5-0-1-7

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=skq954hd7caqjt874]133|100|Scoring: IMP

P-(2♥)-?[/hv]

 

You and your partner play Leaping Michaels. Do you use it for this hand?

 

 

If you do use it, partner bids 4 spades. Do you think you are worth another call?

[rbforster]

4♣ sounds good to me, since it shows my 2 suits.

 

I think I'm content over 4♠, since I think partner might have done something stronger (like 4♦♥ with a better hand). After all, I would usually have more HCP strength for a 4♣ bid, so if partner isn't interested enough to do more than take a spade preference I'm willing to call it a day.

[Cascade]

Yes

 

and

 

Yes 5♣ the upside is too big and i need so little.

[jdonn]

I would bid 4♣ and over 4♠ bid 5♣. It avoids the possibility partner chose 4♠ on a doubleton while not ruling out spades altogether, and if we have a slam this may well find it.

[rhm]

You and your partner play Leaping Michaels.  Do you use it for this hand?

 

 

If you do use it, partner bids 4 spades.  Do you think you are worth another call?

 

 

There is a lot to be said for n o t using Leaping Michaels here.

Chances that a quiet 3♣ bid will get passed out is remote with 12HCP and a void in ♥.

If you later bid ♠ (say over 4♥ from LHO or 3NT from partner) an expert partner will wonder why you did not use Leaping Michaels and should come up with the right explanation.

If the bidding gets competitive and partner bids 5 ♣ over 4♥ I will be happy not having given a blueprint of my distribution.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

Leaping now. I'll think about rebids afterwards :)

[cherdanno]

There is a lot to be said for  n o t  using Leaping Michaels here.

Chances that a quiet 3♣ bid will get passed out is remote with 12HCP and a void in ♥.

If you later bid ♠ (say over 4♥ from LHO or 3NT from partner) an expert partner will wonder why you did not use Leaping Michaels and should come up with the right explanation.

Here are some alternative conclusions that partner might draw:

 

1. You are too weak for LM (forcing to 4S on your own requires more than competing to 4S over their 4H).

2. Your suits are too weak for LM.

3. You really have 7 clubs with a side 4-card spade suit, bidding it just in case on the way to 5♣.

 

Ok your partner will know your clubs are longer than your spades, but I don't think he is likely to play you for a 3-loser hand with great clubs and good spades.

 

(I would guess explantion no. 1 if I were your partner.)

[OleBerg]

There is a lot to be said for  n o t  using Leaping Michaels here.

Chances that a quiet 3♣ bid will get passed out is remote with 12HCP and a void in ♥.

If you later bid ♠ (say over 4♥ from LHO or 3NT from partner) an expert partner will wonder why you did not use Leaping Michaels and should come up with the right explanation.

Here are some alternative conclusions that partner might draw:

 

1. You are too weak for LM (forcing to 4S on your own requires more than competing to 4S over their 4H).

2. Your suits are too weak for LM.

3. You really have 7 clubs with a side 4-card spade suit, bidding it just in case on the way to 5♣.

 

Ok your partner will know your clubs are longer than your spades, but I don't think he is likely to play you for a 3-loser hand with great clubs and good spades.

 

(I would guess explantion no. 1 if I were your partner.)

I would guess 3.

 

1 is not valid for me. If I want to compete over 4♥, I might as well do it immidiately. (I do recognise this might be non-standard.)

[rhm]

There is a lot to be said for  n o t  using Leaping Michaels here.

Chances that a quiet 3♣ bid will get passed out is remote with 12HCP and a void in ♥.

If you later bid ♠ (say over 4♥ from LHO or 3NT from partner) an expert partner will wonder why you did not use Leaping Michaels and should come up with the right explanation.

Here are some alternative conclusions that partner might draw:

 

1. You are too weak for LM (forcing to 4S on your own requires more than competing to 4S over their 4H).

2. Your suits are too weak for LM.

3. You really have 7 clubs with a side 4-card spade suit, bidding it just in case on the way to 5♣.

 

Ok your partner will know your clubs are longer than your spades, but I don't think he is likely to play you for a 3-loser hand with great clubs and good spades.

 

(I would guess explantion no. 1 if I were your partner.)

Your strength must match the level to which you compete.

Bidding 3♣ can not be weak, when opponents preempt, and if you reverse later into another suit, possibly at the 4 level, you have to be at least as strong as for Leaping Michaels.

Should partner assume I have a 4 card side suit that is not necessarily bad.

After all I do have a disparity between my two suits.

It is not clear whether you should prefer ♠ opposite 3 card support, but it is certainly scary. This could easily turn out to be a disaster.

Even breaks seem not be the norm on this deal. :)

 

Anyway bidding ♣ then ♠ gives you at least a chance to stop in 4♠ when it is right

Many have expressed they would continue over 4 ♠ with 5 ♣ when using Leaping Michaels.

Essentially they are using a convention to tell and then overrule partner.

Maybe Leaping Michaels is not such a clever idea then.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ArtK78]

I cannot resist answering a question with a question.

 

If you don't use Leaping Michaels on this hand, exactly when would you use it?

 

Yes, I bid 4♣. And, over 4♠, I bid 5♣. It takes so little to make a slam that a second bid is certainly warranted. However, if you and your partner open light in 1st seat, passing 4♠ is not unreasonable. Partner is a passed hand, and, while a pointed-suit ace plus some other useful card(s) is sufficient for slam, there is less chance that partner will have the right cards for slam as a passed hand.

[mtvesuvius]

4♣ then 5♣, I need so little!

[CSGibson]

Another question: If partner bids 4 diamonds over 4 clubs, is that a cue-bid, or an offer to play? In this partnership we play 2 diamonds in 1st seat as a disciplined weak 2.

[OleBerg]

Another question:  If partner bids 4 diamonds over 4 clubs, is that a cue-bid, or an offer to play?  In this partnership we play 2 diamonds in 1st seat as a disciplined weak 2.

I play:

 

4♦ = Slammy with Spades.

4♥ = Slammy with Clubs.

[hanp]

I would bid 4C and pass 4S. Not perfect but seems best.

[ONEferBRID]

Another question:  If partner bids 4 diamonds over 4 clubs, is that a cue-bid, or an offer to play?  In this partnership we play 2 diamonds in 1st seat as a disciplined weak 2.

I play:

 

4♦ = Slammy with Spades.

4♥ = Slammy with Clubs.

OleBerg :

And if Overcallers suits (Leaping Michaels) were Hts/Diam,

are these your followups:

 

( 2S ) - 4D! - ( p ) - ??

4S! ( slammy w/Hts )

5C! ( slammy w/Diam ) ??

[OleBerg]

Another question:  If partner bids 4 diamonds over 4 clubs, is that a cue-bid, or an offer to play?  In this partnership we play 2 diamonds in 1st seat as a disciplined weak 2.

I play:

 

4♦ = Slammy with Spades.

4♥ = Slammy with Clubs.

OleBerg :

And if Overcallers suits (Leaping Michaels) were Hts/Diam,

are these your followups:

 

( 2S ) - 4D! - ( p ) - ??

4H! ( slammy w/Spades )

5C! ( slammy w/Diam ) ??

After:

 

(2♠) - 4♦ = ♥+♦

 

4♠+4NT = Slammy with hearts, distinguishing number of aces.

5♣ = Slammy with diamonds.

[ONEferBRID]

Thank you Ole Berg.

[ I'm sorry for my typo which may have caused confusion ]

 

(2♠) - 4D! = ♥+Diam

( 2S ) - 4D! - ( p ) - ??

5♣ = Slammy with diamonds.

4♠+4NT = Slammy with hearts, distinguishing # of aces.

 

 

Now my question is for your meaning of :

 

4♠+4NT = Slammy with hearts, distinguishing number of aces.

 

Is that a form of "TURBO" where:

4S = agree Hts with an EVEN number of keycards ( 0 or 2 )

4NT = agree Hts with an ODD number of key cards (1 or 3 )

 

Thanks in advance

Don Stenmark

[Cascade]

Thank you Ole Berg.

[ I'm sorry for my typo which may have caused confusion ]

 

(2♠) - 4D! = ♥+Diam

( 2S ) - 4D! - ( p ) - ??

5♣ = Slammy with diamonds.

4♠+4NT = Slammy with hearts, distinguishing # of aces.

 

 

Now my question is for your meaning of :

 

4♠+4NT = Slammy with hearts, distinguishing number of aces.

 

Is that a form of "TURBO" where:

4S = agree Hts with an EVEN number of keycards ( 0 or 2 )

4NT = agree Hts with an ODD number of key cards (1 or 3 )

 

Thanks in advance

Don Stenmark

If 4♦ just promises five-five then i think it is too restrictive to preclude playing in the unbid suit.

[hanp]

I play it as Oleberg.

[jdonn]

I must admit to not having discussed it recently, but I sure feel slam tries in the suits would be more valuable than a natural bid in the unbid suit.

[OleBerg]

Thank you Ole Berg.

  [ I'm sorry for my typo which may have caused confusion ]

 

(2♠) - 4D! = ♥+Diam

( 2S ) - 4D! - ( p ) - ??

                              5♣ = Slammy with diamonds.

                              4♠+4NT = Slammy with hearts, distinguishing # of aces.

                             

 

  Now my question is for your meaning of :

 

  4♠+4NT = Slammy with hearts, distinguishing number of aces.

 

  Is that a form of "TURBO" where:

      4S = agree Hts with an EVEN number of keycards ( 0 or 2 )

    4NT = agree Hts with an ODD number of key cards (1 or 3 )

 

Thanks in advance

  Don Stenmark

If 4♦ just promises five-five then i think it is too restrictive to preclude playing in the unbid suit.

Indeed. One to consider in the summer break. Thx.