[straube]

So I'm learning that some folks are playing Nonleaping Michaels in situations that I hadn't considered. We play it along with thrump doubles. Do others play it for...

2S P 3S ?

3S ?

What other situations?

How about

2H P 3H ?

3H ?

Does anyone play

3H dbl P 3S as forcing and looking for a 4-4 spade fit, thrump-like?

[DJNeill]

Have not seen this played, who plays it?

Thanks,
Dan

[gwnn]

I played it as:

(3M)-4m=m+oM
(2M)-p-(3M)-4m=as above
(3C)-4C=D+M
(3D)-4C=C+M
(3m)-4D=majors

3H-x-p-3S cannot possibly be played as forcing. Responder can have a 0 count. I guess by thrump-like doubles you mean that doubler will sometimes have a 6+ card minor and less than 3 spades. With many of those hands he can bid 3NT even without a great stop or risk 5m. On the rest he will have to pass and wait.

[straube]

Yeah, I'm thinking of 3H dbl as more like a thrump double than a purely takeout double. It couldn't be totally offshape, but a bit more offshape than a takeout double. Say you had Jx xx AKxx AKQxx. The auction might go...

3H dbl P 3S
P 3N

where 3N would be "Pick a minor". In fact, I'm not even sure what the standard meaning for this would be. A hand with a stopper too good to bid 3N? Seems low frequency anyway.

A thrump takeout would commit the partnership to 3N or the 4-level, show the hcps that would likely support this level (sure, advancer will have 0 sometimes)and would allow a tad more strain-finding.

Right now I think most folks would bid 3N directly with something like Axxx Kxx AKQx Qx. By the same token, after a "thrump" takeout, advancer would bid 3N with a stopper and his 3S bid would deny a stopper and show four spades.

I think this idea could only possibly appeal to folks who like thrump to begin with (many don't), but if one is playing that 3H (4m) is spades and the minor, wouldn't this fit in well?

[gnasher]

straube, on 2013-August-29, 13:02, said:

3H dbl P 3S
P 3N

...In fact, I'm not even sure what the standard meaning for this would be. A hand with a stopper too good to bid 3N?

A hand that was in between a takeout double of 3♥ and a direct 3NT. Something like KQx Kx AQJx Q10xx.

[straube]

gnasher, on 2013-August-29, 13:32, said:

A hand that was in between a takeout double of 3♥ and a direct 3NT. Something like KQx Kx AQJx Q10xx.

Doesn't that seem like you're betting against yourself? You've a weak stopper (can't hold up) and partner has potentially the 0-ct that gwnn was concerned about. He's at any rate made the weakest bid available. This meaning can certainly win, but how often does it come up and how often does it win is what I'm wondering.

Anyway, thanks for your input and the consensus seems to be that this is a bad idea.

[lowerline]

4♣ = ♣ & other major
4♦ = ♦ & other major
after
(2M), (3M), (1M)-p-(2M), (1M)-p-(3M), (2M)-p-(3M)

4♣ = other minor & unknown major
4♦ = both majors
after
(2♦)*, (3m), (1m)-p-(2m), (1m)-p-(3m), (2♦)-p-(3♦)*
*natural weak two diamonds assumed

After their multi-2♦:
4♣ = ♣ & unknown major
4♦ = ♦ & unknown major
is most common, but you can also play:
4♣ = ♥ & unknown minor
4♦ = ♠ & unknown minor

Steven

[straube]

What do folks do playing Non-Leaping Michaels after 3H and holding xx xx AKJ AKQxxx ?

[jeffford76]

straube, on 2013-August-30, 14:41, said:

What do folks do playing Non-Leaping Michaels after 3H and holding xx xx AKJ AKQxxx ?

Whatever you think best of X (pulling spades to clubs), P, and 5C.

[akhare]

jeffford76, on 2013-August-30, 15:36, said:

Whatever you think best of X (pulling spades to clubs), P, and 5C.

Interesting treatment -- is to necessary to alert the X over 3M as "could be significantly off shape" or it just bridge?

[mgoetze]

akhare, on 2013-August-30, 18:27, said:

Interesting treatment -- is to necessary to alert the X over 3M as "could be significantly off shape" or it just bridge?

Well, in those jurisdictions where alerting a double is never allowed, this is not necessary, no.

[nige1]

I like ...

Over weak 2M or 3M:

• 4m = m & OM.
• 4OM = Nat.
• 4M = Minors, strong.
• 4N = Minors, weak.

Over weak 2m or 3m:

• 4♣ = ♥ & another.
• 4♦ = ♠ & om.

Similarly over artificial 2♦ (e.g. Multi):

• 3M = Sets suit and asks for cues (3N = 2nd round control but no 1st round control)
• 4♣ = ♥ and another. (Then 4♦ asks for other suit).
• 4♦ = ♠ and a minor. (Then 4♥ asks for minor).

[blackshoe]

mgoetze, on 2013-August-30, 18:42, said:

Well, in those jurisdictions where alerting a double is never allowed, this is not necessary, no.

Are there jurisdictions which actually prohibit certain alerts? I infer the answer is yes, and that Germany is one such, but it doesn't make sense to me. Every set of alert regulations I've seen says "alert is required for <this> and alert is not required for <that>". I've never seen "you may not alert <something>".

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-31, 03:43, said:

Are there jurisdictions which actually prohibit certain alerts? I infer the answer is yes, and that Germany is one such, but it doesn't make sense to me. Every set of alert regulations I've seen says "alert is required for <this> and alert is not required for <that>". I've never seen "you may not alert <something>".

Yes, in Germany, when playing without screens, you are not allowed to alert any doubles, redoubles or passes or any calls above 3NT (except on the first round of bidding). I gather that the ban on alerting doubles also exists in other jurisdictions such as Sweden and that England has recently adopted the above-3NT rule.

[gwnn]

straube, on 2013-August-30, 14:41, said:

What do folks do playing Non-Leaping Michaels after 3H and holding xx xx AKJ AKQxxx ?

5C for me. With Qx or so in hearts (removing something from the minors) I risk 3NT.

[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-31, 03:43, said:

Are there jurisdictions which actually prohibit certain alerts? I infer the answer is yes, and that Germany is one such, but it doesn't make sense to me. Every set of alert regulations I've seen says "alert is required for <this> and alert is not required for <that>". I've never seen "you may not alert <something>".

The EBU regulations contain many instances of phrases like "Do not alert ...", "Players should not alert ...", "The following doubles must not be alerted ..."

mgoetze said:

I gather that the ban on alerting doubles also exists in other jurisdictions such as Sweden and that England has recently adopted the above-3NT rule.

England has had the above-3NT rule for about ten years. The recent change was to relax that rule, so that some more calls above 3NT became alertable.

[Free]

In Belgium no Doubles or Redoubles may be alerted when playing without screens. Also every bid above 3NT may not be alerted. There's a big disagreement in that regard though: when the auction is above 3NT and you use a forcing pass, you should alert, while many people misinterpret the rule. Pass is not a 'bid', and it's also not 'above 3NT'...