[pclayton]

I used to play that leaping Michaels could be made on a 6-4, but it turns out that its a little bit of an overbid. I played in a swiss match a few years ago where I made the call on a 7-4 (4♣ over 2♠). Pard took a push to 5♥ with 3-3 in ♥/♣ which made, but it was a hair raising spot on the 4-3. The play in 5♣ was no fun at all.

I much prefer to follow advice in the article in the BW that said that a leaping michaels call could even be made on a marginal 5-5.

[Chamaco]

A question here to the posters.
Assume that cuebid is not Michaels, therefore you have a chance between

a. cuebidding followed by clubs
b. double followed by clubs

What difference in meaning do you assume is "standard" ?

E.g.: to make it clear I will say that, till reading this thread, I assumed that:

a. double + new suit = more or less 4 loser hand
b. cue + new suit = more or less 3 losers hand

If my thinking was true, doubling here would ahve the advantage that responder is better placed to evaluate the strength of our unbalanced hand (cue + new suit wd be an overbid here)

Thanks!

[junyi_zhu]

Chamaco, on Jan 14 2005, 01:07 AM, said:

A question here to the posters.
Assume that cuebid is not Michaels, therefore you have a chance between

a. cuebidding followed by clubs
b. double followed by clubs

What difference in meaning do you assume is "standard" ?

E.g.: to make it clear I will say that, till reading this thread, I assumed that:

a. double + new suit = more or less 4 loser hand
b. cue + new suit = more or less 3 losers hand

If my thinking was true, doubling here would ahve the advantage that responder is better placed to evaluate the strength of our unbalanced hand (cue + new suit wd be an overbid here)

Thanks!

I think cue then new suit should show exact 3 loser hands. double then jump should show two loer hands. double then new suit shows 4 loser hands. Obviously, few in this board agree with us.

[flytoox]

Chamaco, on Jan 14 2005, 01:07 AM, said:

a. cuebidding followed by clubs
b. double followed by clubs

What difference in meaning do you assume is "standard" ?

I think for a, the only logical explanation is you have slam interest. It is just like in the uncontested auction, whenever we bid 3N and then remove from it, we show slam interest.

As for b, I think it should be some kind of 64 two suiters. You are hoping for pd to find one of your suit. Failing to do that you are retreating to your longer suit.


The more trick question is which sequence implies the opp's suit control. I think cuebid then remove 3N should show the control.

However, things may not go as you wish. What if pd didnt bid 3N and he bid 4x then you retreat to 5C. Do you show or deny the control of the opp's suit?

[junyi_zhu]

pclayton, on Jan 13 2005, 11:11 PM, said:

I used to play that leaping Michaels could be made on a 6-4, but it turns out that its a little bit of an overbid. I played in a swiss match a few years ago where I made the call on a 7-4 (4♣ over 2♠). Pard took a push to 5♥ with 3-3 in ♥/♣ which made, but it was a hair raising spot on the 4-3. The play in 5♣ was no fun at all.

I much prefer to follow advice in the article in the BW that said that a leaping michaels call could even be made on a marginal 5-5.

Then it would be very hard for partner to develop over the jump if you play it to show a wide range of hands. I prefer to play 4 m to show about 5 losers hands:
x AKxx xx AKxxxx would be a typical hand. Actually 6-4 is better than 5-5 in play strength I feel. For 5-5, I just cuebid 3S directly to show it. that would allow partner to play 3NT.

[Fluffy]

Chamaco, on Jan 14 2005, 01:07 AM, said:

A question here to the posters.
Assume that cuebid is not Michaels, therefore you have a chance between

a. cuebidding followed by clubs
b. double followed by clubs

What difference in meaning do you assume is "standard" ?

E.g.: to make it clear I will say that, till reading this thread, I assumed that:

a. double + new suit = more or less 4 loser hand
b. cue + new suit = more or less 3 losers hand

If my thinking was true, doubling here would ahve the advantage that responder is better placed to evaluate the strength of our unbalanced hand (cue + new suit wd be an overbid here)

Thanks!

I bid ♣ when I have ♣ (3♠ is not avaible on my system because shows both minors, but may take another look after seeing what is played around the world)

These means that double + correcting 4♥ into ♣ is ♥ fit + ♣ control, looking for slam probably with xx in ♠.

[junyi_zhu]

Winstonm, on Jan 8 2005, 07:27 AM, said:

All vulnerable at imps. You hold: 4, 83, AK84, AKQ964. The auction is:

W You E Pard
2S* ?

*weak 2-bid 6-11


For consideration: This hand was given to a panel of 6 experts who had about 16 national championships to their credit as well as 2 world championships (Mildred Breed). Their answers:

3 chose 3S as a stopper ask.
3 chose 3C

All said they would never double under any circumstance. In fact, 4 of the six said they would rather pass than double! For the record, my bid is 3C, a distinct underbid, but I've found that conservative action wins in pressured auctions more than pushing to a minus score.

Yesterday, I asked this hand to my friend, Benedicte Cronier. She told me she would bid 3S which shows both minors and a good hand in her regular partnership. I think this convention is a good one. It's usually very hard to hanle hands like: Sxx HAx DAKJxx CKQJx or Sxxx Hx DAKQxx CAKJx, 3D would be an underbid, double is off shape. And this kind of hands happen way more often than solid minor one suiter + side suit ace. After a careful discussion with my partner, we decided to adopt this method and developed some subsequent structure to share with everybody here.
So over 2S, 3S shows both minors, at least 5-4 or 4-5 and more than 16 HCP or very strong diamond one suiter, with 3 losers. partner's can bid 3NT with a spade stopper or choose what he thinks he can make, like 4C or 4D.
4H would be natural, 4S would show slam interest in either minor suit.
4N would be pick a minor,
5C/D: to play.

Over 3NT response, cuebidder can pull to 4 m to show 3 loser hands and better minor suits or bid 4H/S to show shortness and 5-5 two suiter, 3 loser hands. 4NT would be invitational, around 23 HCP, invitational, with 5-4 or 4-5 in minors. 5D would show 3 loser hands with long and strong diamonds.

So for this hand, we can just bid 3S and pass a possible 3NT bid by partner. Partner can also bid 5m with a good minor suit.

[han]

A couple of years ago I asked Jim Linhart (US pro player) how to show minor two suiters over 2S. He said that it is standard practice among US experts to play that 4S and 4NT both show both minors, and that 4S shows a much better hand than 4NT (4S would show ~ 2 loser hand). I doubt that there is any consensus among US experts about what these bids mean, but I think this is a good treatment. It seems to me that it is better to use 3S for strong single suiters as Fred suggested, so that you don't have to jump and you can still play in 3NT.

I think that Jimmy suggested the use of 4S as a very strong 3-suiter that didn't want to risk a pass by partner over a double. I don't think that this is useful as (1) you have much more room to investigate if you double and (2) the risk of partner passing in front of the 2S bidder is not so large when you have a big hand, and if partner does pass, it may still be right.

[whereagles]

Hum.. that method of Cronier is interesting. Minor-suit oriented hands are a nightmare to bid after a weak two, and in my experience are indeed more frequent than solid 7 carders with stoppers.