[shevek]

Apollo81, on Feb 17 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I am shocked to see MULTIPLE votes for 2♥.  When I read the problem I thought the decision would be between 3, 4, and splinter.  I think I would just bid 3♥, but that still feels like an underbid to me. 

IMO a 2♥ bid has zero merit here and is just wrong hand evaluation.

Well I bid 2♥ but not because "I have scarced 12 HCP" so I didn't click. 2♥ is clear in Acol since you deny 12-14 balanced. In that regime, 3♥ tends to be 18-19 balanced-ish so partner will never unravel this hand.
If you enforce a strong notrump regime (Isn't there a forum for that?) I guess 3♥ is acceptable, though prefer a shapely overbid of 3♠ & 4♥. Really it's a problem created by system.

[Fluffy]

Partner held:

KJ9xx
KQJxxx
-
Qx

After I bid 4♥ she drove us to slam. Hidding the spades lured the opponent to raise from ♠A10xx when dummy's singleton was led at trick 2 and the rest was easy (not sure if it was neccesary to make).

About the 2♥ bidders, I am impressed by the amount of them also. Different systems make different bids, but I believe if you might have only 3 hearts and 12-14 balanced you really cannot bid 2♥ with this hand.

[rogerclee]

hmm, deleted

[kfay]

rogerclee, on Feb 17 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

By the way, I am a big fan of the cheapest bid being an artificial ask after 1m-1M; 3M. That seems to help on this hand.

Please expound

[jdonn]

kfay, on Feb 17 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 17 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

By the way, I am a big fan of the cheapest bid being an artificial ask after 1m-1M; 3M. That seems to help on this hand.

Please expound

Asking for shortness I assume.

[rogerclee]

kfay, on Feb 17 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

rogerclee, on Feb 17 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

By the way, I am a big fan of the cheapest bid being an artificial ask after 1m-1M; 3M. That seems to help on this hand.

Please expound

It is just an idea, but I deleted my post since it was badly off-topic.

[Fluffy]

And would you take 3NT as no shortness or spade shortness?

[andy_h]

Think it's normally None/Low/High

[Cascade]

shevek, on Feb 18 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 17 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I am shocked to see MULTIPLE votes for 2♥.  When I read the problem I thought the decision would be between 3, 4, and splinter.  I think I would just bid 3♥, but that still feels like an underbid to me. 

IMO a 2♥ bid has zero merit here and is just wrong hand evaluation.

Well I bid 2♥ but not because "I have scarced 12 HCP" so I didn't click. 2♥ is clear in Acol since you deny 12-14 balanced. In that regime, 3♥ tends to be 18-19 balanced-ish so partner will never unravel this hand.
If you enforce a strong notrump regime (Isn't there a forum for that?) I guess 3♥ is acceptable, though prefer a shapely overbid of 3♠ & 4♥. Really it's a problem created by system.

That depends on how often you raise 1♥ to 2♥ with a three-card suit.

[shevek]

Cascade, on Feb 17 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

shevek, on Feb 18 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

Apollo81, on Feb 17 2009, 11:48 AM, said:

I am shocked to see MULTIPLE votes for 2♥.  When I read the problem I thought the decision would be between 3, 4, and splinter.  I think I would just bid 3♥, but that still feels like an underbid to me. 

IMO a 2♥ bid has zero merit here and is just wrong hand evaluation.

Well I bid 2♥ but not because "I have scarced 12 HCP" so I didn't click. 2♥ is clear in Acol since you deny 12-14 balanced. In that regime, 3♥ tends to be 18-19 balanced-ish so partner will never unravel this hand.
If you enforce a strong notrump regime (Isn't there a forum for that?) I guess 3♥ is acceptable, though prefer a shapely overbid of 3♠ & 4♥. Really it's a problem created by system.

That depends on how often you raise 1♥ to 2♥ with a three-card suit.

Yes. Even if a single raise shows a good hand, Acol-style, the disparity is still large:

♠x  ♥Axx  ♦KQxxx  ♣Kxxx

♠KQx  ♥Axxx  ♦KQxx  ♣Qx

are worth 2♥ so responder will need to move on a decent 9-count. Need good methods to untangle these, plus the eg.

[effervesce]

3♥. The hand has great playing strength - aces are undervalued under the standard count and the hand is 6-4. Don't think this is close.