[Vilgan]

I am considering making a few tweaks to our current system. Basically, right now I play 1♣ 2♣ and 1♦ 2♦ as Michael's. After looking back over the past few months, I am considering adjusting that slightly to:

1♣ 2♣ is natural and shows clubs
1♣ 2♦ Michael's
1♦ 2♦ is natural if 1♦ is precision, Michael's if it is natural.
1♦ 2♥ is Michael's if the 1♦ is precision, preemptive hearts if not.

I have had a LOT of hands where I feel 1♣ 2♣ as a natural overcall would have improved our score. Either we could have competed in clubs, or partner did not get off to an ideal lead against their contract. 1♦ 2♦ (if the 1♦ is precision) I have less experience with, but again I am sort of considering just making it natural over a precision 1♦. Not many people play precision here, but I have seen a lot of people get shut out of their diamond suit when I have opened a precision 1♦.

For those who play either of these agreements, how have you liked it? I am considering switching to this with any partners who will, at least for a while. Then again, it is a fairly small sample size and might be inflated by me remembering bad results better, so again... good to consult those with more experience I think.

Thank you for any input

[pclayton]

We play something similar over Precision 1♦ and the catch-all 1♣ opening.

[rogerclee]

Making a weak 2♦ overcall of a 1♣ opener is one of the more annoying bids in bridge. I think it's pretty important to keep this call the way it is.

The defense to 1♦ precision, making 2♦ natural and bidding 2♥ Michaels and sacrificing 2♥ preemptive, has been around for awhile. I do not play this. I think having a preemptive 2♥ call is more valuable than a natural ♦ call (which I can bid next round, albeit without the preemptive effect), and 2♥ Michaels is worse than 2♦ Michaels, so I think I am giving up a lot for very little in exchange.

[pclayton]

rogerclee, on Jun 11 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

Making a weak 2♦ overcall of a 1♣ opener is one of the more annoying bids in bridge. I think it's pretty important to keep this call the way it is.

The defense to 1♦ precision, making 2♦ natural and bidding 2♥ Michaels and sacrificing 2♥ preemptive, has been around for awhile. I do not play this. I think having a preemptive 2♥ call is more valuable than a natural ♦ call (which I can bid next round, albeit without the preemptive effect), and 2♥ Michaels is worse than 2♦ Michaels, so I think I am giving up a lot for very little in exchange.

I don't feel the need to preempt a limited 1♦ too much.

[kenrexford]

I currently play 2♦ as always Michaels, saving 1♣-2♣ as natural, for the same reasons.

Years ago, I used to take advantage of both a "short club" and a nebulous 1♦ opening to employ the full two-level opening structure from another system. 2♣ always showed any 4441 hand, with a series of asking bids if the auction allowed it; 2♦ the majors; 2M that major and an unspecified minor; and 2NT for the minors. I liked that as well, especially over 1♣, where double was handled as if opened 1♣ (strong, artificial); 1-L other was canape style; and 1NT was balanced. It got a little dicey with the one-level calls and with the 2♣ call at times, and you forfeited the interruption option (or had to play Vegas and hit the three-level), but constructive auctions were vastly improved.

These days, I'm satisfied with the saving of 2♣ as a natural call, with an occasional 3♦ overstep with long diamonds. I have not yet grabbed the 3♦ Super-Michaels call from WAY back, but maybe there's some merits to revisiting that idea.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 11 2008, 08:31 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 11 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

I have not yet grabbed the 3♦ Super-Michaels call from WAY back, but maybe there's some merits to revisiting that idea.

I think it's dumb in a system where you can bid 2D for the majors, but obviously if you play 2H for the majors you have to play this.

Oh -- missed that. Duh!

[gnasher]

I wouldn't want to give up any preemptive jump overcalls, but especially not (1♣) 2♦. I'd prefer to lose the Michaels cue bid.

5-5 in the majors has a lower frequency than a WJO, and has less preemptive value, because there are only two suits that the opponents might play in rather than three. With a constructive 5-5, I can live with overcalling 1♠.

This is a bit like the argument about Ghestem, which was settled ages ago in most parts of the world. Using 3♣ as a two-suiter sounds like a really good idea until you pick up a weak hand with clubs.

[jtfanclub]

gnasher, on Jun 12 2008, 02:31 AM, said:

I wouldn't want to give up any preemptive jump overcalls, but especially not (1♣) 2♦. I'd prefer to lose the Michaels cue bid.

I know there must be hands out there where bidding 1♠ and planning to bid hearts later is bad, but they don't seem to come up for me.

I was playing a hand yesterday, with a noob who doesn't play Michaels yet.

Partner dealt

-P- (1♦) 1♠ (2♥)
2♠ (3♣) -P- (-P-)
3♠ (-X-) P/O


I had Axxxx Qxxxx QJx --- Partner had a balanced hand with kings everywhere except clubs. Opps took 4 tricks.

I seriously doubt that they'd have been so kind if I'd bid Michaels.

Michaels over a minor doesn't come up much, and when it does come up often just bidding the hand naturally ends up better. And yet, it's standard.

Go figure.

[awm]

Indeed, I am also confused by the value some place on michaels. Sure there will occasionally be a hand where you have a big fit in overcaller's lower suit and opponents are preempting aggressively, but there are also often hands where opponents play/defend the hand better because of the michaels call.

I've dropped michaels in several regular partnerships and haven't missed it much.

[Halo]

I'm with the idea of keeping the single suit natural preempts, rather than creating varieties of Michaels.

[Vilgan]

awm, on Jun 12 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

Indeed, I am also confused by the value some place on michaels. Sure there will occasionally be a hand where you have a big fit in overcaller's lower suit and opponents are preempting aggressively, but there are also often hands where opponents play/defend the hand better because of the michaels call.

I've dropped michaels in several regular partnerships and haven't missed it much.

Ya, a better choice might just be giving up on Michael's, at least over 1♣ and the precision 1♦. It does seem about 50/50, I can think of many hands in the last month or so where bidding Michael's hurt the team that did it.

Worth pondering at least.