[gnasher]

microcap, on 2013-January-14, 16:21, said:

It took a lot of replies, but finally someone got the point of posting this hand--

As Justin points out, your whole hand is in hearts and that is not going to help partner much.

You think that all the other 3♥ bidders didn't notice this? At least two of them mentioned it explicitly:

Lalldonn: I like 3♥, with both majors looking offside. If partner rejects with his short hearts then I really don't think game will be a bargain.
RHM: We know partner has a distributional hand short in hearts.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on 2013-January-15, 04:20, said:

You think that all the other 3♥ bidders didn't notice this? At least two of them mentioned it explicitly:

Lalldonn: I like 3♥, with both majors looking offside. If partner rejects with his short hearts then I really don't think game will be a bargain.
RHM: We know partner has a distributional hand short in hearts.

No, but when Justin points it out, it must be true. When other people point it out, it's just noise.
(that's not a dig at justin at all, by the way..... I was just reading some absolute rubbish written by someone on another thread and thinking "i hope the person who posted the question doesn't believe this")

[JLOGIC]

kinda a no win situation for me sometimes.

[microcap]

No offense intended, I just missed those comments. I MEGO quite a bit-- if you saw Rex's emails on bidding, you would too!

Also, the 10♣ was in dummy, not also with declarer!

In hindsight, I think the most important point is to agree with your partner here as to the meaning of the cue bid. At the table, Rex bid 3♥, but I thought it was game forcing. With my hand, I was going to game regardless after 3♥, and to the discussion, I think his hand is not worth the cue because of the heart waste.

gnasher, on 2013-January-15, 04:20, said:

You think that all the other 3♥ bidders didn't notice this? At least two of them mentioned it explicitly:

Lalldonn: I like 3♥, with both majors looking offside. If partner rejects with his short hearts then I really don't think game will be a bargain.
RHM: We know partner has a distributional hand short in hearts.

[rhm]

microcap, on 2013-January-15, 19:35, said:

No offense intended, I just missed those comments. I MEGO quite a bit-- if you saw Rex's emails on bidding, you would too!

Also, the 10♣ was in dummy, not also with declarer!

In hindsight, I think the most important point is to agree with your partner here as to the meaning of the cue bid. At the table, Rex bid 3♥, but I thought it was game forcing. With my hand, I was going to game regardless after 3♥, and to the discussion, I think his hand is not worth the cue because of the heart waste.

I suggested 3♠, but also because I am not really convinced 3♥ should be a second invite to 4♠ here.
The truth is you will always end up in 4♠ unless you are prepared to pass 2♠ and I doubt that there is a top player, who would take such a deep position.
In fairness one has to say that taking the low road here may be more accurate but will only increase your chance of attracting a penalty double.
There are advantages of leaving opponents in the dark, if the outcome of different bids are likely to be the same.
I am aware that it did not matter on this deal, but it could have.

Rainer Herrmann