[InTime]

Scoring: MP

---

We play Michaels and have decided that it is either a good or a bad hand, with intermediate hand we bid our suits normally . . . I supppose this is valid for any two-suited overcall system. However, I have seen on vugraphs that certain pairs play this as intermediate to good hands when Vul vs not . . . especially in teams.
My question is:-
1. What constitutes a good, intermediate or bad hand for partnership understanding?
2. Does the Vulnerability or position like 4th position change the definition?
3. In the above hand the bidding went:
(1♦) - Pass - (Pass) - 2♦ with the above hand.
In what category will you put this hand according to your definition?
Any rationale comments will be most welcome.
Regards

[hanp]

I hate bidding only one major with this hand.

[dake50]

5 losers with 5 controls is good.
One loser/control deviation allowed with body cards/extra length in 2-suits.
Void is exceptional. Count 2-3 controls for a void, especially if a cheap rebid shows partner this void when he shows slammy stuff. (I use an "expected" void for slam tries --unless the catchall advance is bid. Eg. Here Michaels Q would "expect" C-void if big rebid. So I repeat Q with D-void slammy.)

[MFA]

I really don't like (or understand) a weak or very strong approach. Two-suited bids like Michaels should not be seen as a preempt. Instead it should show reasonable values that correspond with the level of bidding. Not bidding Michaels with in-between hands loses the valuable effect of showing both suits at once.

I prefer:
- a decent minimum for the michaels hand
- aggressive bidding from partner with a fit, so 'Michael' doesn't have to stretch to bid again
- continuous range of the michaels bid

So sorry, I can't really help you, since I don't really understand the logic of the weak or very strong approach.

[Phil]

Ditto. Switch to wide ranging.

You'll make a lot of the regular posters happy.

[neilkaz]

Phil, on Jul 9 2010, 12:36 PM, said:

Ditto. Switch to wide ranging.

You'll make a lot of the regular posters happy.

Agreed. Weak/Strong Michaels is going out of favor with most modern strong players.

[Siegmund]

For me, the posted hand is a nice solid Medium in direct seat. In balancing seat I've never really had firm agreements about what was strong enough for Strong.

I do still believe in weak-or-strong for Michaels and Unusual though I know not everyone does... but truth be told, I don't much care for using Michaels at all. My preference is to bid out the 5-5s naturally and use the artificial bids to show the 4-5/4-6 hands. More a matter of frequency (4-5 comes up more often) and of biddability (you at least SOMEtimes get a chance to bid both halves of a 5-5, but very rarely a chance to naturally show a 4-5.)

[junyi_zhu]

InTime, on Jul 9 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

Scoring: MP

---

We play Michaels and have decided that it is either a good or a bad hand, with intemediate hand we bid our suits up the line . . . I supppose this is valid for any two-suited overcall system. However, I have seen on vugraphs that certain pairs play this as intermediate to good hands when Vul vs not . . . especially in teams.
My question is:-
1. What constitutes a good, intermediate or bad hand for partnership understanding?
2. Does the Vulnerability or position like 4th position change the definition?
3. In the above hand the bidding went:
(1♦) - Pass - (Pass) - 2♦ with the above hand.
In what category will you put this hand according to your definition?
Any rationale comments will be most welcome.
Regards

It's really a matter of your overall overcall style. If you play a very sound overcall style with about the opening strength, you actually only want to play the weak and very strong version. If you play a very light overcall style, your partner would pass with many 8-9 unfitted hands, you want to play a continuous range or wide range, because you may easily end up in the wrong suit if you don't show your hand. Your up the line treatment doesn't make sense to me, because you would easily miss a lot of 5-3 fit spades.

My preference is a sound overcall style with very aggressive preempts, so I actually play a strong and weak version. Still, if you play a rather light overcall style, you may need to guess well in many situations in constructive bidding. Often, you may end up playing in the right suit, but wrong level, which is still a big concern.

[InTime]

junyi_zhu, on Jul 9 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

Your up the line treatment doesn't make sense to me, because you would easily miss a lot of 5-3 fit spades.

Sorry . . . I must rectify this . . . I actually meant bidding the suits normally with intermediate hands. That actually meant bidding spades first.
Regards

[peachy]

Not playing wide-ranging Michaels, this hand is a problem. Stick with your system and bid 1S. (Or change system.) This is an intermediate hand: clearly not weak, and almost as clearly not strong enough to insist on game.

[nigel_k]

I prefer not to play wide ranging but have no particular preference between weak/strong and intermediate+. But surely in fourth seat after two passes it is not weak, in the same way that a jump overcall in that situation is not weak.