[kenrexford]

♠AQJxx ♥KQ10xx ♦Ax ♣x

P-1♦-2♦(Michaels)-P-
2♥-P-?

Scoring: KO IMP
VUL: Red on White

Agreements as to range(s) for Michaels: Undiscussed other than "use logic."

[SlickRicky]

Hi Ken,

I would bid 2N showing extra values and a diamond stopper with minimum shape.

Ricky

[kenrexford]

2NT works a lot better. My partner lauched into 4♥ "because it's IMP's" and we ended up -500 (I can hold it to -400). Cross-ruff trouble and a spade stack.

Partner has ♠9x ♥xx ♦KJxxx ♣Jxxx.

In the post-mortem, I thought the winning bid would be 2♠. The reason? If the Michaels bidder has a great player hand like this, he wants to invite game, obviously. However, the yarb responder often seems to have 2-2 shape in the majors. If the yarb picks 2♥, to allow space for a general 2♠ bump, we stay at the 2-level when that is right. Reserving that bid to show 6-5 makes little sense, IMO, for two reasons. First, that meaning seems to have much less potential gain when compared with staying at the two-level. Second, I think we have time to later clarify/explore spades, such as with a 4♦ cvhoice-of-games bid or a 3♠ bid by Advancer.

This all brings up a secondary question, then. If 2♠ is a default game try, then what should 3♥ show?

[Codo]

I would hate my partner to bid 2 Spade with a strong 5521 because it sounds like a strong 65xy hand.
4 Heart was silly, 3 Hearts had been okay and 2 NT the right bid.

[MarkDean]

I think most people would take 2♠ as 6 + spades.

[kenrexford]

I know that most people will take 2♠ as showing 6-5. But, why?

There seem to be two ways to bid these hands.

First, the Michaels bidder patterns out by bidding the other major with a six-card holding if partner selects the "wrong" major (1♦-2♦-P-2♥-P-2♠ or 1♦-2♦-P-2♠-P-3♥).

Second, the Michaels bidder bids 2♠ over 2♥ simply as a game try, not saying anything about the lengths of the suits.

Using that second approach, we gain whenever Responder has a 2-2 non-acceptance, as he then passes. 2♠ might be the last making contract, or it may reduce the cost of the set. Accordingly, Responder will always bid 2♥ with a 2-2 bust, because he wants to pass 2♠.

The only downside I can think of is in the inability to immediately show 6♠/5♥. (With 6♥/5♠, one could then bid 3♥, I suppose.) However, that issue can, as I mentioned, be resolved later, such as Responder bidding 3♦ to push back slightly or 4♦ to accept (both as pick-the-strain bids).

The bonus would be ability for Advancer to also bid 2NT or three of the other minor as additional trial bids of some variety (whereas 3♥ robs the partnership of any trial bids).

[jdonn]

2NT seems obvious.

[pclayton]

Yes, 2N is more accurate than 3♦ or 3♥.

2♠ shows a 6 spades. Not an option.

[pclayton]

kenrexford, on Sep 30 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

I know that most people will take 2♠ as showing 6-5. But, why?

There seem to be two ways to bid these hands.

First, the Michaels bidder patterns out by bidding the other major with a six-card holding if partner selects the "wrong" major (1♦-2♦-P-2♥-P-2♠ or 1♦-2♦-P-2♠-P-3♥).

Second, the Michaels bidder bids 2♠ over 2♥ simply as a game try, not saying anything about the lengths of the suits.

Using that second approach, we gain whenever Responder has a 2-2 non-acceptance, as he then passes. 2♠ might be the last making contract, or it may reduce the cost of the set. Accordingly, Responder will always bid 2♥ with a 2-2 bust, because he wants to pass 2♠.

The only downside I can think of is in the inability to immediately show 6♠/5♥. (With 6♥/5♠, one could then bid 3♥, I suppose.) However, that issue can, as I mentioned, be resolved later, such as Responder bidding 3♦ to push back slightly or 4♦ to accept (both as pick-the-strain bids).

The bonus would be ability for Advancer to also bid 2NT or three of the other minor as additional trial bids of some variety (whereas 3♥ robs the partnership of any trial bids).

Ken, you are pulling ideas out of thin air again. I won't specify where that thin air is.

2♠ as a vague game try makes no sense. How is partner supposed to evaluate not having a clue what your minor suit residuals are, or what you need for game? We already have 2N, 3♣ and 3♥ as game tries. I doubt that 3♦ is that defined with most partnerships, but it could include a certain game try as well if you choose.

The argument that 2♠ can cater to a hand with the weak 2-2 argument is not convincing, but give me a hand with a little more strength and 2-2, and you've provided good reasons why 2♠ should show 6 and not be a game try.

I also *hate* the idea of somehow backing into a 6-2 spade fit after the cue bidder advances with 3♥.

[kenrexford]

pclayton, on Sep 30 2008, 11:59 AM, said:

Ken, you are pulling ideas out of thin air again. I won't specify where that thin air is.

2♠ as a vague game try makes no sense. How is partner supposed to evaluate not having a clue what your minor suit residuals are, or what you need for game? We already have 2N, 3♣ and 3♥ as game tries. I doubt that 3♦ is that defined with most partnerships, but it could include a certain game try as well if you choose.

The argument that 2♠ can cater to a hand with the weak 2-2 argument is not convincing, but give me a hand with a little more strength and 2-2, and you've provided good reasons why 2♠ should show 6 and not be a game try.

I also *hate* the idea of somehow backing into a 6-2 spade fit after the cue bidder advances with 3♥.

I'm not saying that the Michaels bidder should always bid 2♠. He may well opt to bid 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, or 3♥ also as game tries.

When Advancer does have acceptance values, as well, he can show what he has to answer your complaint that he does not know what he needs to accept. As a simple example, Advancer could bid 3♣ as "I have something in clubs -- do you care?" Problem somewhat solved.

If you want the game try structure to include asking about "minor suit residuals," then 2NT by Advancer (a bid that would be preempted by other actions anyway) could ask that question.

I just don't get why you want to commit the sequence to the three-level opposite a potential yarb/misfit to be able to show 6-5 pattern. 6-5 pattern seems to be much rarer than the 2-2 yarb (when the Michaels is a strong Michaels), and a solution for that problem exists.

[han]

I can certainly see the merits of Ken's idea but do we really need one more articifial agreement where natural bidding works fine most of the time?