[blackshoe]

Today at the club, one of our less experienced players, on lead to whatever contract my partner was declaring, asked her husband "did you bid something?" He replied "1!D" and she duly led the !D10. I didn't say anything, because after all she could have asked for a review of the auction, but it did strike me as an odd question to ask.

[AL78]

I'm a bit late to theis thread, but I would expect 5+/5+ for a Michaels or unusual 2NT. I have been stitched up before when scratch partners have done it on 5-4 shape and I have ended up going off expensively at the three level because I thought we had a double fit.

With conventions like this, whatever your agreement, there is a balance between precision and frequency. Restricting the shape means the hand is defined more precisely at the expense of frequency. Doing it on 5-4 shapes increases the freequency at the expense of less certainty of knowing how well the hands fit together, or if you have a fit whether it is right or not to bid over opponents (e.g. holding 3-3 in partners suits, if they are 5-5 it is likely right to bid on, with 5-4 it is less appealing).

[pescetom]

AL78, on 2019-November-06, 14:41, said:

I'm a bit late to theis thread, but I would expect 5+/5+ for a Michaels or unusual 2NT. I have been stitched up before when scratch partners have done it on 5-4 shape and I have ended up going off expensively at the three level because I thought we had a double fit.

With conventions like this, whatever your agreement, there is a balance between precision and frequency. Restricting the shape means the hand is defined more precisely at the expense of frequency. Doing it on 5-4 shapes increases the freequency at the expense of less certainty of knowing how well the hands fit together, or if you have a fit whether it is right or not to bid over opponents (e.g. holding 3-3 in partners suits, if they are 5-5 it is likely right to bid on, with 5-4 it is less appealing).

Certainly, but imprecision may hinder opponents almost as much as partner. And a clear and cheap opportunity like a cue bid at 2-level invites relatively high frequency and risk, at least with most vulnerability situations.

[mikeh]

pescetom, on 2019-November-06, 17:09, said:

Certainly, but imprecision may hinder opponents almost as much as partner. And a clear and cheap opportunity like a cue bid at 2-level invites relatively high frequency and risk, at least with most vulnerability situations.

Whether one plays 5-4/4-5 2N or michaels is a question of style and not of discipline, which are not at all the same thing. Style is things such as degree of conservatism or aggression in the bidding. Discipline is consistency in the application of that style. If one plays that one can Michaels on suitable 5-4 hands it would be a breach of discipline not to do so when the suitable hand arises. In a similar vein, if partnership style requires 5-5, bidding it with 5-4 is a breach of discipline.

When you watch really good pairs, their styles may differ widely from pair to pair, and even in a partnership one may be more or less aggressive than partner, but all strong pairs are disciplined....if they routinely open 3D, favourable, on xx xxx QJxxxx xx, that is hyper-aggressive but not undisciplined so long as that is in the range partner expects.

So 5-4 Michaels...one can choose to play it, but one ought to be consistent and of course one has to make sure the opps are aware of what, in NA at least, is definitely a minority view.

Should one play it? I think not. Michaels or the unusual 2N are primarily obstructive devices. Yes, sometimes one has a very strong hand and will bid again, but all experts with whom I have played expect that partner will assume a basically destructive intent, moderated by vulnerability. Most good pairs have decent methods over Michaels or 2N, so against a good pair, the benefit is not primarily from the initial preempt, although it can definitely help. The main benefit is from advancer being able to bounce as high as possible before opener gets another call.

This is relevant because there is a tremendous difference between 5-4 hands and 5-5. One may, as advancer, be very happy bouncing on only a 4 card fit IF partner is known to hold at least 5....but it is rare that one has a good save at a high level on a 4-4 fit! Not only does the 5-4 hand threaten an inadequate fit, but the 5-4 hand contains an additional loser. The 5th card, even in the side suit, is usually a winner by the end of the hand, but not so much if one has only 4 cards, and a side loser.

In short, if you are playing inferior players, who can't handle 2M or 2N, then you may gain from 5-4 hands, because it is the initial bid that screws them up. As you get better, you will increasingly play opps who are not seriously inconvenienced by that first bid...now, to extract maximal benefit, you will probably want to be at least 5-5, to give advancer comfort. This is particularly true if the opps know enough to 'take the money' on borderline hands, rather than be pushed into a minus position.

[pescetom]

Thanks mikeh and you are right of course, our previous 5-4 paid off better at the local club than in stiffer competition.

[barmar]

AL78, on 2019-November-06, 14:41, said:

With conventions like this, whatever your agreement, there is a balance between precision and frequency.

A similar issue comes up with Gambling 3NT. The classic hands for it come up very rarely, and I've seen many players bid it with a hole in the suit because they can't wait for the real thing.