[jillybean]

---

I've had LM on my card before, never used it or forgot it, now a partner wants it back on the card.
I like bidding my suits but despite taking up all the bidding space, I can see it is useful over a weak 2. Is LM considered expert standard?

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2025-September-28, 17:56, said:

---

I've had LM on my card before, never used it or forgot it, now a partner wants it back on the card.
I like bidding my suits but despite taking up all the bidding space, I can see it is useful over a weak 2. Is LM considered expert standard?

I think most of the experts who don't play Leaping Michaels simply don't think it's worth it, not because they have a better use for the bid.

The important thing about playing Leaping Michaels is that you need a narrow agreement on the range - in terms of playing strength (usually some form of LTC, not HCP). Some folks consider your hand too weak for Leaping Michaels; others consider it a minimum. What's clear is that you can't be bidding Leaping Michaels on both your hand and on ♠AKxxxx ♥Ax ♦AKQxx ♣-; if you consider your hand a minimum for Leaping Michaels, then my hand is too strong. Along with this is an agreement on whether Leaping Michaels is forcing or not.

[mikeh]

akwoo, on 2025-September-28, 18:39, said:

I think most of the experts who don't play Leaping Michaels simply don't think it's worth it, not because they have a better use for the bid.

The important thing about playing Leaping Michaels is that you need a narrow agreement on the range - in terms of playing strength (usually some form of LTC, not HCP). Some folks consider your hand too weak for Leaping Michaels; others consider it a minimum. What's clear is that you can't be bidding Leaping Michaels on both your hand and on ♠AKxxxx ♥Ax ♦AKQxx ♣-; if you consider your hand a minimum for Leaping Michaels, then my hand is too strong. Along with this is an agreement on whether Leaping Michaels is forcing or not.

If you think you need something close to AKxxxx Ax AKQxx void for a leaping Michaels, my advice is to take it off your card. I’ve played a lot of bridge over many years and I’ve held hands that strong, in playing strength, maybe twice and only once did someone bid ahead of me (I held AKQJx AKJ9x A AK and he opened a weak 2D). So it ain’t happening.


But there is no inconsistency between doing it with jb’s hand and yours. Since 4D is forcing, you can afford to do it with the powerhouse because you simply bid again.

My main problem with JB’s hand is that I would be extremely reluctant to do it with 6 spades. I do not want to play in 5D opposite, say, xx Qxxxx Kxx xxx.

One can be 5=6 but, imo, one should go out of one’s way to find another call with 6=5.

Fwiw, I do think that the OP hand is too weak to bid 4D. I’d bid 2S…a slight underbid perhaps but far less of an underbid than forcing to game is an overbid.

Make it something like AKJxx x AKJxx Qx and I’d happily bid 4D.

[mw64ahw]

Definitely one for the card.
There are ~18hcp unaccounted and with a 4 loser hand I'd be hoping for game. So do you bid Spades and maybe end up having to show a 2nd suit at the 5-level or show both immediately bearing in mind the broken spade suit? What outcome do you fear most?

[pescetom]

Nowhere near expert, but for me this is a clear 2S and yes of course I want LM on the card.

[DavidKok]

I think there's four interesting questions here.

Firstly, is LM expert standard? I think the answer is 'no', or more accurately, 'I would not be surprised if there is majority support, but there are also many experts who dislike the treatment'.

Secondly, I personally do play LM - or, more accurately, the Dutch version called 'Wereldconventie' (it is near-identical but uses (3♣)-4♦ to show the majors and (3♣)-4♣ to show ♦+M, rather than the other way around). I play this on a pretty large number of auctions, including some non-leaping ones:

• They open a weak 2.
  
• They open a weak 3.
  
• They bid 1X-2X.
  
• They bid 2X-3X.
  
• They bid 1X-3X.
  
• They open a transfer preempt, or a weak multi-meaning bid and the anchor suit is made clear (either immediately or by responder/by assumption).

Not all of these are standard, and NLM in particular is more controversial than LM.

Thirdly, is this hand suitable for LM? Mikeh said it very well already: I don't like bidding LM with extra length in my major suit(s). This will cause partner to make the wrong guesses regarding choice of strain, or defending versus playing, at least some fraction of the time. However, this is a pressure auction, and it may well be our last chance to act. We have to weigh the risks and benefits, but there's definite risks to bidding 4♦ here. Keep that in mind for the last question.

Fourth, and this is the longest point by far, are my preferred agreements on strength requirements for such a LM bid. Akwoo cites ♠AKxxxx, ♥Ax, ♦AKQxx, ♣- as an example LM hand (which, like mikeh, I've never held). Mikeh cites the weaker ♠AKJxx, ♥x, ♦AKJxx, ♣Qx. My opinion is that both of these are far too high requirements for bidding LM. My rule of thumb is that if we're uncomfortable bidding 'just' the 3-level, we should just force to game regardless of actual hand strength. And almost always it's a good idea to show both our suits in the process, so that partner can think along in case there's 4- or 5-level interference. My minimum strength requirement is maybe a nice 11-count or so, e.g. ♠KQJxx, ♥-, ♦KQTxxx, ♣xx - notice how I've slipped in a void, an extra diamond card but not an extra spade card, and a highly offense-oriented hand. My typical LM hand is considerably stronger in terms of hcp, this is an approximate minimum example.
In my opinion, reserving shape-showing bids in competition for exceptionally strong hands is a clear waste of bidding space. I'm much more concerned with potential 5-over-4 and 5-over-5 decisions than with finding a slam. Therefore, if I think I have reasonable protection (i.e. my game might make, or I have enough shape and ODR that it's likely a fine sacrifice), I want to have the bid available to show shape to partner. This means drastically lowering the requirements to bid. It also means partner must curb their enthusiasm holding, say, a useful (so not just values in the short suits!) ace and king opposite - something which would be a slam force opposite a traditional LM, and at least a slam try opposite what I think mikeh's range is.
I've seen some Dutch experts lower the requirements even further, bidding on e.g. ♠JTxxxx, ♥-, ♦KQxxxx, ♣x after (2♥)-P-(3♥)-?. I don't know how to feel about that - it's outside my agreements, and such weak hands are rare on auctions like this, but maybe I'm leaving money on the table. Either way I think the traditional 'I am a favourite to make game and maybe you can help me look for slam' range is suboptimal.


This long story puts your example hand well within my range for LM. This hand is strong enough for me. However, as I said, there's that sixth spade which I don't like. There's also something special going on: we have the boss suit, and can bid at the 2-level. If RHO had opened 2♠ and we held diamonds + hearts I would bid 4♦ in a blink - the alternative of 3♥ isn't appealing and we might not get another chance before they bid 4♠.
Instead let's take a look at the competitive considerations. If LHO doesn't raise, or only raises to 3♥, we will come out ahead by bidding spades-then-diamonds. Partner will surmise that our spades are longer by our failure to bid LM, and will give appropriate (false) preference. Conversely, if the opponents do raise to 4♥, what type of hand causes a problem for partner? With 3(+)♠ I'm not too concerned - partner will likely raise ('complete the transfer').
If LHO is weak, they likely have at least 3 and probably 4 hearts for the raise, giving partner 1-2. Now we might miss a big diamond fit, or a profitable opportunity to defend if partner has some values and long clubs.
Conversely, if LHO is strong, we might be on a blind guess. The raise need only promise a doubleton, and we could well have a profitable diamond fit (either to make or as a sacrifice) or maybe defending 4♥ is our best spot. Even if we want to act over (2♥)-2♠-(4♥)-P; (P)-? it is not clear to me how - double-then-pull-5♣ maybe? I'm not sure partner will find the preference with a doubleton spade here either - these slow routes don't promise the sixth spade either.
Lastly I will throw one final distraction at you: I also prefer to play (2♥)-3♥ as 'weak Michaels', showing 5(+)♠, an undisclosed 5(+)m, and a hand too weak to meet my requirements for 4m LM. This hand is too strong for this, but with other LM agreements that might be an option here - unfortunately it still doesn't get the significant minor suit discrepancy across.

Putting it all together, I've talked myself into 4♦. It shows both suits, partner will likely know what to do, partner also knows diamonds are a level higher than spades and will be reluctant to go there. Most importantly though, on the contested auctions I don't have a good way to show both suits and the sixth spade anyway, so I think this partial description is superior. However, this is only possible because of my strength ranges - most partnerships will have higher requirements for their LM, and without discussion you shouldn't spring hands like this one on them.

[jillybean]

Interesting thread, and discussions I have never had. "Let's play Leaping Michaels" is about as far as it gets, perhaps useful for a weak 5-5 hand wanting to sacrifice.
It's been checked on the CC but as I say upthread, not discussed, not used.

---

How do you proceed here?

edit
Thanks, David.Wereldconventie or World Convention which is probably easier for me to pronounce is typically played over 3lvl preempt but you've improved on this?

[DavidKok]

4♥, a slam try in spades. I'm bidding on over a signoff - a double fit with Axx and KJT plus a side ace is too much to go quiet even opposite my style.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-29, 07:04, said:

4♥, a slam try in spades. I'm bidding on over a signoff - a double fit with Axx and KJT plus a side ace is too much to go quiet even opposite my style.

And over...

---

[mike777]

 jillybean, on 2025-September-29, 07:01, said:

Interesting thread, and discussions I have never had. "Let's play Leaping Michaels" is about as far as it gets, perhaps useful for a weak 5-5 hand wanting to sacrifice.
It's been checked on the CC but as I say upthread, not discussed, not used.

---

How do you proceed here?

edit
Thanks, David.Wereldconventie or World Convention which is probably easier for me to pronounce is typically played over 3lvl preempt but you've improved on this?

Very tough I can live with 4S or 5S asking for second round H control.

Lean towards 4S

[mw64ahw]

jillybean, on 2025-September-29, 07:15, said:

And over...

---

You have an additional key card in Diamonds so maybe not an obvious call over 5x5x. 4♥ would be Kickback, while other bids show keycards for ♠

Note: Shou!d be over the 4♦ bid not 2♠ one.

[DavidKok]

jillybean, on 2025-September-29, 07:01, said:

Thanks, David.Wereldconventie or World Convention which is probably easier for me to pronounce is typically played over 3lvl preempt but you've improved on this?

This page is pretty spot on, with two modifications.
1) Some people here, myself included, play that over a minor-suited preempt 4♦ always shows the majors while 4♣ shows om+unknown major. The idea is that over the 4♣ bid advancer can ask with 4♦ (forcing, even opposite diamonds, as we're in a game force) and take another bid depending on the answer. If (3♦)-4♦ shows ♣+unknown major we might be passed out in 4♥ when advancer likes hearts but can't stand spades or clubs. Not a big deal, but a slight improvement.
2) In addition to the above, I also play 4NT as 'both minors' after opponents bid a major and LM applies. This way I get two ways to bid both minors: 4M stronger and 4NT weaker.
We also play Wereldconventie on other auctions than just the 3-level openings, as I said. The scheme is the same.

I know other Dutch top pairs (and one notable Swiss top pair ) have been experimenting with other uses of the 4-level in competition, especially after our side opened 1♣. I've seen e.g. 1♣-(2♦)-4♦ as a 'multi' of sorts: a signoff at the 4-level in an unknown major suit. There are other schemes around - the key is that "om + unknown major" is somewhat uncomfortable due to the ambiguous major, but no matter how you slice it we're cramming 5 hand types in 4 bids (single-suited one major, single-suited other major, both majors, other minor + major, other minor + other major, in 4♣ through 4♠). There are some theories that bundling certain two options together is better than other combinations, to either create minimum or maximum inhomogeneity in the bids. However, I don't play this - I'm sticking with the base Wereldconventie.

jillybean, on 2025-September-29, 07:15, said:

And over...

---

3♥, a good raise. I will bid again no matter what partner does, though I hope partner doesn't blast 4♠ - that would be uncomfortable.

mike777, on 2025-September-29, 07:16, said:

Very tough I can live with 4S or 5S asking for second round H control.

Lean towards 4S

Stop jumping on strong auctions.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-September-29, 07:15, said:

And over...

---

Trivial 3H.

I play transfer advances but that’s irrelevant here….3H shows a strong hand.

[jillybean]

---

I think this hand is a clear fix your bidding rather than 'add a new convention' problem.
I will stand my ground and leave LM off the card.

[jillybean]

DavidKok, on 2025-September-29, 08:33, said:

Stop jumping on strong auctions.

♥

mikeh, on 2025-September-29, 09:13, said:

Trivial 3H.