[Chamaco]

Hi all ! :-)

I know many playes leaping Michaels over a natural weak 2 in a major, jumping to 4 of a minor to show 55 in suit bid + other major.

However, the situation is different after a Multi 2D opening.

1) Multi 2D can be strong. Often the 20-21/22 hcp balanced hand is included. Others include the 17+ 4441.
In both cases bidding at the 4-level may be very dangerous.
However, the highest Multi frequency is related to the weak 2 in a major, so the fear of the strong hand - even if worrysome, is a secondary point of this post;

I am rather more concerned of the next point.

2) Even if we discard the strong option, 2D still leaves the major suit undetermined.
This means that , for example

2D-(4C)-pass- ?

Jxx-xx-AQxxx-Axx

Now, if I were sure of which major my pard held, I would be in a better position.
I do not want to play at the 5 level, so I do not want to hope to hit par's major and having to correct at the 5 level.
If he holds spades, I would bid 4S. But if he holds hearts, I'd rather stop in 4C.

Note that the problem is even worse if we switch diamonds and clubs, e.g. pard bids 4D Leaping Michaels and I hold Jxx-xx-Axx-AQxxx
since here I do not even have a 4D available bid for some sort of "pick a major" sugestion.

3) Do you think using Granovetter's defence over 2D solves, or at least improves, this ?

Just to remind Granovetter defense:
2D-?
X = unspecified 5 card major
2H = good hand with clubs
2S = good hand with diam
3C/D = natural preemptive
Other bids natural (jumps with semisolid suit and a reverse, 2NT with 16-19 and stopper, other balanced good hand will pass and bid later).

[whereagles]

You could try 4S there, pard to pass with spades or bid 5C with hearts. But then you'd be stuck if you had a bucketload of spades (pard holding LHO's major).

[inquiry]

Mauro,

You are on the right track, and you are right that a leaping michaels is problematic over a multi-2♦ as you don't know what major partner hold. The Granovetter defense isn't bad.. but if you want to play the best defense available, I suggest you look at multi-versus-multi.

http://www.cavendish...-v-multi-2d.htm

Let me just say that playing multi-vesus-multi, the leaping michaels bid is 3 of a major (that is... (2d)-3H and (2d)-3S...) which show 5-5 and the bid major and an unknown minor... So given your problem hand, you would be at 3♥ or 3♠ and know your parnter;s major, and now have only the unknown issue of if your partner has clubs or diamonds... if partner bids 3♥, you even have 3♠ to search for a spade stopper if you like....

I find multi-versus-multi EXTREMELY effective, and can't recommend it strong enough. It is a MUST to play, or at least strongly consider playing, if you face a lot of people playing multi-2D. I can show you hundreds of hands where multi-versus-multi work extremely well, and almost none where it falls on its face and while other methods are successful.

Ben

[whereagles]

Multi over multi is nice, but for the present problem it's enough to take your favourite methods and make 3H/S = michaels, instead of intermediate 4C/D might become minor 2-suiters of the NF and F1 variant

[the hog]

I prefer LM even over a multi. At least if you are over the correct denomination, you are in the right fit.

[inquiry]

The_Hog, on Oct 19 2004, 09:20 AM, said:

I prefer LM even over a multi. At least if you are over the correct denomination, you are in the right fit.

How does (2♦)-4♣-(P)-? showing clubs and a major improve on (2♦)-3M-(P)-? showing the bid major and some, as yet unnamed minor?

The second auction still leaves you a chance to play 3NT, something the first does not allow. The second auction lets you know if you have a major fit now, something the first doesn't allow. The second auction allows you to play 3 of a major or 4 of a minor if responder feels the urge on a major misfit. Passing the first with three cards in an unbid major is, well, too risky, forcing you to 5 of the minor if the major doesn't fit. I do not believe there is any comparison.

Without this 3M bid, best to pass over 2♦ and hope to get to use leaping micheals on the second round of bidding... or a "superunusual 2NT" on the second round of bidding. But really, best to play multi-versus-multi i think. Ron, did you even look at it? (yes, i know, you probably are alredy familiar with it).

Ben

[the hog]

"How does (2♦)-4♣-(P)-? showing clubs and a major improve on (2♦)-3M-(P)-? showing the bid major and some, as yet unnamed minor?"

It possibly does not Ben, but I will say with a 5-5+ it is rarely correct to play thrunt. Incidentally we play LM as a gf, so we will not ever play in 4m.

Yes Ben I have looked at it , as you probably damn well know. To be honest, however, in an ideal world you may, probably are, right, but in a practical sense I do prefer LM.