[knightkill]

♠xx
♥KJ973
♦AJ10985
♣void


Does this hand qualify for a Leaping Michaels? Please, feel free to discuss seat, vul. and opponents opening bid, especially 1♠, 2♠(weak)/2♦ multi and 3♠(here non-leaping)

knightkill

[gordontd]

knightkill, on 2014-October-11, 04:55, said:

♠xx
♥KJ973
♦AJ10985
♣void


Does this hand qualify for a Leaping Michaels?

No.

knightkill, on 2014-October-11, 04:55, said:

Please, feel free to discuss seat, vul. and opponents opening bid, especially 1♠, 2♠(weak)/2♦ multi and 3♠(here non-leaping)

I haven't heard of it being used against an opening one-bid, but in all the other instances it's not strong enough because you shouldn't pre-empt against a pre-empt. I think it's usefull to play it as forcing to game (not that you are guaranteed always to make that game) rather than trying to land on a pin-head in 4D. Otherwise you have a problem when you have a real rock-crusher.

Incidentally, against a multi I have the agreement with one partner that an immediate jump to a minor shows that suit and hearts; passing and bidding 4m on the next round shows that suit and spades.

[ahydra]

Leaping Michaels is generally played after a weak 2 opening. I play it as ~4 losers, e.g. Ax KQJxx KQJxx x so this hand is quite a way too weak.

For most partnerships the hand is certainly suitable for a Michaels overcall of 2S over 1S.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

Too weak over 2♠, easy michaels over 1♠.

Over 2♦, passing then bidding 3♦ over 2♠ showing diamonds and hearts is not an uncommon approach.

[whereagles]

knightkill, on 2014-October-11, 04:55, said:

♠xx
♥KJ973
♦AJ10985
♣void

Does this hand qualify for a Leaping Michaels?

Yes.

[Jinksy]

Swap the black suits and I might bid it over 2♠, as long as I could persuade myself to do so confidently (doubtful). With two quick losers in Ss and Swiss cheese for the suit we're most likely to stop in, I think it's awful on the hand as given. I'd prob pass and hope not to hear the hand passed out.

[PhilKing]

I strongly believe that it is winning bridge to show both suits on hands like this, so I would bid 4♦ over both 2♠ and 3♠ at all vulnerabilities.

My system definition is that the bid show about 4-5 losers. With a powerhouse, I have to cue. That can lead to awkward sequences, but non game-forcing hands are far more frequent and just as important.

[Cascade]

gordontd, on 2014-October-11, 05:16, said:

Incidentally, against a multi I have the agreement with one partner that an immediate jump to a minor shows that suit and hearts; passing and bidding 4m on the next round shows that suit and spades.

Nice. We have the agreement that where there is ambiguity we show spades. Didn't think of the possible delayed action. There is a danger with the delayed action if the opponents may pass.

[Cascade]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-11, 12:18, said:

I strongly believe that it is winning bridge to show both suits on hands like this, so I would bid 4♦ over both 2♠ and 3♠ at all vulnerabilities.

My system definition is that the bid show about 4-5 losers. With a powerhouse, I have to cue. That can lead to awkward sequences, but non game-forcing hands are far more frequent and just as important.

AJTxxx is better than two losers so this hand is not far from 4-5 losers.

Our standards are similar and I think this hand is worth a bid.

[inquiry]

knightkill, on 2014-October-11, 04:55, said:

♠xx
♥KJ973
♦AJ10985
♣void


Does this hand qualify for a Leaping Michaels? Please, feel free to discuss seat, vul. and opponents opening bid, especially 1♠, 2♠(weak)/2♦ multi and 3♠(here non-leaping)

knightkill

I play liberal Leaping Michaels I so this Qualifies.

[FrancesHinden]

Cascade, on 2014-October-11, 12:38, said:

Nice. We have the agreement that where there is ambiguity we show spades. Didn't think of the possible delayed action. There is a danger with the delayed action if the opponents may pass.

Yes, that's why against a multi we play
immediate 4m bid shows clubs and the linked major
delayed 4m bid shows diamonds and the linked major. They are much less likely to pass a 2D opening when you have long diamonds.

[aguahombre]

Just woke up, but isn't there something strange here?

I thought plusses -- at least from these folks --- implied agreement.

Helene seems to like "too weak" and "o.k." regarding the OP hand and Leaping Mike.

Cascade likes "too weak" (Cyber) and Phil's post from the other camp.

T & I need the cuebid over 2M for the minors, so we have to keep LM as much stronger than the OP hand; If LM is wide range, CHO cannot do anything sensible since there is no room.

So, with the given hand, we just have to eat "preempt over preempt" with a pass and hope partner can compete or we don't belong in the auction -- third option= accept the fix.

[ahydra]

I think the +1 can (should?) be used as "this is a thoughtful/good post" rather than "I agree".

I do like the two-suited methods over multi being discussed in this thread. Pity my and my partner's system cards and memories are already full!

ahydra

[Trinidad]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-October-12, 04:16, said:

Yes, that's why against a multi we play
immediate 4m bid shows clubs and the linked major
delayed 4m bid shows diamonds and the linked major. They are much less likely to pass a 2D opening when you have long diamonds.

Brilliant, elegant, easy to remember.

Thanks a lot for sharing this.

Rik

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on 2014-October-12, 09:10, said:

Cascade likes "too weak" (Cyber) and Phil's post from the other camp.

I liked this for the agreement that he mentioned that I had not heard of before. Sorry for ambiguity.