[fan13027]

vuroth, on Nov 7 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

fan13027, do you play Michael's, but NOT Unusual 2NT?

No indeed! I play both, as did my partner in this scenario ... at least according to her BBO profile.

And had she bid 2NT I would have understood. That was the point of my original question ... not whether Michaels was appropriate in the situation or not. My partner (beyond my control) chose to describe her hand (which held 5-5 in majors) with Michaels. Her bid after (1♦) - P - (2♣) was 3♣.

The original question was, considering her intent to bid Michaels, was 3♣ a correct bid or would 2♦ have been better?

[Echognome]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 02:37 PM, said:

vuroth, on Nov 7 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

fan13027, do you play Michael's, but NOT Unusual 2NT?

No indeed! I play both, as did my partner in this scenario ... at least according to her BBO profile.

And had she bid 2NT I would have understood. That was the point of my original question ... not whether Michaels was appropriate in the situation or not. My partner (beyond my control) chose to describe her hand (which held 5-5 in majors) with Michaels. Her bid after (1♦) - P - (2♣) was 3♣.

The original question was, considering her intent to bid Michaels, was 3♣ a correct bid or would 2♦ have been better?

I think, perhaps, the answer you are looking for is "2NT would have been better".

[jdonn]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 05:20 PM, said:

Your bid! Despite the obvious advantages to your bidding 7♠ at this point, I am standing behind you (kibitzing) with a loaded gun in my hand pointed against the back of your head and I say "Bid Michaels Cue Bid and do it in such a manner that, regardless of who your partner is and regardless of their skill level, they are MOST LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND your bid to mean Michaels describing your hand as 5-5 in majors or you are a dead man!".

What is your bid?

I call the director of course.

ArtK78, on Nov 7 2008, 05:29 PM, said:

Phil has suggested otherwise.  He suggested 1♥ - P - 1NT - 2♥ would be a Michaels Cue Bid.  While I will say that this makes some sense, I do not agree that 2♥ on this auction is a Michaels Cue Bid unless the partnership has explicitly agreed that it is.

I could not disagree more. Anyone who bids 2♥ there undiscussed intending it as natural in front of the five card major opener is so illogical that I can't believe they really exist. You are allowed to use common sense, nothing else but Michaels makes any sense there.

[fan13027]

P_Marlowe, on Nov 7 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

<snip>
Perhaps I did not phrase my original question clearly enough, but the original situation, as given, was that East (rightly or wrongly ) decided to apply Michaels to describe her hand. Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid?

No.

I'm beginning to think people are being deliberately obtuse here ... I asked an either/or ( a pick one of these two) question and the reply I get is NO?

[jdonn]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 7 2008, 05:08 PM, said:

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 04:13 PM, said:

<snip>
Perhaps I did not phrase my original question clearly enough, but the original situation, as given, was that East (rightly or wrongly ) decided to apply Michaels to describe her hand. Given that this was a "pickup" partner and that we HAD NO PRIOR understanding or agreement, my only question was, was it correct of her to expect me to interpret 3♣ as Michaels or would 2♦ have been a more descriptive/accurate/correct/conventional bid?

No.

I'm beginning to think people are being deliberately obtuse here ... I asked an either/or ( a pick one of these two) question and the reply I get is NO?

The answer "no" there means "neither of your either/or choices are correct". I don't think that is being obtuse.

[fan13027]

Echognome, on Nov 7 2008, 05:41 PM, said:

I think, perhaps, the answer you are looking for is "2NT would have been better".

OK, one last attempt and then I am really gone. Please understand folks, I am NOT trying to be deliberately argumentative here. I started the thread trying to learn something and asked what I thought was a simple question.

Please teach me, I am eager to learn! In the context of Michaels and ONLY in that context .... after (1♦) - P - (2♣) what is the BETTER of the responses - 3♣ or 2♦.

Please note ... the question is NOT what is the MOST appropriate response, but of ONLY the two choices given (and given that my partner CHOSE and INTENDED to use Michaels - rightly or wrongly) which is the MORE (again NOT most) appropriate response?

[Echognome]

As Josh said, the equivalent is for you to ask us what is the most appropriate way to show a balanced opening hand with 16 high card points when playing Standard American 1♥ or 1♠? We'd say, "well the answer is 1NT." Now, you say, "Look, I'm not asking that. I'm asking which is the better of 1♥ or 1♠?" How can we answer that?

[Trumpace]

If it was me with a random partner and no agreements, I would take 2D as natural and 3C as some sort of a cue-bid (and so not passable) and not natural.

2C was a natural bid. It could be bid with a 5 carder, or even 6 carder suit. Do you really want to play in clubs?

Considering that 2C shows length while 1D need not, with a random pickup I would take 3C as a cue-bid.

So in my opinion, given the situation, your partner was correct. People might come up with reasons for the opposite though, but I don't think it really matters playing with pick-ups.

If you are looking for a "based on general principles" kind of approach to answer this question... I don't know, the best answer I could come up with is above.

Perhaps some experts can answer that more clearly.

[RichMor]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

Please note ... the question is NOT what is the MOST appropriate response, but of ONLY the two choices given (and given that my partner CHOSE and INTENDED to use Michaels - rightly or wrongly) which is the MORE (again NOT most) appropriate response?

Hmmmm. Would a person who is 'eager to learn' insist that people choose between exactly 2 options ?

Not really.

[fan13027]

jdonn, on Nov 7 2008, 05:54 PM, said:

[The answer "no" there means "neither of your either/or choices are correct". I don't think that is being obtuse.

I don't disagree with anybody that Michaels is NOT appropriate and that neither response (within the confines of the bridge world) is appropriate.

BUT, try to confine yourself to considering ONLY the use of Michaels. My partners intent (over which I HAD NO CONTROL) was to open her hand using Michaels Cue Bid. In that context, one of my two "either/or" options has to be MORE correct than the other. Which is it?

[jdonn]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 05:57 PM, said:

OK, one last attempt and then I am really gone. Please understand folks, I am NOT trying to be deliberately argumentative here. I started the thread trying to learn something and asked what I thought was a simple question.

Please teach me, I am eager to learn! In the context of Michaels and ONLY in that context .... after (1♦) - P - (2♣) what is the BETTER of the responses - 3♣ or 2♦.

Please note ... the question is NOT what is the MOST appropriate response, but of ONLY the two choices given (and given that my partner CHOSE and INTENDED to use Michaels - rightly or wrongly) which is the MORE (again NOT most) appropriate response?

If you really believe you are eager to learn, then based on your posts I don't believe you know what the word "learn" means.

And you called everyone else deliberately obtuse...

[pclayton]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

Please teach me, I am eager to learn! In the context of Michaels and ONLY in that context .... after (1♦) - P - (2♣) what is the BETTER of the responses - 3♣ or 2♦.

3♣ is better than 2♦ to be played as the majors. 2♣ usually shows at least five, and 1♦ could be as few as three. Therefore, you give up a potentially useful, natural 2♦ call.

While 3♣ pushes you to the three level, 2♦ does not, however.

Both are inferior to 2N. I hope you can see why.

[vuroth]

pclayton, on Nov 7 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

Please teach me, I am eager to learn! In the context of Michaels and ONLY in that context .... after (1♦) - P - (2♣) what is the BETTER of the responses - 3♣ or 2♦.

3♣ is better than 2♦ to be played as the majors. 2♣ usually shows at least five, and 1♦ could be as few as three. Therefore, you give up a potentially useful, natural 2♦ call.

This.

[fan13027]

Echognome, on Nov 7 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

As Josh said, the equivalent is for you to ask us what is the most appropriate way to show a balanced opening hand with 16 high card points when playing Standard American 1♥ or 1♠?  We'd say, "well the answer is 1NT."  Now, you say, "Look, I'm not asking that.  I'm asking which is the better of 1♥ or 1♠?"  How can we answer that?

and from RichMor

Quote

Hmmmm. Would a person who is 'eager to learn' insist that people choose between exactly 2 options ? Not really.

Seriously folks, no disrespect intended, but (if you're going to introduce equivalents here such as the 16HCP balanced hand example) let me introduce my own equivalent.

Your responses to my original question have been akin to this ...

JOE: Hey Mike, I'm buying a new car. I can only afford the Chevrolet or the Pontiac. Which do you think I should buy?

MIKE: Joe, if I were you I'd buy the BMW.

Good evening gentle folk and have a good night.

[pclayton]

File under: No good deed goes unpunished.

[Trumpace]

Fan13027,

Be honest to yourself.

Do you really think that knowing whether 3C or 2D is better suited to michaels playing with a random partner will improve your game (not results, but your game)?

If that is the _only_ piece of information you are interested in, I am sorry to say this, but it appears that you are hoping to shift the blame of passing 3C onto your partner. If it is not so, I do apologize.

btw, your question was answered... hopefully by my earlier post, and pclayton's post after that.

Good luck. I do hope you don't leave because of this thread.

[Echognome]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 03:22 PM, said:

Echognome, on Nov 7 2008, 06:02 PM, said:

As Josh said, the equivalent is for you to ask us what is the most appropriate way to show a balanced opening hand with 16 high card points when playing Standard American 1♥ or 1♠?  We'd say, "well the answer is 1NT."  Now, you say, "Look, I'm not asking that.  I'm asking which is the better of 1♥ or 1♠?"  How can we answer that?

and from RichMor

Quote

Hmmmm. Would a person who is 'eager to learn' insist that people choose between exactly 2 options ? Not really.

Seriously folks, no disrespect intended, but (if you're going to introduce equivalents here such as the 16HCP balanced hand example) let me introduce my own equivalent.

Your responses to my original question have been akin to this ...

JOE: Hey Mike, I'm buying a new car. I can only afford the Chevrolet or the Pontiac. Which do you think I should buy?

MIKE: Joe, if I were you I'd buy the BMW.

Good evening gentle folk and have a good night.

Actually I reckon it is more akin to:

JOE: Hey Mike, I'm buying a used car. I can only afford the Chevrolet or the Pontiac. Which do you think I should buy?

MIKE: Joe, the Chevy has a cracked engine block and the Pontiac has 350,000 miles, if I were you I'd consider the BMW.

[jdonn]

fan13027, on Nov 7 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

Seriously folks, no disrespect intended, but (if you're going to introduce equivalents here such as the 16HCP balanced hand example) let me introduce my own equivalent.

Your responses to my original question have been akin to this ...

JOE: Hey Mike, I'm buying a new car. I can only afford the Chevrolet or the Pontiac. Which do you think I should buy?

MIKE: Joe, if I were you I'd buy the BMW.

Good evening gentle folk and have a good night.

No, your equivalent should read like this

JOE: Hey Mike, I'm buying a new car. I cannot afford either the Chevrolet or the Pontiac. Which do you think I should buy?

MIKE: Joe, how can we tell you which of two cars you can't afford to buy? If I were you I'd buy the BMW since you can afford it.

[Codo]

Sorry guys, I don*t understand all your answers.
MY god, fan wants to know whether 2 ♦ or 3 ♣ is of better use to show the majors. He repeatly told us that he does not want to know about the merits of Michales or Un2NT in general and the best bid in this sequence.

To answer the question: I think that 2 ♦ has a lot adavantages to be played natural, so with just the two possibilities, you should use 3 Club.

But fan, please understand, that you should note use any of these bids to show a mjor two suiter. But if you have just the two, choose 3 Club.

[fan13027]

Codo, on Nov 8 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

But fan, please understand, that you should not use any of these bids to show a mjor two suiter.

Thanks Codo for the reply, although I already received the answer (somewhat begrudgingly) fom Trumpace and pclayton. I also did receive the same reply from an advanced bridge player of my acquaintance, so there does seem to be some conscensus (amongst those that would even deign to discuss the question) that 3♣ should be viewed as artificial and 2♦ as natural.

Thanks for your advice about the inappropriateness of the use of either of these two bids to show a 5-5 in majors in the auction as originally described. This thread really is best laid to rest, but I do feel the need to defend myself nonetheless.

It was NOT MY CHOICE to use either of these two bids, it was my partners decision! She was the one that bid the 3♣. And after the hand was played out she informed me that her 3♣ bid was intended as Michaels. Again, I do realize that Michaels was entirely NOT appropriate in this situation, but my confusion (and question) lay in the fact that IF SHE HAD INTENDED TO BID MICHAELS I would have expected to hear 2♦, as my understanding and interpretation of Michaels is/was that the suit FIRST bid by opponents is the one to be raised. In this case that suit was ♦.

But it appears I was wrong ... no problem, I've been wrong before and that is how we all learn ... by making mistakes. In this case, I just wish my lesson would have been served up with a little more tolerance by those who frequent these forums.