Is this Leaping Mike or natural?

[shevek]

(1♠) no (2♠) 4♣/♦ ?

 

While leaping Michaels is normal over a weak 2, this doesn't seem as clear.

Could be important to suggest a save "I want to bid 5 I'll give you the chance to deal with 4♠."

 

If that's the case, then is 3♠ Michaels or a stopper ask?

 

TIA

[CSGibson]

It is whatever you agree it is.

 

I have frequently heard of pairs who treat 1S-P-2S like it were pass-pass-2S, with lebensohl and leaping michaels as conventional agreements. It makes some sense to me - preempts lose their effectiveness when one side has tightly defined their hand, as RHO did with 2S, so alternative methods do have some appeal...though losing the ability to suggest a save with a non-constructive hand, or having to lump non-constructive and constructive hands into 3 level bids might be too big of a trade-off.

[lowerline]

(1♠) no (2♠) 4♣/♦ ?

 

While leaping Michaels is normal over a weak 2, this doesn't seem as clear.

Could be important to suggest a save "I want to bid 5 I'll give you the chance to deal with 4♠."

 

If that's the case, then is 3♠ Michaels or a stopper ask?

 

TIA

 

I play LM after:

(2M)

(3M)

(1M)-p-(2M)

(1M)-p-(3M)

 

Then these are stopper asks:

(1M)-3M

(2M)-3M

(1M)-p-(2M)-3M

 

Steven

[Fluffy]

michaels looks a bit better but then you have to keep your conventions under control, if you start generalizing them arbitrarily you end up with so much missunderstandings. So if you didn't talk about it specifically, just keep 3♠ for ♥+another

[steve2005]

doubt you have agreed on this. and big difference between a leaping Michaels over a weak 2 6-10 pts than a 1♠-2♠ raise where their partnership has 19-29 pts :rolleyes:

[CSGibson]

doubt you have agreed on this. and big difference between a leaping Michaels over a weak 2 6-10 pts than a 1♠-2♠ raise where their partnership has 1914-29 pts :rolleyes:

FYP

[benlessard]

The difference is after (2S)---2NT is natural

 

while afte (1S)--P--(2S)--2NT can be used for any 2 suiters.

 

Of course if you have a powerhouse with extra shape you can still use 3S for michaels, so in the end you dont need 4m for 2 suiters and 4m is a preempt inviting to sac.

[snillrik13]

(1♠) no (2♠) 4♣/♦ ?

 

While leaping Michaels is normal over a weak 2, this doesn't seem as clear.

Could be important to suggest a save "I want to bid 5 I'll give you the chance to deal with 4♠."

 

If that's the case, then is 3♠ Michaels or a stopper ask?

 

TIA

 

Leaping Michaels for me. After 2S I would use 3S as two-way: 1) stopper ask 2) if I contiunue after response then it is a STRONG minor two-suiter.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Leaping Michaels for me. After 2S I would use 3S as two-way: 1) stopper ask 2) if I contiunue after response then it is a STRONG minor two-suiter.

What is the advantage of 2-way compared to ( 2S ) - 4S! = Strong minor 2-suiter ..

... and then ( 2S ) - 3S is strickly stop-ask ?

[Zelandakh]

Another opportunity for me to post the modification of Ken Rexford's idea for this auction that allows 2-suiters to be shown cheaply and unambiguously:

 

(1♠) - P - (2♠)

==

X = minors or 3-suited (in response, 2NT = ♥)

2NT = ♣ or ♦ or competitive with ♥

3♣ = ♣ + ♥

3♦ = ♦ + ♥

3♥ = good ♥ overcall