[heart76]

Hi. Picked up this one a couple of days ago with my regular partner.
2nd seat, all vul, I had: / KQxxx Q AKQJ109x.
RHO opens 1♠ and I went in with Micheals at 2♠, weak or strong. It then goes:
(1S) - 2S - (p) - 2NT (asking)
(3S). I was a bit concerned of X here just to show strength, because it's undiscussed and I'm not convinced setting them in 3♠X would suffice.
So I bid 4♠, clearly slam invitational, as I couldn't come to anything wiser.
Any suggestions so far? What should 3NT be instead of 4♠, for instance?

Pard bid 5♣ (P/C) and I passed.
This time, they had 10 tricks in ♠ and we had 12 in ♣, but I'm not concerned of missing the slam, just of exploring alternatives.
Thanks to anyone who would reply.

[LBengtsson]

I do not think I would have bid any different to you. There is a case for 1♠ - 4♠ immediately to show this unusually strong hand, a sort of super "Leaping Michaels" as ♥ and a [stronger?] minor. The reason I say this is I am sure I have seen this unusual bid in a book somewhere, but which book I am not sure. Or someone used it once and his partner worked out what it meant.

The hand you posted has 14 cards but I guess you were 5♥1♦7♣. This sort of hand comes up so rarely that having specific bids such as 3NT, 4♠, even 4NT after the bidding sequence you described have probably not been discussed, even if a established expert partnership. It is a matter of 'go figure partner'.

[thepossum]

Just so I can picture the hand - apologies if errors - I'm just here to read

---

[helene_t]

I have seen the two steps being used as slam try for clubs and for diamonds, respectively. So here, 4♠ would show clubs and 4NT diamonds. Alternatively, 4♠ with a void and 4NT without (presumably with a singleton, with two spades and a max you can always double).

Either way, 4♠ is what I would bid.

[nullve]

heart76, on 2023-March-18, 18:02, said:

2NT (asking)

Asking about what?

[DavidKok]

I saw this thread yesterday and didn't comment, in part because I was not sure on the best course of action. After thinking it over a bit more I am no longer happy with the Michaels start. This hand is not a two-suiter, it is a slam hand in clubs missing just two red aces. Our goal should be to ask if partner has either one, not to invite partner to confirm a fit and/or make competitive decisions. The problem is that I don't know how to do that - perhaps start with 2♣, and keep bidding until we get to 5♥ or so. Maybe there is a way to bid exclusion in spades at some point. Even if not partner should realise that the ace of hearts is gold, but it won't be clear to value the ace of diamonds but not the ace of spades.

[pescetom]

LBengtsson, on 2023-March-18, 20:59, said:

There is a case for 1♠ - 4♠ immediately to show this unusually strong hand, a sort of super "Leaping Michaels" as ♥ and a [stronger?] minor. The reason I say this is I am sure I have seen this unusual bid in a book somewhere, but which book I am not sure. Or someone used it once and his partner worked out what it meant.

It has been suggested here recently (quite reasonably) that this should show minors 5-5, rather than the 4NT I understand is or was normal.
I don't see a good case for it to show a super Michaels as 2♠ was forcing and there is plenty of space/opportunity to clarify things.

nullve, on 2023-March-19, 15:28, said:

Asking about what?

A good question which even Larry Cohen does not answer.
My first thought is that 3♠/3m should show preference and a non-maximum, 3NT Non-serious spades and 4m a control-bid in spades.

[heart76]

nullve, on 2023-March-19, 15:28, said:

Asking about what?

Which minor and strenght. We have simple answers now at 3m/4m for 5H 5+m weak/strong, and I think at 3M for 6M 5+m strong. But with this hand I would bit 3♠ anyway.

[heart76]

DavidKok, on 2023-March-19, 15:59, said:

I saw this thread yesterday and didn't comment, in part because I was not sure on the best course of action. After thinking it over a bit more I am no longer happy with the Michaels start. This hand is not a two-suiter, it is a slam hand in clubs missing just two red aces. Our goal should be to ask if partner has either one, not to invite partner to confirm a fit and/or make competitive decisions. The problem is that I don't know how to do that - perhaps start with 2♣, and keep bidding until we get to 5♥ or so. Maybe there is a way to bid exclusion in spades at some point. Even if not partner should realise that the ace of hearts is gold, but it won't be clear to value the ace of diamonds but not the ace of spades.

Well, I take this as a reinforcement of my question
I do not agree although that this was a ♣ slam inv. hand. It's a slam inv. hand in ♥ if pard has a fit, in ♣ otherwise.

[heart76]

helene_t, on 2023-March-19, 14:49, said:

I have seen the two steps being used as slam try for clubs and for diamonds, respectively. So here, 4♠ would show clubs and 4NT diamonds. Alternatively, 4♠ with a void and 4NT without (presumably with a singleton, with two spades and a max you can always double).

Either way, 4♠ is what I would bid.

I like the relay idea to show the suit and the ST. I would use it only when opps have bid to the 3 level after our Micheals though, otherwise rebid 3 of their suit.
I would still strongly consider 3NT by the Micheals bidder as the general ST, both over 3M by the opponents and 2NT by pard. Need to discuss with my partner.

And I am still at discomfort if X is part of the system, unless it is mandatory for pard to bid. Too many variants where 3M makes or goes 1 down and you can make 10 or 11 tricks.

[DavidKok]

heart76, on 2023-March-20, 05:09, said:

Well, I take this as a reinforcement of my question
I do not agree although that this was a ♣ slam inv. hand. It's a slam inv. hand in ♥ if pard has a fit, in ♣ otherwise.

The clubs are guaranteed to play for zero losers opposite a void, I'm happy deciding on the trump suit if that means I can have a more intelligent auction. I don't think introducing hearts accomplishes much.

[Gilithin]

I am not convinced there is ever a "right way" of bidding a 7-5 hand, particularly one like this. I can see arguments for any of X, 2♣, 2♠, 3♠ and 5♣. If you pin me down, my #1 suggestion would be 3♠. If partner bids 3NT we can continue 4♣, which is forcing, while if partner bids something else we can diagnose a lack of wastage opposite and slam prospects suddenly look quite good.