hand has improved

[MrAce]

You utterly misunderstand what I was saying.

 

What I was saying is that absent other agreements, most people here play long suit with values game tries. Hence that's what 3♥ is without any agreements special to this sequence, so this hand is inappropriate as partner will raise on the wrong hands.

 

Ok, got it. I think we both made our points and i just came from work, tired as hell, time to rest my case and leave myself to gravity http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif. Apologies if i got too excited when replying during the heat of debate http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif

 

 

 

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj72ht952dk7caq6&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=ppp1n(11-13)p2s(to%20play)3c]133|200|

 

No further agreements.[/hv]

IMO 3♥=10, 3♦=9, 3♠=7

Having read the arguments, I agree with Mr Ace that 3♦ might be misinterpreted and that 3♥ is more like a "Last train" try for game than a specific suit trial bid. Partner knows you have at most a flat 13 HCP. Your hand couldn't be much more suitable. Anyway, If partner treats 3♥ as a long-suit trial-bid, regards ♥ honours as useful cards, and judges to bid 4♠ as a result, then that should be a playable contract e.g.

♠ A x x x x ♥ K Q x ♦ x x x ♣ x x

Realistically, you may hope for equally useful ♥ shortage e.g.

♠ A Q x x x ♥ x ♦ Q J x x ♣ x x x

Although partner would be unlikely to bid game ulnless he held a bit more strength, which he may well have.