BBO Discussion Forums: Green against red it would be fairly easy, but... - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Green against red it would be fairly easy, but...

#21 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2016-January-25, 07:35

Over 1, I rank
1. 2 = Weak
2. Pass = Reveal a minimum of information.
3. 2 = Michaels. but, with 6 HCP, at this vulnerability, after your partner has passed, an opponent is likely to declare the final contract -- and knowledge of your shape, will help him in the play.
Over 3N, I rank
1. Double = Penalty. You can bid 4 when opponents run.
2. 4 = ART. Good raise.
3. 4 = Expecting to make game.

1

#22 User is offline   Jinksy 

  • Experimental biddicist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,909
  • Joined: 2010-January-02
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-January-25, 09:31

View PostCyberyeti, on 2016-January-25, 06:02, said:

He leads from his K10xxxx hoping you have Qx(x) and hoping his card in your suit is an entry, blowing a trick, declarer then knocks out your entry


Why doesn't the 4th bidder just have AKQ8752 and his P a takeout double while we're at it? Obviously there are risks associated with a 2 bid, and P having a second source of tricks with a second outside entry that he's not sure whether to lead hardly seems foremost among them*. Clearly I think the risks of preempting outweigh the rewards.

Even if they didn't, Michaels is a terrible bid with all sorts of downsides (many but not all of which I've described), and I rate pass much higher than 2, no matter what your nominal range for it is. Do you really want me to give you specific holdings where bidding it here goes badly? How long have you got?

* On the hand you give, I'd prefer to just lead partner's suit than try my luck leading away from a broken 6-card holding with a highly dubious entry outside, assuming we're trying to set 3N. And (channelling Gwnn) I realise that means we'll occasionally fail to set the contract when P does have Qx of my suit, JTxxx(x) of his own, and the opps have exactly 8 tricks off the top, before you re-explain that to me like this is the first time I've seen a bridge hand.
The "4 is a transfer to 4" award goes to Jinksy - PhilKing
0

#23 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,704
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2016-January-25, 11:36

View PostCharlie Yu, on 2016-January-25, 05:12, said:

Why would that be too weak for michaels, I thought ppl play Michaels as 0-8 or 16+?

I think more common for split-range Michaels is for the lower range to be ~6-11 but the truth is that all-range Michaels is generally more popular on BBF and has been championed by Justin here. A corrollary to that is that the bottom end typically gets raised when red. Indeed, even some split-rangers only play it that way NV and revert to a continuous range V. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages with knock-on effects elsewhere in the system to be felt.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#24 User is offline   Jinksy 

  • Experimental biddicist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,909
  • Joined: 2010-January-02
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2016-January-25, 11:56

One of the big advantages of split-range Michaels is that everyone plays it anyway ('I'll figure out later whether this 12-count is an upgrade to 15 or a downgrade to 10...') :P
The "4 is a transfer to 4" award goes to Jinksy - PhilKing
0

#25 User is offline   quiddity 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,099
  • Joined: 2008-November-21

Posted 2016-January-25, 12:27

Michaels looks fine to me, 4 by South looks fine too.
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users