[quiddity]

Scoring: IMP

2♥ P 2NT ?

2N = ogust ask

---

Is this hand good enough for a Michaels 4♣ or 4♥ bid? If not, how would you handle it?

[OleBerg]

As usual; Partnership agreement. In my partnership it qualifies easily.

[cherdanno]

Not good enough for me - but anyway, thanks to RHO we actually have the room to bid 3♣ now and then spades at the 3- or 4-level later.

[jjbrr]

Also not good enough for me. Also would start 3♣

[gnasher]

Good enough for me.

Random thought: maybe one should play 3♥ as spades + clubs, and 4♣ as spades + diamonds. Then you could cope with a wider range of two-suiters. You'd lose the stopper ask, but I never have those hands anyway.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jun 10 2010, 01:05 PM, said:

Not good enough for me - but anyway, thanks to RHO we actually have the room to bid 3♣ now and then spades at the 3- or 4-level later.

Agree with this plan. Perhaps a little spooky to make the 4♠ call later, but that's life.

[OleBerg]

cherdanno, on Jun 10 2010, 08:05 PM, said:

Not good enough for me - but anyway, thanks to RHO we actually have the room to bid 3♣ now and then spades at the 3- or 4-level later.

They might thank you too. When you bid spades next time, they have exchanged a lot of information, and will be well placed to make a good decision.

[karlson]

I'd go 4♣.

[rogerclee]

Why would it be better to bid 3C then 4S as opposed to 4C (or 3H?) now? Both ways we are showing a big two-suiter in clubs and spades, but the first is more dangerous. How would you bid KQxx void Ax KQxxxxx?

[kfay]

For me leaping shows a pretty nice hand. This doesn't qualify. I learned my lesson at the club several years ago playing with Han. The reason being... partner often wants to go on!! When we have such huge playing potential a pair of bullets looks pretty good but on this hand it's not nearly enough. You just can't have such a wide range on this bid since you're preempting yourself.

You might argue that I show less on this auction (RHO has a strong hand?) but 2NT is one of the most baby psyches in the game. I won't count on them to be honest.

3♣ sounds fine to me.

As to 3♥ being Michaels... when did people cease playing stopper asks on this auction?

[ONEferBRID]

quiddity, on Jun 10 2010, 12:40 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

2♥ P 2NT ? 

2N = ogust ask

---

Is this hand good enough for a Michaels 4♣ or 4♥ bid?  If not, how would you handle it?

I think the hand is worth a 4C! Leaping Michaels bid in this seat -- even after opps 2NT-ask call.

If it were in direct seat, I would expect the Leaping Michaels bid to be stronger.

3♥ should still be a stop-ask; and
4♥ would show a "big" minor 2-suiter in Leaping Michaels.

[kgr]

ONEferBRID, on Jun 10 2010, 10:27 PM, said:

I think the hand is worth a 4C! Leaping Michaels bid in this seat -- even after opps 2NT-ask call.

If it were in direct seat, I would expect the Leaping Michaels bid to be stronger.

Can you explain the logic why it can be weaker here then in direct seat?

[gnasher]

kfay, on Jun 10 2010, 08:38 PM, said:

As to 3♥ being Michaels... when did people cease playing stopper asks on this auction?

When did you last use the stopper-ask?

[quiddity]

I tried michaels and partner was doubled in 4S and went down 1. I know the bid tends to show more but I did not want to risk 3♣ when we could be making game opposite some very weak hands with spade support. Does the ogust bid suggest that 3♣ will not be passed out?

[OleBerg]

quiddity, on Jun 11 2010, 11:36 AM, said:

I tried michaels and partner was doubled in 4S and went down 1. I know the bid tends to show more but I did not want to risk 3♣ when we could be making game opposite some very weak hands with spade support. Does the ogust bid suggest that 3♣ will not be passed out?

It's virtually guaranteed.

[robertb]

We had a hand with a similar theme at the club this week.

Scoring: IMP

---

The bidding goes 2H - pass by you - 2NT - 3C by partner - 3H - pass by you again - 4H - 4 spades by partner - pass.

Now what?

[655321]

robertb, on Jun 11 2010, 07:04 AM, said:

We had a hand with a similar theme at the club this week.

Dealer: East Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AQxxxxx ♥   ♦ J108xx ♣ J

The bidding goes 2H - pass by you

No it doesn't.

robertb, on Jun 11 2010, 07:04 AM, said:

- 2NT - 3C by partner - 3H - pass by you again

No it doesn't.

[robertb]

Surely one feature of many interesting hands is that they're poorly bid?

I wasn't the one holding the hand, but I don't disagree with either of those pass decisions, at least, not in comparison to my level of disagreement with the actions taken by the 2NT or 3 club bidders.

[MarkDean]

I would bid 4♣ with the hand in the OP. I think waiting around for a hand better than this is losing bridge.

[ArtK78]

Quote

We had a hand with a similar theme at the club this week.

Dealer: East Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AQxxxxx ♥   ♦ J108xx ♣ J

The bidding goes 2H - pass by you - 2NT - 3C by partner - 3H - pass by you again - 4H - 4 spades by partner - pass.

Now what?

5♥.

This hand could produce a grand opposite as little as xxxxx xx --- Axxxxx, and partner has shown much more (although the diamond control is not known).

I have to make the strongest move possible. If partner bids 5♠, I am going to bid 6♥. After partner's bidding (and my non-bidding) I can't believe that slam is not making, and I am going to try again for 7.