[PhilKing]

nige1, on 2015-April-09, 13:09, said:

More than forty years ago, Eric Crowhurst compared the available options, and came to the same conclusion as Cherdano.

You are comparing apples and pears. In a four card major system, the Crowhurst solution, in which the lower cue showed the fourth suit plus tolerance for partner, made much more sense.

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2015-April-09, 14:05, said:

You are comparing apples and pears. In a four card major system, the Crowhurst solution, in which the lower cue showed the fourth suit plus tolerance for partner, made much more sense.

Still, the logic of lower for 4th suit -- not guaranteeing tolerance for the first suit --- is valid.

My problems are: 1) can't do it on 1D (2N), for instance; 2) after years of lower for lower, old dogs would screw it up; and 3) it is a distinction without a difference when the opening bid was in Spades.

[Lovera]

el mister, on 2015-April-07, 03:25, said:

gib rolled out the following 2S bid on me recently - what does / should it show?

---

Thanks.

So, following the subsquent discussion, seems that Michaels is started but actually is not defined or completed. I think that bidding of partner must realize two objectives : make a sort of "disturbing" against opp and help partner indicating force and/or support before that it' s too late. I think that 2♠ (or 2♥) had to indicate major shortness in suit bidded occupaying space + force in (here) diamond suit of partner (being implicit the fourth suit).