[gnasher]

Playing Leaping Michaels over a weak two, what do you think is the best way to cater for two-suiters that expect to make about 11 tricks, and therefore have slam interest? Possibilities include:

(1) Play 4m as non-forcing; use a jump cue bid for the very strong two-suiters

(2) Play 4m as forcing and strong enough to be able to insist on game

(3) Play 4m as forcing, but use it on a wide range of hands, accepting that you'll sometimes go a few off in five of a minor. (Opposite this, you might use a cue bid and 4NT to distinguish degrees of interest.)

[Echognome]

Playing both Leaping Michael's and Michael's cuebids to distinguish range. At least that's the style I was told is more common these days by the top players.

[han]

Play 4m is forcing, will have to bid again on very strong hands. I like playing the cuebid as strong single suiter. The jump cuebid shows the minors for me.

[kenrexford]

Play against people who also do not cater for 11-winner hands.

[helene_t]

Ditto Han.

[Edmunte1]

I play 4m as non-forcing (around 3-4.5 losers) and use a jump-cue bid for very strong two-suiters. I believe playing it as forcing reduces a lot the frequency of that bid, and bridge bidding is a game of frequency. I play cue either strong one minor or strong minors.

[P_Marlowe]

Basically we play #3.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[rbforster]

I play 4m as NF but highly invitational to game. I guess some of the higher bids are for even better two-suited hands (i.e. (2♠)-4♠ or (2♠)-4N or even (2♠)-5♠), but I've never gotten dealt a hand that good to really sort this out.

[cherdano]

Edmunte1, on Oct 30 2008, 02:35 AM, said:

I play 4m as non-forcing (around 3-4.5 losers) and use a jump-cue bid for very strong two-suiters. I believe playing it as forcing reduces a lot the frequency of that bid, and bridge bidding is a game of frequency. I play cue either strong one minor or strong minors.

I believe playing it as non-forcing reduces the frequency of the bid, or alternatively partner will have no idea when to pass. How can partner decide whether to raise to 5m when your range is 3-4.5 losers?

[mikeh]

I play that 4m is forcing 1 round. As such, it is nominally a good hand, rating to make game opposite a random advancing hand consistent with the auction, but, as that implies, needing a little help.. so sort of a compromise between 2 and 3... depending on where you draw the line on the weakest hand you'd have for 3.

Single cuebids ostensibly look for 3N.

I have not discussed the implications arising from pulling 3N after a cue...maybe that should be minors... but resolution of that requires evaluation of the entire defensive bidding structure (what is a direct jump cue, a direct 4N or 5N, etc).

I don't play enough bridge for all of this to have been an issue.. altho it could, of course, happen on any given hand.

[rbforster]

I think the "standard" treatment for some of the higher bids, such as it is, is

cue - (2♠)-3♠ - nominally stopper asking with trick source, but could be any very strong 1 suiter (even a 1-suiter in the other major, but that's by agreement)
jump cue - (2♠)-4♠ - slammish with both minors
4NT - both minors, pick a game

I'm not quite sure what the "stronger" version of leaping michaels is if you play 4m as NF.

cherdano, on Oct 30 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

Edmunte1, on Oct 30 2008, 02:35 AM, said:

I play 4m as non-forcing (around 3-4.5 losers) and use a jump-cue bid for very strong two-suiters. I believe playing it as forcing reduces a lot the frequency of that bid, and bridge bidding is a game of frequency. I play cue either strong one minor or strong minors.

I believe playing it as non-forcing reduces the frequency of the bid, or alternatively partner will have no idea when to pass. How can partner decide whether to raise to 5m when your range is 3-4.5 losers?

Well it's a trade off for sure. The issue is that if you play 4m as NF but fairly strong (~4 losers), partner can stop or bid 4M with a bad hand and an appropriate preference, or raise the minor with a little extra. You might say this is aiming for a "narrow target", but if you play 4m as GF now you only get one range for a direct suit overcall - (2♠)- 3m or 3♥ - which ends up being very wide-ranging (an opening hand with a good 6 card suit, up to a 4 loser hand with a 2-suiter). In addition to putting pressure on partner to find a call (since you could have a good hand and might miss game opposite a little extra), there's also the downside that you often won't be able to find the best fit when it's in the minor.

(PS Oh, and I'm not Edmunte1 )