[mfa1010]

aguahombre, on 2013-December-10, 08:49, said:

Bridge is a simple game until someone decides for us that MC shows goodish hands without defining the term so that we can change our Michaels style to conform with his.

Ok

MC is (for me and in my bridge community) a constructive overcall, not a preemptive bid. It shows values that corresponds to an overcall at the level, we are forced to, here a 3-level overcall. I don't like a point definition, since a lot depends on shape and suit quality (playing strength). But we are surely talking opening bid+ values when at the 3-level with only 5-5.

The bad result is no surprise if the team were playing the good oldfashioned emmentaler style MC, where responder is not bidding his hand and Michael needs to make desperate reentries when he actually has his bid for his MC.

[ArtK78]

For most of my bridge playing life (which is longer than most posters here) Michaels represented either a weak 2 suiter or a good 2 suiter (split-range). In between hands were handled with overcalls. Monster hands were handled with doubles.

Over the last 10 years (during which my tournament play has been limited) I became aware of a trend in the expert community to show shape before values, and, in the case of Michaels, that meant that all two suiters (except monsters) were shown by the cuebid directly. Most better players that I know have done away with the split-range Michaels cue bid in favor of just showing shape first.

This does not mean that split-range is unplayable, nor does it denegrate any other restrictions, such as MFA's restriction that Michaels is a constructive call. Mostly it is a matter of style. In the case of the current trend of shape first, that is consistent with the general trend at the higher levels of the game for getting into the auction at the least provocation. It is aggressive, and it can lead to some spectacular failures. But it works more often than not, which is the primary reason for using this method at matchpoints.

[aguahombre]

My bone of contention was not with anyone's style; it was a continuation of my frequent rant about what "is". We are stodgy split-rangers, but that doesn't make our choice "what is", either.

However, I still do not feel that advancer with a mere KXX in Hearts and no particular help for Mike's likely minor is worthy of the fortunate 4H bid. And, if Mike does have clubs, West would be virtually bidding 4S for the opponents.

[mfa1010]

Sorry for my ignorance, arrogance and incompentence and for disturbing any ongoing rant, but I think split range is just bad - not a style issue.

Nowhere else in a normal system is a bid split range in strength. I wonder why it should be clever right here then, in the middle of a potentially competitive battle.

The middle strength hands are the ones where MC is most valuable. As the strength of the hand goes down, the value of a MC deminishes, because the upsides go down and the dangers and other downsides go up. At some point the bid becomes antipercentage. This is true regardsless of what interval(s) we agree to play. Where the 'equilibrium point' is depends on many factors.

[Zelandakh]

mfa1010, on 2013-December-10, 12:13, said:

Nowhere else in a normal system is a bid split range in strength. I wonder why it should be clever right here then, in the middle of a potentially competitive battle.

You have never played minor suit transfers as weak or GF after a 1NT opening? or Texas as to play 4M or slammy, with slam invites going elsewhere? There are plenty of others - a 1♦ response to a strong 1♣ as double-negative or various GF hands; 2NT as either a drop dead raise or a GF raise (of a minor); my own 1M - 2M+1 response showing a mini-splinter or a maxi-splinter; various transfer schemes for competition in which a transfer is competitive or GF and bidding the suit itself is invitational. And so on.

Ben (Lessard)'s system relies upon this concept. I would say it is an underused one that is slowly increasing in frequency (due to the rise of transfers) rather than an outdated one being consigned to history. There are good arguments against split-range 2-suited overcalls though and these have been presented on BBF by Justin and others more than once. There is also a decent argument for playing split-range NV and a continuous range vulnerable. In any case, a choice of agreement between split-range and any strength with the right shape is pretty much irrelevant on this hand.

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2013-December-11, 03:52, said:

In any case, a choice of agreement between split-range and any strength with the right shape is pretty much irrelevant on this hand.

Disagree - I am sure mfa's continuous range has a higher minimum than the low range of anyone playing split ranges.

[helene_t]

mfa1010, on 2013-December-10, 12:13, said:

Nowhere else in a normal system is a bid split range in strength.

Well it is quite normal to play 2-openings that can be either weak or strong (but not intermediate), and to play various NT rebids as 12-14 or 18-19.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2013-December-11, 04:12, said:

Disagree - I am sure mfa's continuous range has a higher minimum than the low range of anyone playing split ranges.

Maybe so but do you think West has an easier 4♥ bid over an overcall that shows opening values with hearts and a minor than an overcall that showed opening values and hearts? It is not like West does not know about the spade shortage.

[mfa1010]

Yes, there are some - mostly conventional - split range treatments out there, usually they are meant to operate in non-disturbed sequences.

The silly thing in split range MC is that there is no bid for the in-between hands. They have to overcall etc. ... If Ben has a weak or strong raise somewhere in his system, I'm pretty sure he has a bid for the in-between hands also.

The upside of a MC-bid is highest for the hands with some potential (strength).

The weak hands are dangerous and will be a giveaway about the distribution, if we get to defend, so the overall upside of bidding is less - we need to hit partner hard or have the opponents to have a ****-up. Happens sometimes of course, that's why we generally like to bid a lot on speculative hands.

The strong hands tend come up rarely, but we love to bid MC when we get them to show the hand type.

I feel the split range MC are construed in an environment where the competitive aspect is undervalued, i.e. medium strength hands can "just" overcall, no harm done there. But good results in competitions are made by showing a hand type as quickly as possible, since the side with most info will make the best decisions in the long run.

The minimum for split range MC should be less than for continuous range MC, since it is the whole idea behind split range, that a broad continuous range can't be handled.

Anyway, I don't think W has an easy 4♥-bid, if he had it would be rather uninteresting to discuss. But I think he should bid. He will make game a decent amount of the time, and sometimes it will be a good sacrifice against 3♠. I tend not to worry so much about pushing them to game. Good opponents can usually take care of themselves, and we don't have a particular reason to think the layout will be lucky for them here, if they take a push the wouldn't have taken otherwise.

[sathyab]

Fluffy, on 2013-December-09, 03:53, said:

I think East is worth a double of 3♠, or else not worth 2♠. Nobody vul I like split range michaels, but its close between upper range and middle. For strategic reasons I would upgrade to upper.

I am not sure how to find 4♠ by NS, I think the hidden diamond ' fit' is the key, so its more bad luck than anything else, but even with 1 less total trick 4♠ could be worth it (420 vs 300) so there should be something more to blame.

North is the guy who has ♠K10, ♦Q and a third heart, all of which happen to be offensive tricks but not defensive. So if someone has to bid 4♠ it gotta be him.

Why would North bid 4♠ ? His hand is totally balanced. His partner could easily have only 3♠ and some extras and might even be waiting to double 4♥. And when it got around to South, there was nothing do except pass.

[Fluffy]

you mean holding 3 low hearts partner is going to have a penalty double?

I never implid he should bid 4♠, but it is true that the guy of the pair who has the most ODR its him, general shape is not all.

[HighLow21]

I find the number of hands on auctions like this where bidding 4♠ over 4♥ to be a bad move are very few. And by "bad move" I mean more than a small swing.

Very few. Like maybe 10% of the time. About 50% of the time it's a great move, 20% of the time it's indifferent or a slight positive, and 20% it's an IMP swing of around -3 to -5.

I can live with those odds, because there will be plenty of times when passing 4♥ is a disaster.

[CSGibson]

I would bid 4♥ with the W hand, but only if playing my own favorite Michaels agreements - 2♠ shows a hand that would have opened at the very least at these colors (albeit I open aggressively with shape and a major). Without knowing what agreements were in place for Michaels calls, its tough to assign blame to any particular outcome at the two tables.