[Bbradley62]

When I learned Michaels in the early 1980s, it was common to use it with weak or strong hands, but not intermediate. Having just returned to bridge after a 12-year hiatus, I find that this is no longer common. (a) If I'm playing in a BBO individual event and partner bids Michaels, what should I expect his parameters are? (b) How do experienced partnerships generally use Michaels these days?

[jjbrr]

I believe it is much more common now among experts (in America at least) to bid Michaels with any strength. One of the problems with counting HCP for determining whether or not to bid Michaels is that HCP don't really do a good job of reflecting trick-taking potential. Honor placement and quality is much, much more important for determing the strength of a two-suited hand than bean counting alone.

I attended a lecture given by a friend at a regional recently and he discussed this topic. He advocated instead of using Weak/Strong as your criteria to use what he called, I believe, the rule of 7/9/11. Just like the rule of 2/3/4, his rule used vulnerabilities as a consideration to how weak the hand can be to make a Michaels bid. That is, white vs red, partner should expect at least 7 HCP in the two long suits to make a Michaels bid. At equal vul, partner should expect a minimum of 9 HCP, and at unfavorable, partner expects at least 11 HCP in the two suits. I think this is a pretty reasonable agreement to have. It's good to have a bottom limit because of the risk involved with bidding all the way to the 3 level without a known fit. Obviously the chances of having a fit are good, but they're no guarantee. And the idea behind 7/9/11 is that the honors in your long suits are much more valuable on offense than HCP in your short suits, which are better for defense. Obviously it's important to put a premium on aces, kings, and lots of touching honors in the long suits.

Playing in a BBO indy, everything goes out the window and you just have to look out for yourself. It's impossible to give you rules for what random people will do.

Also, I believe it is becoming more and more common for experts to play a convention over Michaels to improve their bidding accuracy. When the auction goes (1M) 2M (p), many experts play

2NT= inv+ in either minor
3♣ = pass/correct, to either play 3♣ or 3♦, depending on partner's suit
3♦= inv+ in partner's major
3M = NF, preference, preemptive if it's a jump

[aguahombre]

Not to advocate one or the other, experienced partnerships agree on either split range or wide range. I doubt you will find a clear consensus.

And the split range people disagree on what the normal low-range is: varying also if partner is a passed hand, and with normal attention to vulnerability. Absolutely something to discuss in advance, rather than guess when it comes up.

[kenrexford]

I recall that Michaels way back when was actually a weak THREE-suited takeout call. Imagine that!?!

[ArtK78]

kenrexford, on Mar 3 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

I recall that Michaels way back when was actually a weak THREE-suited takeout call. Imagine that!?!

I have never heard that. And the 1960 article by Mike Michaels on the ACBL website doesn't mention 3 suited hands.

How far back are you talking about?

[peachy]

I like the style where Michaels is either aiming at a game or a sacrifice. Normal strength just overcall naturally. I don't like jjbrr's suggestion to count HCP, that is more or less a futile exercise with 5-5 hands, count tricks/losers/general appearance whatever, not HCP.

As to what you would expect from partner on BBO - any 5-4/4-5/5-5 and any strength. Never know what to do because the Michaels bidder could make another call with a weak hand (although he shouldn't), etc.

Agreements among experienced players vary. And there is a definite difference between 'experienced player' and 'expert player'. Many juniors who have played maybe 5 years, for example, are experts while majority of those who have played 20+ years, are just that = played 20+ years with no marked improvement from their 3rd year.

[jjbrr]

peachy, on Mar 3 2010, 01:15 PM, said:

I don't like jjbrr's suggestion to count HCP, that is more or less a futile exercise with 5-5 hands, count tricks/losers/general appearance whatever, not HCP.

I can't help but wonder if you even read my post.

Reading comprehension is tough, I know.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Mar 3 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 3 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

I recall that Michaels way back when was actually a weak THREE-suited takeout call.  Imagine that!?!

I have never heard that. And the 1960 article by Mike Michaels on the ACBL website doesn't mention 3 suited hands.

How far back are you talking about?

WAY back, I suppose. I first found mention of that in a very old version of the Encyclopedia of Bridge.

[gwnn]

I saw the auction

1H-2H-4H-4S
p-7S at the club.

the 2H bidder had a very strong 7024 or so and 2H was a cheap, non-specific GF

[babalu1997]

ArtK78, on Mar 3 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Mar 3 2010, 12:34 PM, said:

I recall that Michaels way back when was actually a weak THREE-suited takeout call.  Imagine that!?!

I have never heard that. And the 1960 article by Mike Michaels on the ACBL website doesn't mention 3 suited hands.

How far back are you talking about?

actually i think there is such bidding in sj simons why you lose at bridge lol

[aguahombre]

Actually, though I don't have any Encyclopedias earlier than 1971, that version states it is "usually used with a two-suited rather than 3-suited hand." This would imply that sometime earlier than 1971 Michaels was indeed used by some people as a takeout double - type bid.

Off topic, but I didn't start it

[karlson]

I agree that weak/strong is a bit out of fashion now; I never cared for it myself. I think people generally have realized that in modern competitive auctions, the downside of not getting both of your suits in immediately outweighs the slight losses in constructive michaels auctions.

[Pict]

In my experience the weak/strong idea was an early attempt at science, long before the present age of extreme competition.

It always seemed artificial to me so I don't regret the passing. In a way it was similar to multi-2s. Either could be fashionable next week.

[Siegmund]

I still use, and prefer, the split-range approach. As already mentioned, its more a losers-based thing than a points-based thing, and your style is a matter for partnership agreement.

Personally, I'm quite surprised the convention is so universally used; 5-5s are not nearly as hard to bid naturally as 4-5s and other somewhat lopsided two-suiters are.

[ggwhiz]

Mike Lawrence was the first that I know of that recommended bidding Michaels (or unusual 2nt) just about all the time and that seems much more common today.

I personally do not, especially over say, 1 Heart where 2 hearts shows spades and an unspecified minor. I've done just fine overcalling 1 spade and having a second suit as a secret weapon when I get raised.

Bottom line - anything goes. The kind of thing I would ask a pick-up partner her preference right after we discuss defensive signals.

[PhantomSac]

I never bid 1M 2M with bad hands, I always just overcall or pass, so I guess mine are intermediate or strong? Seems like a bad idea to make 2 suited bids on terrible hands that drive you to the 3 level.

For 1m-2m though I'm a big fan of having a very wide range, with the majors there's a lot more reason to get in, and you only force to the 2 level.

[peachy]

jjbrr, on Mar 3 2010, 02:34 PM, said:

peachy, on Mar 3 2010, 01:15 PM, said:

I don't like jjbrr's suggestion to count HCP, that is more or less a futile exercise with 5-5 hands, count tricks/losers/general appearance whatever, not HCP.

I can't help but wonder if you even read my post.

Reading comprehension is tough, I know.

If you do not use HCP for Michaels evaluation then why elaborate on the use of HCP. This is what you wrote about a lesson that a friend gave:

" That is, white vs red, partner should expect at least 7 HCP in the two long suits to make a Michaels bid. At equal vul, partner should expect a minimum of 9 HCP, and at unfavorable, partner expects at least 11 HCP in the two suits. I think this is a pretty reasonable agreement to have. "

Let's try to keep things on topic and not get into sarcastic insult slinging.
If I have misunderstood what you wrote, I apologize.

[jjbrr]

How is counting HCP in the long suits different from counting tricks/losers/overall appearance? Correct me if I'm wrong, but lots of HCP in your long suits is exactly the same as fewer losers, more tricks, or better appearance, right?

I then go on to say it's much better to have aces and kings and good suit combinations, ie the things that reduce losers, increase winners, improve appearance, than to have cards outside the long suits. We're saying the exact same thing, and yet you dont like my suggestion? I even explicitly said that using HCP alone to determine the trick-taking potential of a two-suited hand is silly.

[barmar]

In the old days, a direct cue bid of the opening bid was a very strong (e.g. 19+ HCP) takeout. I don't think it was called Michaels, it was just a cue bid. I don't think I've seen this style in decades, now you just double and jump raise partner's response.

[Mbodell]

Bbradley62, on Mar 3 2010, 09:06 AM, said:

When I learned Michaels in the early 1980s, it was common to use it with weak or strong hands, but not intermediate. Having just returned to bridge after a 12-year hiatus, I find that this is no longer common. (a) If I'm playing in a BBO individual event and partner bids Michaels, what should I expect his parameters are? ( How do experienced partnerships generally use Michaels these days?

I play weak or strong with some and wide ranging with others. With weak or strong then you bid your michaels and pass (other than p/c) from here out with the weak and any movement by you shows the strong hand. With the wide continuous range method you agree what the bottom of the range is (maybe 8 LTC white, 7 LTC red?) and partner bids to the level he'd want to be opposite the bottom of your range. You raise/compete to the level that you have. It is a little harder to work out as maybe partner's preferred level was really the 1 level and you are already too high.