[Elianna]

You hold

Scoring: MP

(1♦) 1♠ (3NT) x;
(pass) your bid?

---

.

If you care to discuss the 1♠ bid you can. You do play Michaels.

You're playing in a tiny, random MP field, all vuln.

[Fluffy]

Do not pull penalty doubles without a guaranteed fit.

This hand is worth a michael's bid IMO.

[gwnn]

too weak for michaels.

Don't pull, who knows what pard has, if you pull you're more likely to get a zero.

[ochinko]

Anything could be right but I pass.

I play strong/weak Michaels so I would have used it instead of 1♠.

[mcphee]

I am pleased to note I have a winner which should be some help defending so I pass.

100% michaels exactly what the bid was designed for.

[ritong]

was it? disparate quality and top suit longer?

[Fluffy]

ritong, on Aug 11 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

was it?  disparate quality and top suit longer?

I would rather say "High ODR that doesn't wanna explain itself at a high level because if there is no fit it is too dangerous". Just a matter of semantics

[Phil]

I will admit its tempting to bid. However, your overcall is completely normal, and we don't have a clue what partner is doubling on. If its a lot of secondary minor values, then the dummy we see in 4♥ or 4♠ will be very disappointing indeed.

Agree that this isn't a Michaels call with not only the suit disparity but the fact we have spades instead of hearts.

[Fluffy]

I have heard that extra lenght in the highest/lowest suit as an argument before, but I have never understood what it si based on. I hope someone enlightens me.

[aguahombre]

pass, and would not have committed Michaels for the same reasons as Phil....but might wish I had bid 2S. Don't quite agree that 1S was "completely normal", though 2S has flaws, too.

[nigel_k]

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

I have heard that extra lenght in the highest/lowest suit as an argument before, but I have never understood what it si based on. I hope someone enlightens me.

The idea is that partner will bid hearts with equal length so you'll reach the best fit when hearts are longer but not when spades are longer. Some people use Michaels with 4-5 as well.

On the hand I agree with 1♠ and would now pass comfortably, if not happily.

[Hanoi5]

I'm bidding 4♥. I don't expect partner to have xx xx AKQJT xxxx and double, so he should have some scattered values that will allow me to make either 4♥ or 4♠... I hope.

I would have michael'd if it could be weak, but with this hand I think I prefer to bid 2♠ and hope for another chance to bid my hearts... A chance that might not come and might give partner the wrong idea about what I have but bidding 1♠ and passing 3NTX will not usually have a good ending... I think.

[Fluffy]

nigel_k, on Aug 11 2009, 09:55 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 11 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

I have heard that extra lenght in the highest/lowest suit as an argument before, but I have never understood what it si based on. I hope someone enlightens me.

The idea is that partner will bid hearts with equal length so you'll reach the best fit when hearts are longer but not when spades are longer. Some people use Michaels with 4-5 as well.

On the hand I agree with 1♠ and would now pass comfortably, if not happily.

Thank you.

[gnasher]

It's an unusual situation, but shouldn't partner's double show transferrable values? A penalty double because of a misfit and bad breaks is rare, especially opposite a one-level overcall, and will often net only one down. A double that says "Maybe we can make something" will occur more often, and the upside of using it that way might be a game bonus or the sort of large penalty that you get by setting up and cashing a long suit.

[awm]

gnasher, on Aug 12 2009, 07:14 AM, said:

It's an unusual situation, but shouldn't partner's double show transferrable values? A penalty double because of a misfit and bad breaks is rare, especially opposite a one-level overcall, and will often net only one down. A double that says "Maybe we can make something" will occur more often, and the upside of using it that way might be a game bonus or the sort of large penalty that you get by setting up and cashing a long suit.

I make this sort of double a lot. First of all, it's matchpoint scoring and the difference between +100 and +200 rates to be quite substantial.

But even if it was IMPs, these sorts of doubles often tilt the odds substantially in favor of the defense. For example, suppose this 3NT contract makes 50% of the time, fails by one trick 25% of the time, and fails by two tricks 25% of the time. Note that people bid games quite aggressively at IMPs and the knowledge of bad breaks makes failing by two tricks not unlikely, and that nonetheless in spite of everything this is a "good game."

Assuming no double, bidding this game rates to win the bidding side 10(.5) - 6(.25) - 3(.25) = 2.75 IMPs on average over folks who stop one level lower, for a nice gain. Now suppose we double. If teammates don't bid the game, now our opponents rate to win 12(.5) - 8(.25) - 9(.25) = 1.75 IMPs on average. They've just lost an IMP! If our teammates do bid the game but don't get doubled, then our opponents rate to win 4(.5) - 3(.25) - 7(.25) = -.50 IMPs on average, so they're losing half an IMP. Doubling this game is a big winner in expectation even though the game makes half the time! "Speculative" doubles of IMP game contracts actually have pretty good IMP odds, and are really the only defense to opponents who constantly bid "garbage" games hoping that they land.

[Apollo81]

I'd pass, pard thinks they're down, and I have no reason to overrule. I have my 1♠ bid.