goobers Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 This would be a dead minimum LM call for me. Even if we played LM I could live with a 3♠ mini-michaels call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goobers Posted January 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 Would you recommend playing Michaels in all denominations? Yes. The stopper ask never seems to come up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 This would be a dead minimum LM call for me. ?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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♥? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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♥? We play it the same, I would be happy to force this to 4H or 5D since I have about 0 losers and need almost nothing to make game. Here is a sample hands that make for a reasonable game: xxxx xxx xx xxxx Here are some sample hands for very good games: xxxx Qxx xxx xxxxxx xxxx xxx xxx Here is a sample hand for a cold game: xxxx xxxx xx xxx No offense but I think you have gone nuts on this one! lol. There is no way this is a minimum leaping michaels, this hand is a powerhouse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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 Here are some sample hands for very good games: xxxx Qxx xxx xxxxxx 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 No offense but I think you have gone nuts on this one! lol. None taken :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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 Here are some sample hands for very good games: xxxx Qxx xxx xxxxxx 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 No offense but I think you have gone nuts on this one! lol. None taken :) Phil I'm pretty sure you missed the point. You are saying this is a minimum michaels and that you are not comfortable forcing to 4M+. I am saying that is silly when a ton of yarboroughs give you play for game. If you would really just bid 4D after 4C p/c you will miss game opposite this yarb: xxxx xx xxxx xxx When partner has a doubleton heart at most you once again need almost nothing to make 5D. Im sure you realize that partner will never actually hold a zero count after 2S p p and that he will sometimes even have a working card for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 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. I said you missed the point because, well, based on your POST you clearly missed the point lol. It's not because we disagree. Phil: this is a minimum leaping michaels, i could live with a mini-michaels.Justin: ?!Phil: you really want to force to 4H?Justin: yes, because various yarboroughs make it coldPhil: well I'll still get to 4H after mini-michaels [because partner has a heart fit on the yarbs listed--JL] The last part of this is not a logically consistent by someone who realizes I posted these yarboroughs that make game simply to illustrate that I am very comfortable forcing to 4H when hands THAT WEAK that partner could not even possibly have make game cold. If you "got the point" you would not make irrelevant posts like "I will still get to 4H." I will continue to assume you are "missing something" about my point when your posts make it clear that you are. If you are, I will clarify the point. I hope that at some point you will learn to take your head out of your ass and try to understand the point when it is clarified rather than stubbornly and childishly getting upset for the clarification. The funny thing is that it is not even an insult to you to say that you missed the point of my post. Some insecure people choose to take such a thing as a "crass" attack on them though, and become too defensive to realize that if they were missing the point then by definition they would not know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted January 25, 2008 Report Share Posted January 25, 2008 LOL. To avoid appearing upset, childish or stubborn, I will not post any more on this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted January 26, 2008 Report Share Posted January 26, 2008 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 :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts