Leaping Michaels with unexpected continuation

[diana_eva]

This hand came up in Main Club with a partner you know, but your agreements boil down to: Leaping Michaels? Yeah!

 

IMPs, all vul:

[hv=pc=n&s=SAKT872HT6DCAQJ84&d=e&v=b&a=2H(weak%202)4C(%21c+%21s)P4DP4SP4NP5DPPP]200|300[/hv]

 

5♦-2 was not a success, but 4♠/5C fail too, as cards happened to lie.

 

1) Would you choose leaping michaels with South's hand? I read somewhere that if 6-5 the 6 carder is supposed to be the minor, not the major

2) What is 4♦?

[aguahombre]

We have Leaping over 2M on our card also, and no I wouldn't choose it with that one. The 6M-5c array is only one reason, IMO.

 

Dunno if things would be better if I bid 2♠ --not quite right for 3S, and definitely wrong for Double. But, that's my bid.

 

If I had a LM jump overcall, the 4D advance would be natural. Then 4S would suggest 6-6 in the blacks and 4N would be 6-key literally BLACKwood. Just my opinion.

[mikeh]

I think leaping michaels is ok with this hand, if only because there are no better alternatives.

 

The hand is too strong, in playing strength, to make a simple overcall of 2♠.

 

A jump overcall of 3♠ is ok on suit length and, just, quality, and is fine on overall hand strength but ignores the club suit and it is easy to construct a hand on which 7♣ is great and 6♠ has no play.

 

4♠ is too distorted, worse than 3♠

 

Double then spades is ok on suit and hand strength, but loses clubs almost as often as a direct 3♠ while risking a pass, which might work out but the odds are against it.

 

4♦ is a matter of agreement. Clearly here partner intended it as natural, and you have a clue, in your hand, that that was what was intended.

 

I have no explanation for 4N. If 4♦ was intended as forcing, then 4N is keycard, I think.

 

I strongly suspect that your partner ought to have been passing 4♠

 

The fact that leaping michaels led to a bad result (and from the sounds of it, would have led to a poor result even had partner passed 4♠) is not a reason to avoid the convention.

 

As for the relative suit disparity, yes we'd all prefer the 6 card suit to be the minor, but even when it is not we need to consider whether emphasizing the major is a good idea, and here I would say it isn't, for the reasons I set out earlier.

[mcphee]

I like 4 clubs also showing S. I feel better about 4C as I am happy to bid 4S next if 4H comes back my way. If I overcall 2S and 4H comes around to me I do not like being placed like this. At least bidding 4C lets us get in both suits when we may easily be pre-empted. I would think it reasonable to assume 4D to be slam try. I can not imagine it to be anything else.

[diana_eva]

We weren't planning to give up leaping michaels because of one misfitted hand. I posted this because i thought it was funny and it made us discuss continuations.

 

Main thing I wanted to hear from someone more experienced was whether it makes sense to give up on clubs and insist on spades with that particular hand.

 

Partner's hand was:

[hv=pc=n&n=S6HK843DAQJ9874C2]133|100[/hv]

 

And yeah he shd definitely pass 4♠

[the hog]

LM is fine with this hand. It is the best description possible. At least you get both suits in to play. I remember discussing two suited bids with a top player once. He suggested that it is much better to show both playable suits, as at least you get to play in the correct suit, though perhaps not always the correct level.

Partner should pass 4S. In my opinion 4D is a slam try.

[Zelandakh]

If you play 4♦ as natural here then I think you also need to play 4NT as a slam try in clubs, Last Train if you like. If you want 4NT as natural or key card-asking then it seems to me better to play 4♦ as an artificial slam try. What the hog writes about playing in the right strain rather than the right level is very much the theme for modern bridge pairs in many auctions (from what I have read at least).

[helene_t]

4♦ as natural is probably not the optimal agreement but that is what I would take it as if undiscussed. In any case it must be forcing. Your 4♠ bid then shows a 6th spade and maybe partner should have passed it but I think 5♦ is ok too. There is no way this 4NT bid is natural, if anything maybe he could have bid 4NT immediately as an offer to play but I am not sure about that either.

[ahydra]

There is no way this 4NT bid is natural, if anything maybe he could have bid 4NT immediately as an offer to play but I am not sure about that either.

 

I would take 4NT immediately over 4C as RKC in clubs (if not playing Minorwood/etc). It makes sense to play 4D as a slam try of some kind, likely in spades. In the given auction, 4NT looks very much like RKC for spades.

 

I'd say the hand is textbook for Leaping Michaels. As others have said, 4D is fine, then partner should pass 4S. But what I don't get is why people are saying 4S shows a 6th spade - what does one do with 5215 or even 5305?

 

ahydra

[Zelandakh]

I would take 4NT immediately over 4C as RKC in clubs (if not playing Minorwood/etc). It makes sense to play 4D as a slam try of some kind, likely in spades. In the given auction, 4NT looks very much like RKC for spades.

If you do not feel the need for a natural 4♦ then another reasonable approach is 4♦ = slam try in ♣ (or RKCB if you prefer); 4♥ = slam try in spades; 4NT = to play. You surely have to have either 4♦ or 4NT as natural though, no?

 

As for 4♦ followed by 4NT, if you play the way I gave before (with 4♦ natural and 4♥/4NT slam tries on spades/clubs respectively) then it makes some sense for it to be natural. In most other schemes it should be forcing though.