[JeffMorrow]

Recently, sitting second seat, my RHO opened 2♦. My distribution was 5=6=1=1. I bid 3♦ intending to show both majors. In the later autopsy, my partner asked whether it was standard to use Michael’s against preempts. I said I had no clue. Then I wondered if if it was not standard, why. Of course, one reason not to use it in this case was that I had longer hearts than spades, but my questions are general.

Is there a reason not to use Michael’s against preempts?

Should you use Michaels if you are 6/5 in the majors?

[P_Marlowe]

I think, the Michaels Cue is standard, although if it has to show the unbid Majors
or only spade + ? is a different question.
It is also quite common to play (Non-)Leaping Michaels, i.e. 4 in a minor showes
the minor and a (undisclosed) major, although (Non)Leaping Michaels is less common.

I think in the past, the cue was mainly played as Western Cue (?), basically a stopper ask,
but I think the Michaels Cue is now more mainstream.

If you are using the cue, you should have equal suit quality, because it is quite hard to
ask back, what is your better suit.
If you have 6 vs. 5, the 6 is a better suit, unless it lousy,
e.g. AKQxxx vs xxxxx introducing the 5 carder may not be good idea,
but AKQxx vs. xxxxxx introducing both ... why not.

[DavidKok]

Over here it is common to play 'Wereldconventie', which is the same as Leaping Michaels on this auction. It uses 4♦ to show both majors, and 4♣ to show 5(+)♣5(+)M with an undisclosed major suit. Both bids are forcing to game.

Traditionally the single cue bid (here: 3♦) shows a solid suit and asks partner for a stopper, to bid 3NT and cash 9 easy tricks. Over here it is increasingly popular to instead use this 3♦ as another two-suited bid, in this case showing both majors. However, this is definitely a nonstandard treatment.

[mw64ahw]

I had a similar situation recently when the bidding went:
1N 12-14-(P)-2♥ transfer

With no agreements I bid 2♠ having x5x5 and we ended in 3♣ for a top with others in 2♠.
Partner alerted but had no idea what I meant.

[pescetom]

We play 4♣ as clubs + major, 4♦ as majors and leave 3♦ as a stopper ask with a speculative 3NT, like the Dutch.
Over a Multi 2♦, 4♣ is unchanged but 4♦ becomes diamonds + major.

[JeffMorrow]

I thank everyone who gave an answer and am going to tell my partner that she was brilliant to guess I meant Michaels.

[Stephen Tu]

Standards differ by country. In the U.S., it would be standard to assume 2d-3d is Michaels. The idea is that there are quite a lot of hands that maybe are strong enough for this, but having to force to game by bidding 4d might be too much overbidding if 3d is used for something else; it's easier for opp to punish you at 4M-dbl than 3M-dbl since it's higher and doesn't have the doubling you into game issue.

2M-(3M) though is different, because there is less chance to stop at 3 level. Here Leaping Michaels is very common for advanced players; 2M-(4m) being m+other major. Then there is debate over how to use 2M-(3M). Older more common was this was stopper ask for 3nt, as if you have running minor suit but no stopper you have no great bid as 3m would understate your hand, and double can lead to partner bidding too much in the other major. But these days many experts say this hand is uncommon and that it is more useful to still use it as Michaels, another range where you can maybe stop lower or be able to play 3nt when it is right. So can't assume stuff without discussion.

[thepossum]

I know it is unreasonable to assume but I think I found a slam with a 5 level cue bid once. Without knowing it would work

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2026-February-05, 15:57, said:

Older more common was this was stopper ask for 3nt, as if you have running minor suit but no stopper you have no great bid as 3m would understate your hand, and double can lead to partner bidding too much in the other major. But these days many experts say this hand is uncommon and that it is more useful to still use it as Michaels, another range where you can maybe stop lower or be able to play 3nt when it is right. So can't assume stuff without discussion.

Maybe I shouldn't assume, but if I cue bid opponent's opening suit bid I would expect it to be interpreted as Michaels if not discussed.

The exception would be something like

---

---

which would ask partner to bid 3NT with a stopper.

[Stephen Tu]

johnu, on 2026-February-06, 12:34, said:

Maybe I shouldn't assume, but if I cue bid opponent's opening suit bid I would expect it to be interpreted as Michaels if not discussed

That's reasonable after one of a suit undiscussed, but I don't agree over 2M undiscussed, at least in USA. In Bridge World Standard 2017, for example, leading Michaels applies, and 3 level cue is the stopper ask treatment.

[blackshoe]

Michaels is pretty standard, at least around here. So is Leaping Michaels. Personally I prefer Roman Jumps (here, 3♥ is both majors, 3♠is spades and clubs, and 4♣ is clubs and hearts, 3♦ is "bid 3NT with a good diamond stopper") but my current partner won't play it <shrug>.

[Zelandakh]

What I understand Standard to be is:-

X = takeout, double + bid = strong flexible hand (not a one-suiter as might be the case at 1 level)
2M/3♣ = simple overcall
2NT = strong NT with slightly extended range/shape possibilities
3♦ = strong hand with no other call, usually a good one-suited hand with clubs
3M = good one-suited hand
3NT = to play, not necessarily balanced
4♣ = clubs and a major (4♦ is a relay asking for the major)
4♦ = both majors
4M = even stronger one-suited hand

But there's plenty of scope to move things around. I remember that Justin used to like 3♦ as Michaels so it's clearly playable. You surely need to have at least a discussion about what to do with the ♣ GOSH first though, and potentially a lot more. Same with Ed's Roman Jumps - don't play them before discussing thoroughly how you handle a GOSH with a major!