent and frustrating both of you, for little benefit.

I know that the regulations state that all you have to do is ask for an explanation and the opponent should volunteer every relevant detail. But they don't always realize what details need to be stated explicitly.

Maybe try something in between. Ask "What is your partnership style?" and if they give you a quizzical look, you clarify "What is the minimum length in the two suits?"

Experienced Directors often seem a bit obsessed by the UI side of questions. I'm sure they know both the Laws and their sheep, but I remain perplexed at times. Sharing your agreements with the opponents is how this game works, and if people want to cheat they can always find other ways than asking a "pertinent" question. Yes ""What is the minimum length in the two suits?" might suggest I have strong interest in one of the two, even if I don't realise it at the time, but I still have a genuine bridge need to know and they often don't have a system card or it just says "both majors". For wrongdoers it's just as easy to agree that "What is your partnership style?" shows one of the enemy suits and "Please explain" shows the other two. Or a scratch of the ear and a pick of the nose, come to that.

Probably some of them are a bit spoilt by directing high level tournaments with screens and precise system cards. But life in the trenches is a little different.