[mikeh]

Yet another thread about a terrible bid that worked out Funny how often we get these rather than the terrible bid that got hammered.

For what it is worth, here are my thoughts:

Pass is wrong: with this hand, it seems appropriate to get into the auction, and delayed bidding is usually a bad choice: the opps get to exchange information on approximate strength and degree of fit and THEN we come in with a weakish hand? Not for me, thanks.

2♥ is wrong: even if you play Michaels as weak or strong (as I do), at this vulnerability, you need more than this. It is not so much that the 2♥ bid is understrength in playing tricks, as that partner is entitled to act on the basis that you have a different hand. As is so often the case, the problem with distorting your hand is not the immediate bid but what partner may do later, if he mistakenly trusts you to have your bid. This is especially true if he has a misfit with some defence.

3♠: is overly aggressive. It is better than Michaels because it correctly emphasizes ♠ and does not suggest even a modicum of defence. But it is unnecessary, because:

2♠ seems just right. It devours 2 levels of bidding and more or less accurately describes the playing strength of the hand while not significantly overstating the defensive values. Furthermore, the opps are far less likely to play for penalties at the 2-level than they are at the 3-level. And, of course, if they do play for penalties, you are saving 300 points.

[Fluffy]

Blofeld, on Jan 23 2006, 02:15 AM, said:

3♠.

I want to preempt on this hand. With the black suits the other way around I'd bid 2♥, but spades are spades are spades.

I'm 6-5. I have no defence. I have a ridiculously high ODR. The vulnerability is nasty, but I'm pushing this one for all it's worth anyway.

I am with you, the first bid that crossed my mind when I saw this was 3♠. But then I saw the vulnerability.... But I prefer 3♠ over 2♠. Maybe I would pass this time. 2♥ would show some defensive values at this vul

[luke warm]

why is it that nobody seems to play hi/low anymore? does it suck *that* much, theoretically? seems to give you ways to show all shapes (michaels, u2nt, h/l)

[Kalvan14]

luke warm, on Jan 23 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

why is it that nobody seems to play hi/low anymore? does it suck *that* much, theoretically? seems to give you ways to show all shapes (michaels, u2nt, h/l)

Have to say that I've not seen H/L being used since a few years ago.
The reason? IMO, keeping 3♣ as a weak jump is more useful than immediately disclosing the minor in a Michaels. And when you hold spades, you can stop at 2 level.

Btw, I'd bid 2♠ with the posted hand: I'm not a big fan of Michaels (and this is not worth it in any case); 3♠ would be ok, at reversed vulnerability.

[whereagles]

mikeh, on Jan 23 2006, 05:10 PM, said:

2♥ is wrong: even if you play Michaels as weak or strong (as I do), at this vulnerability, you need more than this. It is not so much that the 2♥ bid is understrength in playing tricks, as that partner is entitled to act on the basis that you have a different hand. As is so often the case, the problem with distorting your hand is not the immediate bid but what partner may do later, if he mistakenly trusts you to have your bid. This is especially true if he has a misfit with some defence.

Sorry, you're just being dogmatic here. To say that a V vs NV michaels call should show 1-2 defensive tricks and/or 10 hcp, is an unwarranted generalization of a personal view.

Some people play michaels your way, but many others play it otherwise. For those, a michaels bid is mainly preemptive, showing little more than high ODR and saying nothing about hcps or defensive tricks. This hand certainly qualifies.

You may prefer a preempt of 2♠ instead of 2♥, but that's a different matter.

[000002]

i would like to oppose those 2♠ or 2♥ competition,i will preempt 3♠ to my opponent,i am fighter.

[mr1303]

Actually, I think the reason that High/Low cue-bids have lost favour have been the frequent director calls and dreadful scores gained by auctions like this:


N E S W
something 3C* something something else
X 4C/P


depending on whether the person is ethical or not, having made a weak jump overcall in clubs. David Burn wrote a very amusing article on David Stephenson's webpage, here.

[luke warm]

funny article.. still, i was pleased to see that he at least agrees that hi/low is theoretically sounder than michaels... the problems the article point to revolve more around forgetting the convention than anything else

[pclayton]

I voted for 2♠. The 6-5 compensates for the relatively weak suit at these colors.

I don't like a 2 suited call when the 6 carder is a major.

[shaakker]

This hand is perfect for the constructive overcall system which I play with one of my regular partners. It's legal in the ACBL General Convention Chart and is used at any vulnerability provided that the length requirements are met.

Over 1 of a Major:

3 of a minor shows THAT minor and the OTHER major with at least 5/5 distribution. Partner passes or corrects unless he has enough to force to game.

As always caution is used. I've never exercised this on less than 5/5 and with 5/5 i'm careful about values.

[sceptic]

Quote

Yet another thread about a terrible bid that worked out  Funny how often we get these rather than the terrible bid that got hammered.

I have posted loads of these