[Califdude]

What is your approach to Michaels in the balancing seat, as in 1C-P-P-2C or 1H-P-P-2H?

Do you bid Michaels pretty much the same regardless of which seat you are in?
Do you make this bid with a weak Michaels, i.g. 6-11 points?
Would you be influenced by vulnerability?

As always, thanks for replies.

[kenrexford]

Interesting question.

Speaking from a logical perspective, I'm not sure that 1♠-P-P-2♠ makes much sense as weak. But, I can see the merits of a weak approach in other auctions. I'm not sure what standard is.

[gnasher]

I think it's both normal and best to play it as a hand that would have opened the bidding, or better.

[paulg]

In 4th seat I play it as any strong 2-suiter.

Paul

[helene_t]

I thought I read somewhere that in balancing seat, in SAYC it is a strong hand with a void in their suit. (Must be slightly more specific, otherwise it sounds unplayable).

[RichMor]

General principle is 'don't preempt in pass out position'.

A cue bid is not a weak 2-suiter. It is a hand not suitable for a double or overcall.

A jump overcall is not a preempt. It is natural and invitational.

2NT is not ususual for the minors. It is natural and strong.

Etc.

[kenrexford]

LHO opens 1♣, passed around to you. You hold KQxxx-KQxxx-xx-x. The range in question was "6-11," which might be too large, but does not Michaels make logical sense with this hand? Whether that is standard or not is a different question.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Dec 3 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

LHO opens 1♣, passed around to you. You hold KQxxx-KQxxx-xx-x. The range in question was "6-11," which might be too large, but does not Michaels make logical sense with this hand?

Michaels with this hand makes sense to me, but that is because it is "a hand that would have opened the bidding". If it were KQxxx Kxxxx xx x, would it still make sense to you?

PS: Is there such a thing as illogical sense?

[awm]

gnasher, on Dec 3 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

Michaels with this hand makes sense to me, but that is because it is "a hand that would have opened the bidding". If it were KQxxx Kxxxx xx x, would it still make sense to you?

PS: Is there such a thing as illogical sense?

Well, I'd still want to balance with that hand. Usually when the opening passes to me and I have this strength of hand, partner has something like a weak notrump over there and LHO has some extras.

But we could easily be making a game if partner has a four-card major in his weak notrump, say:

Ax Axxx xxx AJxx

JTxx Ax KQx QJxx

Assuming we're going to balance and 2♣ shows 5-5 in the majors, why not bid it? Makes it easier to find the best fit and takes up a bit more of LHO's space than bidding 1♠.

[RichMor]

awm, on Dec 3 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

gnasher, on Dec 3 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

Michaels with this hand makes sense to me, but that is because it is "a hand that would have opened the bidding".  If it were KQxxx Kxxxx xx x, would it still make sense to you?

PS: Is there such a thing as illogical sense?

Well, I'd still want to balance with that hand. Usually when the opening passes to me and I have this strength of hand, partner has something like a weak notrump over there and LHO has some extras.

But we could easily be making a game if partner has a four-card major in his weak notrump, say:

Ax Axxx xxx AJxx

JTxx Ax KQx QJxx

Assuming we're going to balance and 2♣ shows 5-5 in the majors, why not bid it? Makes it easier to find the best fit and takes up a bit more of LHO's space than bidding 1♠.

Yes, balancing with KQxxx KQxxx xx x or KQxxx Kxxxx xx x is a good idea.

And yes, partner usually 'has something like a weak notrump'.

So it is safe to balance with 1♠. Partner will not pass with either of the two example hands you provide. And partner won't drive to a no-play slam either.

It is better to use a balancing cue bid for something like AKxxx AKxxx xx x or even stronger. This treatment helps if you have a possible slam, prevents pard from taking a phantom sacrifice, and prevents an inadequate penalty if you balance with a double and pard passes with some Club length.

[jdonn]

I would bid Michaels on the KQxxx Kxxxx x xx, but I wouldn't want to go any lighter than that really. It's not something I've thought about much before so I'm just going by what feels right.

[ArtK78]

What does this have to do with SAYC?

[MFA]

In second seat, I play Michaels as 5-5 and a reasonable hand or better, especially the 1M-2M Michaels shows a real hand. Not the weak or very strong approach, I don't like that. I prefer that advancer respects the Michaels and shows a fit/values if he has something.

In the balancing seat the bid is therefore about the same as in second seat for me. Perhaps the vulnerability means more in second seat than in fourth seat, though.