[rogerclee]

Matchpoints, All Red, First Seat

♠Jxx ♥xxx ♦AKJTx ♣AT

1♦ - (P) - 1♥ - (3♣)
P - (P) - Dbl - (P)
?

[andy_h]

3H wtp

[gnasher]

I convert it to 3♦.

[mike777]

3d

I will guess partner is 4=4=4=1

[Edmunte1]

I convert it to 4♣

[helene_t]

andy_h, on Aug 7 2008, 08:25 AM, said:

3H wtp

Agree.

[sathyab]

Jlall, on Aug 7 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

The problem I have with 3D is I expect partner with no club stopper to just pass even with some hands that are quite good since where are we going? Some of these hands will make 4H. Also if it's a partscore hand and he has 5 hearts it could be a MP disaster to play in diamonds. The problem with 3H is we may get to a 4-3 fit that is hopeless. I think I would just go with 3H.

If partner had a decent 5-bagger in hearts without a club stopper, wouldn't he bid 3h himself ? More likely partner has the values to get to the 3-level without a clear idea of which strain. As I have an unexpectedly good diamond suit, really bad spades and mediocre heart support, I'll try 3d, as I expect to find partner with 3 diamonds more often than five hearts.

Edited: I now realize that a direct 3h by partner would have been forcing, but in that case he can correct 3d to 3h.

[han]

When Roger gave me the hand yesterday I said I'd bid 3H, and when prompted I reluctantly said my second choice was pass. Maybe 3D is better than pass but I would never choose 3D above 3H.

I don't think that partner should bid 3H himself on a 5-card suit.

[SoTired]

3H instead of dbl sure sounds like a non-forcing 6-card suit to me. Partner has to have some values. I have to bid 3H now. 3D should show 5.

[sathyab]

han, on Aug 7 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

When Roger gave me the hand yesterday I said I'd bid 3H, and when prompted I reluctantly said my second choice was pass. Maybe 3D is better than pass but I would never choose 3D above 3H.

I don't think that partner should bid 3H himself on a 5-card suit.

I think the basic assumption in these situations has to be that both hands are balanced and looking for a playable spot at the 3-level or leave the double in when nothing else is suitable. I wouldn't pass 3c X with so much in one suit as a stiff in declarer's hand will seriously jeopardize our defensive prospects. Also if declarer has a second suit it's more likely to be hearts, so it may not be a bad idea to play in diamonds instead.

[cherdano]

sathyab, on Aug 7 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

Jlall, on Aug 7 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

The problem I have with 3D is I expect partner with no club stopper to just pass even with some hands that are quite good since where are we going? Some of these hands will make 4H. Also if it's a partscore hand and he has 5 hearts it could be a MP disaster to play in diamonds. The problem with 3H is we may get to a 4-3 fit that is hopeless. I think I would just go with 3H.

If partner had a decent 5-bagger in hearts without a club stopper, wouldn't he bid 3h himself ? More likely partner has the values to get to the 3-level without a clear idea of which strain. As I have an unexpectedly good diamond suit, really bad spades and mediocre heart support, I'll try 3d, as I expect to find partner with 3 diamonds more often than five hearts.

Edited: I now realize that a direct 3h by partner would have been forcing, but in that case he can correct 3d to 3h.

With a 5-card heart partner will almost always double, except when he is too weak to act, or when he has good diamond support.

[han]

Is 3H by partner really forcing? I don't recall an agreement with anybody here, and I can see cases for both. I would probably assume NF.

[cherdano]

I wouldn't have thought anybody thinks 3♥ is forcing here.

[sathyab]

cherdano, on Aug 7 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

I wouldn't have thought anybody thinks 3♥ is forcing here.

I don't know for a fact that 3♥ would be forcing either. These sequences are rarely discussed in literature, I guess they are simply left as an "exercise to the reader". If 3♥ is NF I don't see any problem is bidding it directly. Practically anything you do from here on involves a lot of guess work to land on your feet, so bidding 3♥ on a decent 5-bagger wouldn't be the worst thing you could do, if everyone plays it as NF. If you did play it as forcing , the only way to play in 3h is by going thru a double, analoguous to making a negative double over 1♠ with hearts instead of bidding 2♥. There's a greater chance of 3c X being left in than 1♠ though.

But may be it's OK to play 3♥ as NF. If you want to force you have to either cue or bid 4th suit artificial and of course things can get out of hand in a hurry there as well.

[gnasher]

I think that a direct 3♥ by responder is non-forcing; double and convert 3♦ to 3♥ is forcing.

[MFA]

gnasher, on Aug 7 2008, 04:16 PM, said:

I think that a direct 3♥ by responder is non-forcing; double and convert 3♦ to 3♥ is forcing.

I agree.
I even play that responder's balance in a new suit is nonforcing at 2- or 3-level. It's not relevant here, but for instance
1♦-(p)-1♠-(2♣), p-(p)-2♥ I play as nonforcing. Strong hands T/O-doubles, cuebids or jumps.

With the actual hand, I would surely bid 3♥. Not that I'm especially happy about it, but I just have to show my support.
With 4441 partner would have bid 3♦ himself, unless strong enough to bid again.

[OleBerg]

A redouble would describe my hand perfectly, but troubles might arise.

What did my 1♦ show? If it can be a balanced hand with xxx in diamonds, I choose 3♦. I want to leave partner room for doubling a lot with only 4♥.

If I have already shown (4)5+ diamonds, I bid 3♥.

At imps I would be much more inclined to bid 3♥, regardless of what my opening showed.

[Cascade]

han, on Aug 8 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

Is 3H by partner really forcing? I don't recall an agreement with anybody here, and I can see cases for both. I would probably assume NF.

I definitely play it as forcing

[jdonn]

Wow this is illuminating, forcing wouldn't have even occured to me. Agree with gnasher's post.