Never mind, I can't read.
I agree with Todd about the 2
. Shows some clubs, establishes the game force, he expects to show hearts next and so he has shown a good hand with a heart fit and at least something in clubs all below the game level. It seems odd at first, but it has merit and I think it is now the way to go.
As to the play.
That 3
bid surely influences the play. I am assuming that the partnership does not have any detailed agreement about it so we all have to interpret it as we think right. Over 2
, a 2NT bid by Rho would be two suited, but I assume this is also. Who knows? But let's assume Rho has !s and
. If he has six
then Lho would have led his stiff and if he has seven
he probably would just have bid them instead of bidding 3
. If he has five
and the
KQ I think I can make this. Well, maybe. I will assume Lho could well have four hearts, but I am not assuming he has five. So I ruff the
in hand, cash one high
and lead a small
. The plan is to establish
with a loss of one trick. Then there will be 1+4+2+4=11 established tricks. Losing the
rectifies the count, and, if I am right about Rho having five
and the
KQ we are set for the
-
squeeze. For example, if on the second
Lho puts up the Q and Rho shows out, then Lho leads something. Maybe another
. I go up with the !A, tossing a
from hand, cash the
J, come back to my had with a
(probably safest) draw trump.
It would be good to know just what the 3
bid was, but lacking any firm knowledge, I think I go with the
-
two-suiter.
It's simply in the nature of IAC play, and I think on-line play in general, that bids are made that are a little uncertain in meaning. I think the right approach is to just accept it. Maybe the 3
was intended to show a
-
two-suiter with a
void. Maybe. But if it did, then it seems Lho didn't know that either. Or maybe Rho has an eight card
suit with a
void. I suppose 3
might even show clubs, but who would ever play that a
bid shows
?
But I am guessing he has a
-
two-suiter and just figured 3
would get his partner to bid
or
.
