[kayin801]

3rd hand, you pick up:

Scoring: IMP

1♥-2NT-3♠-6♦!
X-P-?

1♥ limited to 15
2NT unusual
3♠ natural and forcing (UvU on)

---

Help! What do you do now? For reference purposes, if you had bid 3♣ as a limit+ in hearts (or anything else within reason), partner would still have Xed 6♦.

[ggwhiz]

If I bid 6 hearts smoothly at these colours and imps, I'm betting on defending 7d doubled.

[dellache]

My Hearts suck, the 2NT bid warns me against bad splits in the Majors, partners tells me "Hey I'm not max with all my values in the Majors", and they probably won't bid 7♦ (they already have made us take us a difficult guess, so 7♦ is overdoing things).

So I pass, try to get 800/1100 and too bad if 1430 was on.

[Apollo81]

6♥.

While this runs significant risk of turning plus into a minus, a bad split in hearts is at least onside, and a bad spade split might not matter. Partner could be doubling on a hand like xx AQJ9x Kxx Kxx, after all. Let LHO guess whether we're making this.

[kenrexford]

6♥. A no-brainer.

[petterb]

kayin801, on Dec 17 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

3♠ natural and forcing (UvU on)

Isn't 3♠ nonforcing playing UvU? A forcing hand with spades bids 3♦?

[ArtK78]

petterb, on Dec 17 2009, 04:17 PM, said:

kayin801, on Dec 17 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

3♠ natural and forcing (UvU on)

Isn't 3♠ nonforcing playing UvU? A forcing hand with spades bids 3♦?

It is forcing the way I play it. A bid above the level of part score in partner's suit should be forcing.

[kenrexford]

ArtK78, on Dec 17 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

petterb, on Dec 17 2009, 04:17 PM, said:

kayin801, on Dec 17 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

3♠ natural and forcing (UvU on)

Isn't 3♠ nonforcing playing UvU? A forcing hand with spades bids 3♦?

It is forcing the way I play it. A bid above the level of part score in partner's suit should be forcing.

Same here. The one "exception" sequence.

[maggieb]

People are going to bid 6♥ with Txx of trumps and a mediumish hand and problems with bad breaks and/or clubs? I guess I don't see it.

[petterb]

kenrexford, on Dec 17 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

Same here.  The one "exception" sequence.

Exceptions are bad.

I learned the convention a long time ago reading "Better Bidding with Bergen" which says a bid in the fourth suit is not forcing.

[pooltuna]

kayin801, on Dec 17 2009, 02:01 PM, said:

3rd hand, you pick up:

<!-- ONEHAND begin --><table border='1'> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td> Dealer: </td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Vul: </td> <td> N/S </td> </tr> <tr> <td> Scoring: </td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> <span class='spades'> ♠ </span> </th> <td> AKQ642 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='hearts'> ♥ </span> </th> <td> 1086 </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='diamonds'> ♦ </span> </th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th> <span class='clubs'> ♣ </span> </th> <td> AJ94 </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> 1♥-2NT-3♠-6♦!
X-P-?

1♥ limited to 15
2NT unusual
3♠ natural and forcing (UvU on) </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONEHAND end -->

Help! What do you do now? For reference purposes, if you had bid 3♣ as a limit+ in hearts (or anything else within reason), partner would still have Xed 6♦.

presumably the X of 6♦ denied first or second round control of ♦ and since the ♥s and ♣s rate to be well placed take a shot at 6♥

[655321]

I would pass, but I don't hate 6♥.

pooltuna, on Dec 17 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

presumably the X of 6♦ denied first or second round control of ♦

Why on earth would you presume that?

[jdonn]

655321, on Dec 17 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

I would pass, but I don't hate 6♥.

pooltuna, on Dec 17 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

presumably the X of 6♦ denied first or second round control of ♦

Why on earth would you presume that?

Haha, imagine opener's frown looking at KQJT of diamonds and being unable to double.

[kayin801]

Mashing of 6♥ and P is what I hear. No votes for 6♠ at all? Anyway, at the table it went like this (hands rotated)

Scoring: IMP

1♥-2NT-3♠-6♦
X-P-6♥-AP

Lead: ♠7

---

You've already made two unlikely slams today, think you can go 3 for 3?

Bonus: What's your line in 6♠ in the North if East leads the ♦J? (though that might be easier)

[the hog]

maggieb, on Dec 18 2009, 04:58 AM, said:

People are going to bid 6♥ with Txx of trumps and a mediumish hand and problems with bad breaks and/or clubs? I guess I don't see it.

I don't see it either Maggie. Pass by opener would have been forcing. The x shows a willingness to defend. I am hardly going to bid 6H on this motley H support, knowing that trumps will not break. I pass the double.

[655321]

kayin801, on Dec 17 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

Mashing of 6♥ and P is what I hear. No votes for 6♠ at all?

You could argue that 6♥ is a bad bid, but at least it is plausible. But I think 6♠ is really bad. It wouldn't be a surprise if partner has a singleton spade, and spades won't break 3-3. LHO will often have 4 or more spades.

kayin801, on Dec 17 2009, 06:49 PM, said:

Dealer: South Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ AKQ642 ♥ 1086 ♦   ♣ AJ94 ♠ J3 ♥ AJ532 ♦ AK4 ♣ 1073

1♥-2NT-3♠-6♦ X-P-6♥-AP Lead: ♠7

I will play West to be 1255 (East 4351).

There are twice as many Hx holdings as xx, so:
Win ♠J
Diamond ruff
♥T (covered, else take another trump finesse next) to Ace.
Low heart to West.
Win the club switch with the Ace, 3 rounds of spades pitching clubs, back to hand to draw the last trump.

I think you do have to commit to playing West for Hx, more flexible lines don't seem to work. Maybe there are extra chances if West played the ♥9 on the first round of trumps (but I can't see anything).

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Dec 17 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

655321, on Dec 17 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

I would pass, but I don't hate 6♥.

pooltuna, on Dec 17 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

presumably the X of 6♦ denied first or second round control of ♦

Why on earth would you presume that?

Haha, imagine opener's frown looking at KQJT of diamonds and being unable to double.

I must have missed the part in the OP's post where he said the opps were stupid

[kayin801]

pooltuna, on Dec 17 2009, 07:12 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 17 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

655321, on Dec 17 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

I would pass, but I don't hate 6♥.

pooltuna, on Dec 17 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

presumably the X of 6♦ denied first or second round control of ♦

Why on earth would you presume that?

Haha, imagine opener's frown looking at KQJT of diamonds and being unable to double.

I must have missed the part in the OP's post where he said the opps were stupid

Dunno if I'd say idiots, but definitely juniors.

[ggwhiz]

Same lines as 655 whatever (I'm not good with numbers, get a name!)

As declarer, I think rho has to be 4-3-5-1 with the heart honours split for me to make it.

I'll win the spade J, ruff a diamond and lead the heart 10. If covered, I win and play a low heart.. fingers and knees crossed.

Given the 2nt bid, the spade lead MUST be a stiff or rho has to have 4 hearts which is sooo deadly, I (sh)would have been doubled. If rho has KQx of hearts, a making line of play would be as above with a low heart to the J but the 6d bid says NOT.

[Codo]

pooltuna, on Dec 18 2009, 11:12 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 17 2009, 06:09 PM, said:

655321, on Dec 17 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

I would pass, but I don't hate 6♥.

pooltuna, on Dec 17 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

presumably the X of 6♦ denied first or second round control of ♦

Why on earth would you presume that?

Haha, imagine opener's frown looking at KQJT of diamonds and being unable to double.

I must have missed the part in the OP's post where he said the opps were stupid

So they are stupid to bid this way missing KQJT but not missing AKx? Aha.

You may defend your opinion as long as you wish but I think you are not mainstream. Actually I guess you are not just not mainstream, but in a minority of one- maybe two if your partner plays the same funny stuff.