[zenko]

Scoring: IMP

1st seat you open 1H, partner responds 1S, you bid 2H-p-p RHO balances with 3C. What do you bid?

---

[Jlall]

3H

[Fluffy]

yeah take the push, I don't wanna play in spades even if partner certifies he's got 5

[jdonn]

I hope partner has 5 spades, that makes it more likely playing 3♥ is correct.

[P_Marlowe]

Given that you did bid only 2H the round before, ... I am not
sure the add. information is enough to justify a 4H bid, afterall
you were content to play just 2H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[aguahombre]

Have shown 6 hearts and a minimum opener. Now showing 7 hearts and a minimum opener. Been doing it all my life in a situation like this, and too old to remember the times it worked out badly to do so.

[zenko]

you had 2.5H bid round ago and 3C bid probably made your hand even better, don't you feel 3H now is bit of an underbid?

[jdonn]

zenko, on Jan 7 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

you had 2.5H bid round ago and 3C bid probably made your hand even better, don't you feel 3H now is bit of an underbid?

Lol what? So you're saying last round we were worth just a little less than 3♥ and since that point our hand has improved. I would say that means we are now worth.... exactly 3♥!

[P_Marlowe]

zenko, on Jan 7 2010, 11:47 AM, said:

you had 2.5H bid round ago and 3C bid probably made your hand even better, don't you feel 3H now is bit of an underbid?

3C made my hand better, ..., but partners pass made it worse, as he
passed, he did know, that we had 6 hears, he passed, this makes it
likely that we are facing a single.

[gnasher]

I think the 3♣ bid has made our hand worse, not better. I now have less hope that ♣Q can be used to set up a trick in partner's hand, less hope that any diamond finesse is working, and more expectation of trump losers.

I'd still bid 3♥, obviously.

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on Jan 7 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

I think the 3♣ bid has made our hand worse, not better. I now have less hope that ♣Q can be used to set up a trick in partner's hand, less hope that any diamond finesse is working, and more expectation of trump losers.

I'd still bid 3♥, obviously.

why more? given your holding you are expecting 1 loser opposite a void

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Jan 7 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jan 7 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

I think the 3♣ bid has made our hand worse, not better.  I now have less hope that ♣Q can be used to set up a trick in partner's hand, less hope that any diamond finesse is working, and more expectation of trump losers.

I'd still bid 3♥, obviously.

why more? given your holding you are expecting 1 loser opposite a void

RHO is less likely to balance with hearts like Qxx and more likely to balance with shortness. So the odds have gone up that LHO has long hearts.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Jan 7 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Jan 7 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jan 7 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

I think the 3♣ bid has made our hand worse, not better.  I now have less hope that ♣Q can be used to set up a trick in partner's hand, less hope that any diamond finesse is working, and more expectation of trump losers.

I'd still bid 3♥, obviously.

why more? given your holding you are expecting 1 loser opposite a void

RHO is less likely to balance with hearts like Qxx and more likely to balance with shortness. So the odds have gone up that LHO has long hearts.

That still doesn't necessarily translate into more losers

[jdonn]

pooltuna, on Jan 7 2010, 10:15 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 7 2010, 05:34 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Jan 7 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

gnasher, on Jan 7 2010, 02:48 PM, said:

I think the 3♣ bid has made our hand worse, not better.  I now have less hope that ♣Q can be used to set up a trick in partner's hand, less hope that any diamond finesse is working, and more expectation of trump losers.

I'd still bid 3♥, obviously.

why more? given your holding you are expecting 1 loser opposite a void

RHO is less likely to balance with hearts like Qxx and more likely to balance with shortness. So the odds have gone up that LHO has long hearts.

That still doesn't necessarily translate into more losers

How did "more expectation" become "necessarily"?

[gwnn]

hence the words 'more likely' instead of 'absolutely certainly more'. in the words of a funny orange fish formed friend of mine, if you want certainty you have to go to Lloyds of London.

edit: Curses! Jdonn is fast!!

[neilkaz]

3♥ for me and I won't use the WTP comment, but it is almost that clear to me.