[DavidKok]

 AL78, on 2025-May-01, 10:25, said:

At the time of bidding the slam I thought it has chances, there is just enough room for partner to hold ♦A or ♠K, or the ♠K could be onside, and even if I go off, they likely have a heart game on.

[..]

Good to know I wasn't way out with my line of thinking.

Your bidding was by no means 'way out', but I do think Richard overestimates the chances of slam as well as the chances of 6♣ ending the auction. I'm not sold on this bidding plan at all, and would prefer to bid more slowly.

[mike777]

 AL78, on 2025-May-01, 08:55, said:

I started thinking along the lines of hrothgar but eventually decided to bid 4♠. The auction proceeds:

---

Now what?

5S

[mikl_plkcc]

Do you play Michaels? If so if the auction went 2♥ - 4♥, you would have an unambiguous 5♥ bid.

[Cyberyeti]

Odd question, should 1N-P-2♦-4♣ be leaping michaels ?

[DavidKok]

I don't play it here, while I do play (the Dutch version of) Leaping Michaels on many more auctions than most. I think it's not crazy to play Leaping Michaels here, but it's not a priority agreement for me. The natural weak 4♣ also has utility.

[AL78]

With this partner no conventions are available in this situation, had to use natural bids.

[mw64ahw]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-May-02, 03:07, said:

Odd question, should 1N-P-2♦-4♣ be leaping michaels ?

Yes - as per my post above.
I wouldn't be too concerned about having a natural weak 4♣ in 4th seat as that is telling the op.s that they have probably game in the Major so you get out bid.

[P_Marlowe]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-02, 03:33, said:

I don't play it here, while I do play (the Dutch version of) Leaping Michaels on many more auctions than most. I think it's not crazy to play Leaping Michaels here, but it's not a priority agreement for me. The natural weak 4♣ also has utility.

Both will be low freq.
For us 2H would be Michaels.

[mikl_plkcc]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-May-02, 04:32, said:

Both will be low freq.
For us 2H would be Michaels.

The same with my regular partner as well.

[Cyberyeti]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-May-02, 04:32, said:

Both will be low freq.
For us 2H would be Michaels.

We play X=♦, 2♥ = T/O.

Above I wonder if you should play differently depending on the strength of the NT.

[P_Marlowe]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-May-02, 05:58, said:

We play X=♦, 2♥ = T/O.

Above I wonder if you should play differently depending on the strength of the NT.

I see from several exp. that they recommend against a weak NT X as power / strong NT
strength, the recommenation is similar against a 2C Stayman bid.
I think I have read also, that showing the 2-suited hands is more important than the
T/O shape. The reason, 2-suited have a higher freq. than 3-suited, and getting the other
major in (exp. spades) pays of.

We still play X as lead director, but I can understand, why you one replace lead director
with power.

[P_Marlowe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2025-May-02, 05:15, said:

The same with my regular partner as well.

I think this is a reasonable agreement, as long as the agreement is,
they have bid 1-suit, bidding their suit is Micheals.

You can extend this to other sceanrios, a controversial seq. would be

(1S) - Pass - (Pass) - 2S

Now ..., keep in mind that some like to play 2NT (instead of 2S) as
natural, ... it may be better, (if you do, 2S would be a genaral force),
but playing it as Unusual is also not terrible.
but: I am repeating myself, try to finde one bible / consolidated
setup and ignore the rest for some time.

[mw64ahw]

P_Marlowe, on 2025-May-02, 07:34, said:

I think this is a reasonable agreement, as long as the agreement is,
they have bid 1-suit, bidding their suit is Micheals.

You can extend this to other sceanrios, a controversial seq. would be

(1S) - Pass - (Pass) - 2S

Now ..., keep in mind that some like to play 2NT (instead of 2S) as
natural, ... it may be better, (if you do, 2S would be a genaral force),
but playing it as Unusual is also not terrible.
but: I am repeating myself, try to finde one bible / consolidated
setup and ignore the rest for some time.

If you play 4-way transfers then
1N-2N can be 6+♦ or 55 weak so 4th seat ♠ bidder can be shut out.

[blackshoe]

I have heard "I didn't know what to do, so I passed" more times than I can count. Fortunately not from either of my current partners.

[Huibertus]

jillybean, on 2025-May-01, 09:21, said:

I don't like 4♠, I have 2 suits. Now you're in a bad spot.

How it that a bad spot? You want to be able to say "I've got an extreme, strong 6/6 in the blacks, the opponents just gave you this opportunity. Bid 6♣ and thank them afterwards. You partner is NOW in the perfect place to decide between 6♣/6♠ And yes it may be down 1. But are THEY down in 6♥? Probably, but surely not always.

[bluenikki]

AL78, on 2025-May-01, 07:24, said:

MPs in a weak field (NGS around 46%) and a weak partner who you've only played once before with and doesn't really know much about bidding beyond the fundamentals of the system. We were playing Acol, 3 weak twos, weak NT.

---

Your call?

Other than the possibility it might end the auction, what is wrong with 3♣?

[johnu]

bluenikki, on 2025-June-02, 12:29, said:

Other than the possibility it might end the auction, what is wrong with 3♣?

Do you need better than ♠AQJ865 to show the suit with your first bid?

[bluenikki]

johnu, on 2025-June-02, 16:50, said:

Do you need better than ♠AQJ865 to show the suit with your first bid?

No.

But having shown the clubs, you will surely be able to show the spades below the six level. Unless 2♣ ends the auction.

[thepossum]

AL78, on 2025-May-01, 07:24, said:

MPs in a weak field (NGS around 46%) and a weak partner who you've only played once before with and doesn't really know much about bidding beyond the fundamentals of the system. We were playing Acol, 3 weak twos, weak NT.

---

Your call?

Do they understand 2 hearts? I don't know if that is how you Michaels cue after a tansfer lol
You would get a spade response (or pass?) Wrongsiding. Blackwood or jump to 6 spades