[catch22]

Scoring: IMP

(1C)-X-(1H)-P
(2H)-?

---

What's your plan?

[Jlall]

Meh 2S unless I have some history where I know they steal. Most people don't bid 1H vul over a double with a complete yarb.

[Fluffy]

2♠ is the normal bid, you can double if you feel scientific but I don't think it is worth it.

[Jlall]

Fluffy, on Apr 17 2010, 04:57 AM, said:

2♠ is the normal bid, you can double if you feel scientific but I don't think it is worth it.

Not sure what you mean by normal but we do have an ace more than we could have for 2S, and I think in most auctions we feel safe driving higher than the 2 level with a prime 22 and 5-4 in the unbids.

[Fluffy]

I hardly ever double then bid my suit, my requirements are higher than most.

From the years I've seen seveeral times people doubling willing to show suit later, but competition made them regret never showing it. It was never a success.

[the hog]

Far too good for 2S. You have an excellent play for 5D opposite xxxxxx Ds and out, unlikely though that is. I double again.

[dake50]

As I play, partner has already shown his distributional hand. 6xD with single, 4xS with some shape. So all that's left is flattish non-descript. Double in case he has 0-2xS and tries penalty with low hope to make 2S/3D.

[ONEferBRID]

catch22, on Apr 17 2010, 04:31 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

(1C)-X-(1H)-P
(2H)-?

---

What's your plan?

I bet if Opener had bid 1H, most ( ? ) would agree that a 2H! Michaels call would be appropriate with this hand.

So for this hand, enter Bailey Cuebids ( a Michaels variation ), which always gets the Spade suit in contention without giving up much:

( 1C ) - 2C! = Sp and one of the other 2 unbid suits ( Hts or Diam )

[ At least partner knows of the 5 card Sp suit AND is forced to advance ... unless of course there is an intervening response -- will Responder be willing to now bid 2H over 2C! ?? ] .

[655321]

ONEferBRID, on Apr 17 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

I bet if Opener had bid 1H, most ( ? )  would agree that a 2H! Michaels call would be appropriate with this hand.

Is the question mark so we can pick the appropriate noun?

I would never bid Michaels with a 5242 after RHO opens 1H.

[matmat]

655321, on Apr 17 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

ONEferBRID, on Apr 17 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

I bet if Opener had bid 1H, most ( ? )  would agree that a 2H! Michaels call would be appropriate with this hand.

Is the question mark so we can pick the appropriate noun?

Thank you.

[ONEferBRID]

matmat, on Apr 17 2010, 12:08 PM, said:

655321, on Apr 17 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

ONEferBRID, on Apr 17 2010, 10:28 AM, said:

I bet if Opener had bid 1H, most ( ? )  would agree that a 2H! Michaels call would be appropriate with this hand.

Is the question mark so we can pick the appropriate noun?

Thank you.

♠ AKJ9x
♥ KJ
♦ AKxx
♣ Kx

What was I thinking?
22 hcp and two K x doubletons BEHIND the opener.

Wayyy too risky.

[peachy]

ONEferBRID, on Apr 17 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

catch22, on Apr 17 2010, 04:31 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

(1C)-X-(1H)-P
(2H)-?

---

What's your plan?

I bet if Opener had bid 1H, most ( ? ) would agree that a 2H! Michaels call would be appropriate with this hand.

I am sure you are mistaken.

Oops, didn't see this was essentially already said, at least twice.

This post has been edited by peachy: 2010-April-17, 15:25

[jdonn]

2♠, not sure of any good alternative. If I double again and partner bids 3♦ it's risky to go higher, and I don't want to miss a 5-3 spade fit.

LOL at michaels over anything on this. I'll give a hint. Risky is not the problem! Overcalling 1NT over 1♥ would not be risky either.

[the hog]

Michaels shows 5+/5+, well for me at least anyway; it certainly does not show this balanced monster.

[Codo]

I would double again and raise partner...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

X.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[MFA]

Double again and then 3♠. If my hand were less flexible then I could bid 3♠ instead of the second double, so now partner is invited to persist in diamonds (although I don't need 4 for this sequence).
2♠ is too big an underbid, I think.

[mikegill]

I don't think that it's sensible to have a region between "minimum power double" and "game force." Trying to get partner to distinguish between varying shades of nothing seems like a losing battle. That being said this is certainly not in the "game force" region, so 2♠ it is. Even if we find partner with a useful entry (say, the sQxx), we still need a favorable lead up to one of our Ks (likely but by no means certain), and then we need to find the other ace onsides (again likely but not certain), and then we need to find a place for our 4th diamond which may not be good, as well as not running into a 4-1 trump break where we get tapped out. Certainly if partner has more than sQxx we'll hear a peep from him.

[pooltuna]

catch22, on Apr 17 2010, 04:31 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

(1C)-X-(1H)-P
(2H)-?

---

What's your plan?

Another hand with no good answer. Your choices look to be X, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣(really depends on having a firm agreement), 3♥, 3♠, &3NT

X well you certainly have the points for this what you need to decide is what you are going to do if partner chooses 3♣ which if opps play a shortish 1♣ will be natural and partner might choose this action with 3xy5

2♠ you are undervaluing your hand with this bid but that may be good as you may end up stuck in your hand a lot it will certainly be hard for partner to raise with QTxx xxx xxx xxx or xxxxx xxx xx xxx

2NT gets across most of your strength but misses your probable 8 card ♠ fit

3♣ might be natural or a qbid which means you have to have a firm agreement in place to even use this and even if it is a qbid I don't think you have the right hand to use it

3♥ definitely a qbid but see 3♣

3♠ trading a lot on your probable ♠ fit but it is still just probable.

3NT you definitely think LHO is psyching

Of all these bad choices it is probably best to take the conservative action that is likely to drive the opps higher or get a + result in ....2♠

[Phil]

2♠. Even is we give partner a fit and diamond shortness (both hopeful), we are still a long way from 10 tricks.