[goobers]

IMPs, Lefty opens 2S, pass pass to you

x AKxxx AKxxxx x

I do not know how strong of a hand Leaping Michaels is supposed to show, but in any case, you do not play it.

[skjaeran]

If Leaping Michaels isn't on our card I'd bid 3♠ Michaels here. I'd liked to have some intermediates in my suits, but it's not a perfect world. I'll make do with what I've got.

[han]

This would be a good hand for leaping Michaels. I play it as forcing, but that doesn't mean that I should expect game to make opposit a 0-count (although here you might).


Anyway, you don't play leaping Michaels. But what do you play? What is 3S? If you have no bid for this hand then I'd double and try to survive later.

And then agree to play leaping Michaels later!

[pclayton]

This would be a dead minimum LM call for me. Even if we played LM I could live with a 3♠ mini-michaels call.

[goobers]

I believe 3M over 2M for us is a stopper ask, and 3D over 2D is majors.

Would you recommend playing Michaels in all denominations?

Anyway, what happened at the table is that I bid 3D, hoping to survive, which I hilariously did when partner passed and righty backed in with 3S.

[pclayton]

goobers, on Jan 25 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

Would you recommend playing Michaels in all denominations?

Yes. The stopper ask never seems to come up.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2008, 01:33 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jan 25 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

This would be a dead minimum LM call for me.

?!

Maybe we play it different. I play LM forcing thru 4 of the major.

You really want to force this to 4♥?

[jdonn]

ditto Jlall

Not only would I bid it with the king of diamonds less, but I wouldn't be considering that a minimum or a hand that scares me either. I mean I'm all for not playing partner for the perfect hand, but we are entitled to hope for just a little help. Some support for one suit and a working honor or so.

I see now in the OP we don't play LM, so 3♠ it is. If partner doesn't fit hearts I bid 5♦.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

 

Quote

Here is a sample hands that make for a reasonable game:

xxxx xxx xx xxxx

Great, I'll play 4♥ as well after 4♣ p/c

Quote

Here are some sample hands for very good games:

xxxx Qxx xxx xxx
xxx xxxx xxx xxx

Here is a sample hand for a cold game:

xxxx xxxx xx xxx

Ditto

What I'm more concerned about are hands like ?xxxx, xx, ?xx, ?xx

Quote

No offense but I think you have gone nuts on this one! lol.

None taken

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jan 25 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

Phil I'm pretty sure you missed the point.

Justin, please don't assume that I'm missing anything. I think it's pretty crass to say just because we disagree that I'm missing the point.

Any idiot can see that the right yarborough with the right degree of trump fit will make game. When I make a Michaels call at the 3 level I'm not exactly broke. Furthermore if you read back, I would say that this is a minimum LM call, but I could live with a mini-michaels call. Here I am, defending a call that I might or might not make at the table.

I will concede that a hand with 2=4 in the reds gives us a cold 5♦ that I would probably miss.

The reason I don't think it's that clear is because I believe that with two big cards that pard should make a move toward slam. This may or may not be wise with the actual hand. I'd love to be in slam with Axx Qx xxxx xxxx, but I don't think I'd want to be there with Axxx xxx xxx Axx.

[pclayton]

LOL.

To avoid appearing upset, childish or stubborn, I will not post any more on this thread.

[whereagles]

skaeran, on Jan 25 2008, 05:01 PM, said:

If Leaping Michaels isn't on our card I'd bid 3♠ Michaels here. I'd liked to have some intermediates in my suits, but it's not a perfect world. I'll make do with what I've got.

Ditto, except that I don't care much for intermediates