[1eyedjack]

---

MP, Instant, ver 33

One of the benefits hailed for the upgrade to version 33 was supposed to be a more intelligent use of knowledge of partner's shortage.

When I play this sort of short suit trial bid, I normally use the next step by responder (ie 3C in this hand) to enquire into the location of the shortage. At this stage opener has promised a shortage but not shown its location.

Responder is not always interested to know the location of the shortage. Sometimes he can be so weak that he knows to sign out in 3M or to accept with 4M irrespective of the location of the shortage. In those cases concealing the shortage increases the scope for defensive error.

In this context I find the explanation attached to 3C as a little curious, being identical to the initial 2S raise and does not even say that it asks for the shortage.

Then the imposition of the opponent's double threw another spoke in the wheel. I cannot confirm what the bids would have meant without the double. I should hope that bids up to 3S inclusive pinpointed the shortage. After the double, bids below 3S are simply described as "cue bids".

I don't know if you agree, but with the North cards, had I known that South had short hearts and was unable to commit to game without co-operation, then I think that I would have signed out in 3S, particularly after the X of 3C. Of course, on this hand he does not know that I have the Heart shortage.

I probably should have passed 2S.