[shevek]

I've always liked to bid (1♣) 2♣ as natural, even vs Acol where 1♣ is rarely three. However, most partners have vetoed that extent, insisting on Michaels vs most.

There comes a point where 2♣ natural seems more attractive than Michaels. Where is that point? (As a side issue, should the same principles apply to (1♣) - 2NT and (1♣) - no - (1M) - 2♣?)

Where do you draw the line?
In order of likelihood of shortish clubs:

1) vs 4-cd Acol
Some never open 1♣ with 3, others maybe 15-19 bal and 4M333.

2) vs 5-cd Acol (KS)
1♣ is 3 if bal 15-19 ond 4-4-2-3 or 4M-333.
3) vs Standard, better minor
1♣ is 3 if bal 12-14/18-19 ond 4-4-2-3 or 4M-333.

4) vs Standard with "short club" with 1♦ = 4+
As above plus 1♣ on 2 with 4-4-3-2.
(In Australia, these people are required to alert 1♣, a hangover from the days when bidding a 2+ suit was defined by the Laws as conventional)

5) vs people who play 5-cd Standard with "transfer Walsh"
Some of these open 1D as 5+ or unbalanced. Additionally to (4) they would open 1♣ with (nearly) all the 4432s & 4333s.
Their 1♣ becomes similar to a 1970s Precision 1♦ (those who open 2♦ on shortage, etc)

If you play (1♦) 2♦ as natural vs most Precision pairs, it seems to be that you should do the same vs Transfer Walsh 1♣.

6) Forcing club systems, where 1♣ = 0+

Where to draw the line?
a) Under 4. Shortish clubs are still rare for (1-4)
b) Under 3. Natural vs 2+ 1♣ as a simple rule.
c) Under 1. Like (b) but why change your approach just because of the way they hand one rare hand, 4-4-3-2?
d) Above 1. Maybe not sensible but simple.

Sat you choose (b). Do you follow the same principle for (1♣) - 2NT?

[straube]

My guess is that the Michaels bid is popular because it comes up more frequently than a club overcall.

To want to overcall a suit that your opponent might have (say 2+) it seems like you would usually want a 6 cd suit or a very good 5 cd suit. You'd want to meet the usual hcp standards for a 2-level bid and you wouldn't want to be able to make a (probably) more attractive 1N overcall. So you're like 11-14 or perhaps more if unbalanced.

The Michael's bid is often used with a wider range...typically weak or strong but not intermediate.

The other thing is that if the opponents open 1C (2+) and you have clubs, the auction might be slower (smaller fits) and you might get a chance to show clubs later. If they open 1C (2+) and you have the majors, you might get to show one of them (1S) but may not get to show the other before the opponents are at 2 or 3N.

I think Meckwell plays that over an artificial 1D, their 2D is natural and their 2H is Michaels...so apparently they think it's more important to show 5/5 majors than a weak 2 bid in hearts. Don't know what they'd play over an artificial 1C bid. 2D as michaels?

[Zelandakh]

Against Acol, playing 1C-2C as natural is pretty bad. Even against better/convenient minor, the odds of the club suit being 4+ are incredibly high. Only against 2+ or less do the maths suggest that interfering naturally makes sense, and against 2+ even then it is unclear.

The most common defence when treating the opening as artificial but not strong is to use 2C as a natural overcall and 2D as Michaels. There are other approaches too but this is the simplest.

[dake50]

"There comes a point where 2♣ natural seems more attractive than Michaels." --shevek

Unless their 1C shows both majors, isn't this game 'Majors win' most often? Why would you hope 4C over their 3M, 5C over their 4M wins? Only if 6xC tricks for 3NT.
Pre-note to nitpickers: this is not about 3C,4C,5C over 1C but 2C.

[campboy]

Personally I think the biggest difference is between 4 and 5 in your list, and that's where I draw the line.

[ulven]

Standard [expert] agreement here is 2C nat over poss short 1C and using 2D as Michaels.

[Siegmund]

I could draw the line either side of your #5. Somewhere south of opening 1C on 4432, and somewhere north of polish style clubs. Probably when 1D is 5+ or 4441 is about right.

[paulg]

shevek, on Oct 16 2010, 04:10 AM, said:

I've always liked to bid (1♣) 2♣ as natural, even vs Acol where 1♣ is rarely three.

*like*

Easier just to play just one method. Would also stop appeals at the World U20s.