for all you NLM gurus

[gwnn]

RHO opens 3♠, and you hold either

 

Qx KJ AQx AQxxxx

 

or

 

xx KJ AQJ AQJxxx

 

you play non leaping michaels. What do you bid?

 

(we agreed to NLM with my p but these hands have not yet come up)

[jdonn]

I would in practice probably bid 3NT and double.

[rbforster]

3N asking for a stopper, X showing a 3N bid and a stopper? j/k I have no idea.

[rogerclee]

Stoppers are overrated. Guess i would x then 5♣ on the second though.

[Gerben42]

1st hand: Try 3NT. Opponent with AKxxxxx will believe you and lead small :)

 

2nd hand: Don't try 3NT :) I would Dbl.

 

One thing to think about: You wouldn't be able to play 3NT either if you would have used the natural 4♣.

[Walddk]

1st hand: Try 3NT. Opponent with AKxxxxx will believe you and lead small :)

Correct, LHO will likely lead small because he is the one on lead ;)

 

Having said that, I also think it's practical bridge to bid 3NT. With the second example hand I double. Yes, I don't like a 4♥ response, but I may get lucky and see 3NT instead.

 

Roland

[whereagles]

Before I ran my simulation the other day on a similar hand, I would have bid 3NT on both.

 

But simulations hint that the statistical move is either pass or bidding the suit.

[Walddk]

Before I ran my simulation the other day on a similar hand, I would have bid 3NT on both.

 

But simulations hint that the statistical move is either pass or bidding the suit.

Bidding the suit won't help you here because 4♣ is explained as non-leaping Michaels. So do you suggest 5♣ if you don't pass?

 

Roland

[xcurt]

The discussion to this point sounds like the auction

 

3S-Dbl-P-4H;

P-5C

 

needs to be "I was hoping you would bid 3NT" and not "I have a moose."

 

Curt

[OleBerg]

X and X

[jdonn]

If I double on the second one and partner bids 4♥ I will just pass. Sure it could be a terrible contract but it could be completely the correct contract too since partner could have 5 or 6 hearts easily. It is also a level lower than the alternative, so even if it's not the best fit or is a 4-2 it might just make on power.

 

It might also protect a king of spades in partner's hand on opening lead.

[kenrexford]

If I double on the second one and partner bids 4♥ I will just pass. Sure it could be a terrible contract but it could be completely the correct contract too since partner could have 5 or 6 hearts easily. It is also a level lower than the alternative, so even if it's not the best fit or is a 4-2 it might just make on power.

 

It might also protect a king of spades in partner's hand on opening lead.

This is the right view, IMO. I was advancer in a similar sequence with a great partner who passed 4♥ as well. We made 4♥ on power. It might have gone down. So what.

[awm]

I suspect that if you are playing this convention, there will be many hands where you have a long minor suit and no stopper in the opponents' preempt. Combining these with the various balanced hands lacking a stopper where you have no obvious call, I suspect that the right thing to do is to play double as basically "cards" rather than takeout, kind of a "thrump double" asking partner to bid 3NT with a stopper. With such an agreement, partner will not normally bid 4♥ on a four card suit, since the double didn't really promise support for hearts or for any particular suit. Obviously this leaves you losing some boards where there is a "normal takeout" hand and miss a 4-4 heart fit, but it helps on the "good hand but no stopper" hands which have just increased in number substantially because of the choice to have no good bid on minor one-suiters.

 

With such an agreement in place, it seems reasonable to double on both these hands.

[jdonn]

I suspect that if you are playing this convention, there will be many hands where you have a long minor suit and no stopper in the opponents' preempt. Combining these with the various balanced hands lacking a stopper where you have no obvious call, I suspect that the right thing to do is to play double as basically "cards" rather than takeout, kind of a "thrump double" asking partner to bid 3NT with a stopper. With such an agreement, partner will not normally bid 4♥ on a four card suit, since the double didn't really promise support for hearts or for any particular suit. Obviously this leaves you losing some boards where there is a "normal takeout" hand and miss a 4-4 heart fit, but it helps on the "good hand but no stopper" hands which have just increased in number substantially because of the choice to have no good bid on minor one-suiters.

While we are on the topic I find that if you are playing thrump doubles, there will be many hands where you have the outside suits and a good hand. Combine these with the hands where you have a strong hand but flexible as to strain, and I suspect the right thing to do is play an overcall in the next suit as basically "takeout" rather than natural, kind of a "takeout overcall" asking partner to bid his best outside suit. Obviously this leaves you losing some boards where there is a "normal overcall" hand and miss a 5-3 major suit fit, but it helps on the "good hand with support for the outside suits" hands which have just increased in number substantially because of the choice to have no good bid on takeout-oriented hands.

[awm]

It just seems like you often get stuck doubling with a hand that has only two cards in the unbid major when you play NLM.

 

When I double for takeout (and I don't play NLM) I generally expect partner to bid the other major with four cards there. This is true even if partner has a four or even five card minor on the side, even if partner has a stopper in the opponents suit, etc. Occasionally with two stoppers partner should bid notrump (or pass!) despite a four-card major, and with hands including slam prospects it can pay to show a longer minor suit, but generally I expect partner to be bidding 4♥ over 3♠-X with something like 90% of hands that include 4+♥. I'm not convinced that this expectation meshes well with a tactic of doubling 3♠ (and passing 4♥ if partner bids it) on a wide variety of hands that include doubleton heart. But to each his own. :blink:

 

To be honest, if I had to make a list of conventions I think are awful, but that a fair number of good players actually use, NLM would be near the top of the list.

[655321]

Doesn't Kokish have a theory about these auctions?

 

I think he says that the good single suited minor hands should double a preempt, and advancer strains to bid 3NT, or at least tries not to go past 3NT without a good reason.

 

Someone might be able to confirm/deny this.

[gnasher]

I don't like the idea of NLM polluting the rest of the system to the extent that people are suggesting here. Playing NLM you have to choose between:

 

(1) With a one-suiter in a minor that can't bid 3NT, either pass or bid 5m.

 

(2) Double with the one-suiter, and modify advancer's responses to take account of this, by bidding 3NT on hands which would otherwise bid 4♥.

 

(3) Double with the one-suiter, respond to takeout doubles normally, and sometimes play 4♥ in a 4-2 fit.

 

(4) Double with the one-suiter, and play that converting 4♥ to 5m shows this hand type. With a very strong one-suiter, either underbid or drive to slam.

 

(1), (2) and (3) all have undesirable consequences on hands of relatively high frequency; (4) has undesirable consequences only on a fairly rare hand type. To me it seems obvious to choose (4).

[Free]

What is non leaping michaels exactly?

 

I think 3NT is clear on the first hand. On the second one, it depends on my methods :P