|
Michaels Cue-Bid Michaels is used to show various two-suited hands after the opponents have opened one of a suit. How weak or how strong can the Michaels Cue-Bid be? And what are your follow-up methods?
7th July, 2010 N-S Vul
Without that Michaels intervention, North would have bid tried the Jacoby 2NT with this hand, showing game-going values and Heart support. But, after West’s 2♥ bid, that is not an option, as 2NT would be natural (11-12 HCP and Spades stopped). So, North must cue-bid 2♠ (yes, it’s still a cue-bid even though Spades have only been shown indirectly), showing Heart support and at least game-invitational values.
5th January, 2011 N-S Vul
2♥ here would be Michaels (in this case showing Spades and a minor), which many play as “good-or-bad”: - With a bad hand (say up to around 10 HCP), use Michaels. - With a middling hand (around 11-14), bid the suits naturally. - With a good hand (say 15+), use Michaels and then take another bid later in the auction.
West has 13 HCP which might seem to put the hand squarely in the “bid your suits naturally” range. Think again! All the points are working well, and there is the added value of that 6-5 distribution. Putting it another way, the hand has only four losers and will have a play for game opposite a hand with nothing much more than a fit. So, West does use Michaels here, planning to make himself heard again later.
4th May, 2011 E-W Vul
With her Michaels bid, North has shown Spades and a minor and it’s pretty safe for South to assume that the minor is Diamonds. The colors suggest that N-S might have a profitable sacrifice, especially as they have something of a double fit. The question is “Should South bid Spades or Diamonds and how many should she bid?”
One possibility is to bid 3♦ first, and then 4♠ next time around. That clearly conveys the message of a hand that wants to sacrifice and which has better Diamonds than Spades. The trouble with that approach, though, is that it gives E-W extra space in which to maneuver. So we would cast science to the winds and bid a swashbuckling 4♠. Then we would resort to animal cunning, using the decibel level of the ensuing Double to judge whether to sit for 4♠ or try 5♦. But if you don’t do animal cunning, you might as well bid 5♦ directly over 3♣.
P.S. It turns out that 4♠ and 5♦ are both -300 and a good save against 4♥. If you get to your sacrifice quickly there is a chance that E-W might push on to the 5-level, going down one.
3rd March, 2010 E-W Vul
Would you use Michaels with the North hand? Some partnerships have the agreement that Michaels should be used with good hands or bad hands, but not with middling hands (let’s say that covers the 11-15 range, or thereabouts). Given that agreement, North would be strong enough for a “good” Michaels, her plan being to bid again later. On the actual deal, the auction would continue: North East South West Pass Pass 1♠ 2♠ 3♠ Pass Pass ?? Now, North should double, announcing the “good Michaels” and inviting Partner’s opinion.
3rd June, 2009 Both Vul
Anyone for Michaels with the West hand? Not a terrible bid, but not our choice. The Hearts are longer, we’d rather bid them directly and we’ll be quite happy to bid the Clubs later. That’s assuming there actually is a “later”. So you bid 2♥ and are next faced with this problem: West North East South 1♠ 2♥ Pass Pass 2♠ ?? Well, thanks to good old South, West gets another chance. What’s your choice? - Double? Definitely not, there seems to be a slight absence of Diamonds. - 3♠? No, the Clubs must be mentioned. - 3♣? Altogether too feeble. - 4♣? Yes, that’s it! Shows a good hand (but non-forcing), and presumably 5 Clubs (with less distribution West would be more inclined to try for 3NT).
4th February, 2009 Both Vul
West’s 2♠ was Michaels, showing Hearts and a minor. Your bid. That’s a pretty good hand that obviously want to be in at least game, or else will be happy to double the opponents if they get too boisterous. But let’s not bid 4♠ directly, that’s a bid that might be made with more distribution and less high-card strength. Better to give Partner the right message immediately, and that message is “I have a good hand” with Spade support. Partner will assume “game-invitational or better” for the time being.
So far, so good, let’s roll the auction forward: North East South West 1♠ 2♠ 3♥ 4♥ 4♠ Pass ?? Those vulnerable opponents are bidding a lot with not many HCP, no doubt they have a bunch of Hearts and Partner is short, quite possibly void. Given that your 3♥ cue-bid promised no more than game-invitational values, does Partner’s 4♠ show extras by bidding 4♠? Not really, he’s merely saying that he would rather declare than defend, perhaps because of that aforementioned Heart shortness. So the question is “Should you make a slam try?” No! The Spades are weak, and there is too much stuff in Hearts opposite Partner’s presumed shortness. A Pass is called for.
6th August, 2008 None Vul
Here’s a common problem … RHO opens one of a minor and we have 4 Spades and 5 Hearts … if we overcall 1♥ we’ll no doubt lose our 4-4 Spade fit (if we have one), but if we double then we risk losing our 5-3 Heart fit. Actually, there’s a third option, and that is to make a Michaels Cue-Bid. Yes, that’s usually 5-5 but it’s only a slight distortion and that 4-card Spade suit is strong enough to survive a 4-3 fit. We rather like the Michaels bid here, so we are sorry to report that it works out badly on the actual hand!
26th April, 2006 Board 21 N-S Vul
As East, would you use a Michaels Cue-Bid (showing both majors) instead of a 1♠ overcall? Some partnerships use Michaels in this situation whenever they are 5-5 in the majors, almost regardless of strength. Another approach, and our own preference, is to use Michaels with weak hands or strong hands, but not with middling hands. If you adopt the same style, then East’s hand is on the cusp, borderline between a weak Michaels and a 1♠ overcall, we'd go for the overcall ourselves.
28th June, 2006 Board 19 E-W Vul
With 5-5 in the majors, after they open 1♣ or 1♦, many players use the “weak-strong” style of the Michaels cue-bid: Weak: They bid Michaels, and then (usually) leave it up to Partner to do the rest of the bidding. Intermediate: They overcall 1♠, planning to compete in Hearts later. Strong: They bid Michaels, planning to bid again later. “Intermediate” is an imprecise term, but we’d say something in the 10-15 range is about right … needless to say, this is a guideline, not a rule, there’s always scope for hand evaluation.
On the above basis, East, with a lovely 16 HCP’s, decides he is worth a Michaels bid and another call later in the auction, in other words the “strong” variety. As it happens N-S start competing in Diamonds and East must decide what to do over 3♦. 3♥ here would be purely competitive, showing a weak Michaels, presumably with extra distribution. The way for East to show strength here is to double.
6th December, 2006 Boards 13 and 22
Two boards with the same dilemma:
Board 13 Board 22 ♠ AK53 ♠ A932 ♥ T6542 ♥ AJT52 ♦ ♦ 92 ♣ A752 ♣ K9
West North East South North East South West Pass Pass 1♣ Pass Pass 1♦ ?? ??
Hands with 4 Spades and 5 Hearts are difficult to handle once our RHO has opened 1♣ or 1♦. If we double we may lose our 5-3 Heart fit … and if we overcall 1♥ we may lose our 4-4 Spade fit. For these hands we like to use Michaels … well, maybe “like” is overstating things somewhat, let’s just say that it seems less bad than the alternatives. So, on both these hands Michaels would be our choice. Of course, when the major suit holdings are reversed, we don’t have the same problem … we can bid the Spades and later, all being well, we can show the Hearts.
Do you play that Michaels shows a Weak or Strong hand, but not something in the middle? It’s a very common treatment, and using this method we’d say that both of the hands are in the in-between category, being neither one thing nor the other. Does that mean that we wouldn’t use Michaels after all? No, we would anyway, reckoning that the importance of getting both majors into auction outweighs the misdescription of strength. Consider this slight variation of one of the hands above: ♠ A9432 ♥ AJT52 ♦ 9 ♣ K9 Here we are 5-5, the ideal Michaels shape, but, paradoxically, we would bid 1♠! The reason is simple enough … with this middling hand and 5 Spades we can bid our suits separately, and we don’t need to lie about our strength to solve our distribution problem.
19th July, 2006 Board 9 E-W Vul
We can see four choices here, none of them totally unreasonable: Pass: Our least favorite choice ... we are already a passed hand, we have some playing strength, and we are white versus red, surely action is indicated! Perhaps we misspoke, Pass does seem somewhat unreasonable, altogether too wimpy! 1♥: The trouble with this bid is that it risks losing the Spade suit ... we certainly wouldn't want to bid 2♠ on the next round of bidding. But make our 5-4-3-1 and 1♠ is preferable ... the rationale here is that we may get a chance to introduce Hearts at the two-level. Double: This keeps all our irons in the fire, even Diamonds, and is preferable to 1♥. 2♣: There's nothing much wrong with the aforementioned Double, but our real favorite is a Michaels Cue-Bid. True, it's not the perfect 5-5 shape, but the favorable vulnerability is more than adequate compensation. The major benefit that we see to using Michaels is it's preemptive value ... we are white versus red, after all, a good time to bid more and bid it quickly.
On the actual layout, Michaels works very well indeed ... Partner bids 2♠, and now East, with a good hand is obliged to compete further with a Double ... this gets his side into trouble and -500 (in 3♣ doubled) will likely result. However, if North decides to double 1♣, Partner bids 1♠, giving West an easier time ... he can rebid 1NT and escape the misery of 3♣ doubled.
26th July, 2006 Board 20 Both Vul
We are too good to overcall 1♠, so how about Double? That might work, at least it keeps all of the unbid suits in the picture … but the 5-card Spade suit is a negative. Our own choice would be 2♥, a Michaels Cue-Bid, showing Spades and a minor. If North then bids 2♠, we’ll try 3♠, inviting game. If North bids 3♣ (which is “Pass-or-Correct”, indicating a moderate hand with a preference for our minor) we’ll try 3♥, showing a good hand, and giving Partner the chance to bid 3NT with a Heart stop.
System Note: After that Michaels 2♥ bid, showing Spades and a minor, there are two common methods in use for asking which minor the Michaels bidder holds. A. Bid 2NT, after which the Michaels hand simply bids his minor. B. Bid 3♣, after which the Michaels hand passes with Clubs, or bids 3♦. Method A is the "traditional" approach, is there any benefit to Method B? Yes, we think so, it makes 2NT available for constructive purposes, the most useful of which is to show a decent hand with support for (in this case) Spades. True, it means that 3♣ is no longer available as a natural bid, but that seems a small price to pay.
21st November, 2007 Board 11 None Vul
Partner has bid Michaels, showing the major suits, a bid that covers a wide range of possible strengths. But even opposite the most humble of Michaels bids we would want to be in at least game. That’s no reason to bid the game directly, though, we’d like to tell Partner, along the way, that we have a real 4♠ bid, not some preemptive weak hand with a big fit. So, our choice would be to bid 4♦ here. Partner won’t know whether we have Hearts or Spades (or both) in mind, but, knowing that we have a good hand, he will be able to act accordingly.
Boards 8, 14, 19 and 26 (5th December, 2007)
The common theme on these boards is that in each case one or other of the protagonists had the chance to make a two-suited overcall.
Board 8 (None Vul) ♠ J ♥ J6543 ♦ AT983 ♣ T5 South West North East Pass Pass 1♠ ?? Anyone for a 2♠ Michaels call, showing Hearts and a minor? Not a good idea, it seems highly unlikely that such a bid will achieve anything. Partner is a passed hand, the opponents are probably headed for 4♠, and, at equal vulnerability, it seems unlikely that we have a worthwhile save at the 5-level. We wouldn’t bother to bid here, why help out the opponents by giving them free information?
Board 14 (None Vul) ♠ K9532 ♥ J8543 ♦ 3 ♣ 96 West North East South Pass 1♦ ?? Again, Partner is a passed hand and the opponents clearly have the values for game. If that game is 3NT we may have a profitable sacrifice in 4♥ or 4♠, and even if that is not the case, Partner may well be able to crowd their auction with a 3♥ or 3♦ bid. Note that, on Board 8, one of the reasons a Michaels bid was likely to be futile was that West probably already knew that his side belonged in 4♠, so interfering in their auction would not achieve much. But here, on Board 14, the opponents probably need to investigate whether the best game (or slam) is No Trump or a minor suit, and getting in there could be obstructive to those efforts.
Board 19 (E-W Vul) ♠ 8 ♥ AQ543 ♦ AT876 ♣ 63 West North East South 1♣ ?? 2NT here would show Hearts and Diamonds (the two lower unbid suits), but it would not be a good idea: - West has no reason to think that his side should be competing to the 3-level - 2NT is primarily a destructive bid, where as this West hand should be bidding constructively (all the more so as Partner is an unpassed hand) - The vulnerability is unfavorable All in all, to bid 2NT here just because we happen to have the right distribution would be poor indeed, and a simple 1♥ is called for.
Board 26 (Both Vul) ♠ K5 ♥ AKT98 ♦ J ♣ 98532 North East South West 1♠ Pass 1NT ?? Yes, 2♠ here would still be Michaels, in this case showing Hearts and a minor. It would also be misguided, and here’s why: - North has an intermediate hand, and most partnerships prefer that their Michaels bids are weak or strong, not somewhere in between - Bidding 2♠ would commit N-S to the 3-level, somewhat dangerous at this vulnerability. - Above all else, North wants a Heart opening lead from Partner and the best way to get that is to bid Hearts directly. So we’d simply bid 2♥ here, giving up on competing for the part-score in Clubs.
© BES, Inc All Rights Reserved | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
