[shyams]

I was North at the table. First, a clarification

MFA, on Jun 14 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

I don't understand the term "usually GF"?!

Sorry, the word "usually" is misleading and my error. Partner took it as Game Forcing and that's what matters (in addition to the deal in the OP, partner had explained a FSF bid of mine from an earlier round as "game forcing"). I play 2-level FSF as forcing to 2NT with another player at the club and that's probably why I added the word "usually". Apologies for the confusion.

Phil, on Jun 14 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Systemic rant: 3♥ is unnecessary. Even if 2♦ is 4S (not quite forcing to game), we should be in a force through 2N or suit agreement. /rant.

This was my problem as well. I spent part of the BIT time wondering why partner bid 3♥ and what he could possibly mean. If I were South, I would have bid 2♥ to show support and conserve space.

I distinctly remember what I was thinking about:
- As above, I was trying to figure out why 3♥? I thought it reasonable that partner had extra values (18-19 HCP)
- Next thought was whether partner can have 4-4-1-4 (and forgot to splinter). I thought it unlikely, because (a) partner would splinter and (b) with 12 missing diamonds, I'd expect some intervention from opps
- I tried to construct a few hands for South, but at the table I thought partner needed ♥KQx exactly to make it a decent slam (+ opps ♥ need to be 3-2). I specifically remember worrying about trump quality. So I chose to rest in 4♥. What followed is already stated in my previous posts.
Some of my thought process was clearly flawed. But if the 3♥ bid is a given, I could not think of a way to slam (except blasting to 6♣) in an auction controlled by North.