[mtvesuvius]

Tonight I picked up this absolute monster hand:

Ax
AKJ9x
A
AKQxx

RHO opens 2♦ weak, what is your plan?

[xcurt]

I'm going to start with double. I think this is vastly superior to Leaping Michaels, the latter plan will force us to drive to the 5-level to get our values across. This hand is not as good as it looks, we have 4, maybe 5 potential losers and at least one suit rounded suit rates to break poorly.

Starting with double also has the merit that I am more likely to find out whether partner has 4 hearts or 3. There's a huge difference on this hand, a 4th trump will let me play to draw trump and throw spades from dummy on the clubs (xxx, Qxxx, xxx, Jxx is 7♥).

Hopefully I can extract enough information to make a sensible decision later.

[aguahombre]

how does leaping michaels work with clubs and an unknown major after a weak 2D? can't that get ugly?

[Jlall]

4C if i play it

[peachy]

I think I would not be happy defending 2DX if partner decided to Pass. 4C and trust we find our heart fit if there is one.

[jdonn]

Definitely 4♣. I'm just forcing to slam, partner will never cooperate on many of the hands where it makes.

Not as good as it looks??? Sure if partner has no fit at all! Why are you going to assume that? You say the hand is not as good as it looks, then point out a 3 count that is a grand. That looks good to me!

[Fluffy]

double might help in the sense that if LHO doesn't raise diamonds and parter bids spades you can slow down, but you will never show this hand if you don't bid 4♣ now, primary objective is to play in our best fit.

[kenrexford]

This is why I never understood the popularity of "Leaping Michaels" rather than Roman Jumps. Everyone seems to be scratching their head as to what to bid with Leaping Michaels because of the club-spade problem. With Roman Jumps, you just bid the lower of two tocuhings, with a jump, revolving around if only touching that way or through their suit.

So, after 2♦, there is no ambiguity, even without precise discussion to remember. 3♥ for majors, 3♠ for spades and clubs, and 4♣ for clubs and hearts. (4♦ majors stronger)

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Jul 12 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

This is why I never understood the popularity of "Leaping Michaels" rather than Roman Jumps. Everyone seems to be scratching their head as to what to bid with Leaping Michaels because of the club-spade problem.

Which "everybody" are you referring to? Looking though the responses so far, we have four solid votes for 4♣, one respondent who doubles in order to keep the level low, and precisely one who expresses concern about the ambiguity of 4♣.

[xcurt]

I agree we should not expect partner to cooperate. after all he has zero key cards for both of our suits. Why then is 4C better than dble? I can always bid suits forcing after the dble and then bid 5N pick to get to the best fit. It seems to me that if the 4C bidders hit their plan they still cannot get to 7 so the implied odds on 4C are poor.

Of course I might be making the opening lead against 2Dx. I expect -4. That might be ok since if partner has a hand to pass he probably does not have the cards for a small slam either. Adam did not give us the form of scoring and vulnerability though.

Finally, note that many partner hands produce 5-or-7 situations. In my example hand you need all the features to make 6 too, if you don't have running clubs and the ability to draw trumps in tempo you also have a spade loser unless partner produces the ♠K.

[cherdanno]

xcurt, on Jul 12 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

I agree we should not expect partner to cooperate. after all he has zero key cards for both of our suits. Why then is 4C better than dble? I can always bid suits forcing after the dble and then bid 5N pick to get to the best fit. It seems to me that if the 4C bidders hit their plan they still cannot get to 7 so the implied odds on 4C are poor.

Your statement about implied odds is beyond my math understanding but I disagree with the rest of this paragraph. Double, then a new suit at the cheapest level is not forcing. Even if it were, you would never be able to show a 5-5 hand - partner will assume you didn't use Leaping Michaels for a reason.

[xcurt]

cherdanno, on Jul 12 2009, 12:30 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jul 12 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

I agree we should not expect partner to cooperate. after all he has zero key cards for both of our suits. Why then is 4C better than dble?  I can always bid suits forcing after the dble and then bid 5N pick to get to the best fit.  It seems to me that if the 4C bidders hit their plan they still cannot get to 7 so the implied odds on 4C are poor.

Your statement about implied odds is beyond my math understanding but I disagree with the rest of this paragraph. Double, then a new suit at the cheapest level is not forcing. Even if it were, you would never be able to show a 5-5 hand - partner will assume you didn't use Leaping Michaels for a reason.

I can cuebid, then bid my suit, eg

(2D)-x
2S - 3D
3S -

Partner bidding spades repeatedly being the least informative partner action. Well, ok, I guess I am forced to leap to slam here, but at least I know we don't have a 5-4 heart fit. I pay off to partner holding SK, HQxx, whatever, Cxx with clubs 5-1 and trumps 3-2 on the left. I also pay off to partner holding a spade suit that lets me pitch the two low clubs.

The point about implied odds is simply that our payoff is a function of the likelihood of getting paid off, times the amount we get paid off if things go the way they need to go to get paid off. This is a common concept in poker. For example, when we consider calling with a draw to something, or more commonly a set of somethings, we need to think not about the current pot size, but about the ultimate pot size under the assumption that we hit one of the somethings we are trying to hit.

[aguahombre]

kenrexford, on Jul 12 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

This is why I never understood the popularity of "Leaping Michaels" rather than Roman Jumps.  Everyone seems to be scratching their head as to what to bid with Leaping Michaels because of the club-spade problem.  With Roman Jumps, you just bid the lower of two tocuhings, with a jump, revolving around if only touching that way or through their suit.

So, after 2♦, there is no ambiguity, even without precise discussion to remember.  3♥ for majors, 3♠ for spades and clubs, and 4♣ for clubs and hearts.  (4♦ majors stronger)

So, in your method is 3h/2D(majors) not forcing because you didn't bid 4D? Is 3s(sp&cl) forcing? What is 3d/2d? A third way of showing the majors, or just looking for a stopper? Want to try the method, but need clarification --and wondering about how strong one-suiters in hearts or spades are then handled without the jump.

[jdonn]

In my stupor I also don't understand why 4♣ has worse implied odds than double. Are you going to reach a grand if you double opposite xxx Qxxx xxx Jxx but avoid it opposite xxxx Qxxx xxx xx?

I echo cherdanno's concerns about getting both suits in after you double. Your next bid will have to be a cuebid and you will never get your shape across, so all this room you are saving seems like something of an illusion to me.

And am I being picky or are you contradicting yourself? This hand is not as good as it looks, but when partner chooses the worst auction possible for your hand you are going to guess to bid slam anyway? In that case why not show your shape to begin with?

[matmat]

xcurt, on Jul 11 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

I'm going to start with double. I think this is vastly superior to Leaping Michaels, the latter plan will force us to drive to the 5-level to get our values across. This hand is not as good as it looks, we have 4, maybe 5 potential losers and at least one suit rounded suit rates to break poorly.

Starting with double also has the merit that I am more likely to find out whether partner has 4 hearts or 3. There's a huge difference on this hand, a 4th trump will let me play to draw trump and throw spades from dummy on the clubs (xxx, Qxxx, xxx, Jxx is 7♥).

Hopefully I can extract enough information to make a sensible decision later.

(2♦) - x - (5♦) - p
( p) - ?

your move.

[P_Marlowe]

matmat, on Jul 12 2009, 01:18 PM, said:

xcurt, on Jul 11 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

I'm going to start with double.  I think this is vastly superior to Leaping Michaels, the latter plan will force us to drive to the 5-level to get our values across.  This hand is not as good as it looks, we have 4, maybe 5 potential losers and at least one suit rounded suit rates to break poorly.

Starting with double also has the merit that I am more likely to find out whether partner has 4 hearts or 3.  There's a huge difference on this hand, a 4th trump will let me play to draw trump and throw spades from dummy on the clubs (xxx, Qxxx, xxx, Jxx is 7♥).

Hopefully I can extract enough information to make a sensible decision later.

(2♦) - x - (5♦) - p
( p) - ?

your move.

5NT, this one is easy.

Given their bidding, you can be certain, that you have
at least a 8 card fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Apollo81]

I cannot think of any reason not to bid 4♣ Leaping Michaels if I play that.

[mtvesuvius]

Sorry for not giving form of scoring and Vul.

IMPs, All Vul.

So, I assume the consensus is 4♣, now:

(2♦) - 4♣ - (4♠) - P
(P) - ?

[Fluffy]

I have zero agreements, so I assume a double of 4 spades would have been penalty and so it would be if ew double now of course.

its IMPs, +500 will score better than -100, but so far noting has refrained me from the initial plan on playing slam, I'd sick to 5NT.

[Jlall]

crack