Raising with 3 cards vs not

[Fluffy]

Ok, I am probably on a minority here, but nevemind.

 

Trying to list advantages of one style opposite the other:

 

 

In general I'd say that

 

Rasing with 3 cards:

 

-Jams opponent's fight for partscore.

 

-Gives away less info when playing game.

 

-Avoids sick suit rebids with 5431 or 6331

 

-Puts Judgement into the decision, not only rules

 

 

 

Never raising with 3 cards:

 

-Its more accurate when inviting to game.

 

-Its more accurate when looking for slam.

 

-Its easier to learn

 

-Doesn't put judgement into the decision, you normally have only 1 way to bid your hand, so it is easier to know what partner has later.

 

 

Anything I'm missing?

[pbleighton]

Because of the pluses and minuses, a lot of players split the difference. For myself, I will raise with 3 if unbalanced and is less bad than rebidding my suit. I will virtually never rebid 1NT with a stiff or void.

 

I will very rarely raise on 3 if balanced.

 

Peter

[awm]

I don't necessarily agree about the game and slam auctions. When you're exploring for slam there's a lot of free space after:

 

1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT

 

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♠

 

In either case you should have room to figure out things like:

 

(1) Where are opener's values?

(2) Does opener have a singleton or doubleton anywhere?

(3) How many spades does opener have?

(4) Is there a better fit (say in diamonds)?

 

There are a wide variety of methods (natural and artificial) designed to figure this kind of stuff out in both those auctions. Surely it helps to know how many spades partner has when you're deciding whether to bid slam, but it's not like you can't figure that out.

 

The more critical issue is partscores, because here you don't have any space to explore. Responder pretty much has to pass opener's raise to 2♠, or pass or make a signoff bid over opener's 1NT rebid. I'd say the real issues are:

 

Raising only with four:

 

(1) Easier to teach.

(2) You guarantee to find all 5-2 major fits via 1♦-1♠-1NT-2♠.

(3) You miss most 4-3 major fits, including ones that might play better than 1NT.

(4) Your single raise puts less pressure on opponents, since they know you have a real fit.

(5) If opponents balance over the single raise, it's easier for responder to figure out to compete.

(6) You can play simpler methods over opener's raise, but you need more stuff over 1NT rebid.

(7) You occasionally play 5-1 fits because opener rebids a 5-card minor (1♦-1♠-2♦) or because responder rebids a 5-card major (1♦-1♠-2♦-2♠).

 

Raising often with three:

 

(1) You miss a lot of 5-2 fits on auctions like 1♦-1♠-1NT-pass and 1♦-1♠-2♦-pass.

(2) You find a lot of 4-3 major fits, including some where 1nt would play better.

(3) Your single raise is very dangerous to compete over, since it may be a 4-3 fit.

(4) If opponents do compete over the single raise, sometimes responder will overcompete to 3.

(5) You need complicated methods over opener's raise, but you can play simpler stuff over 1NT.

(6) You can play a style where minor suit rebids show 6 and rebid 1NT with 1435 and the like.

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think requiring 4 cds to raise is necessarily that much more accurate. In principle if going to game/slam there should be room to find out if it is important. Slightly more accurate, maybe, for those hands with 4cd support. Arguably less accurate for those with 3 cd support, since you will reach wrong game or game from wrong side more often.

 

I don't know that raising on 3 is necessarily hard to learn either, I learned from beginning to raise on 3 cds since that's what the books said. Basically the idea is "you WANT 4 cds to raise", but sometimes 3cd raise is more likely to work out well when NT is unpalatable due to outside stiffs/small doubletons. And bids limiting your hand tend to work out better than having these wide ranging 12-18 bids if you choose to bid side suit. (with 3541, after 1h-1s-2d-2h, do you always bid 2S? How do you differentiate the stronger range from the weaker? Do you want to have to jump to 3S on the stronger range, when that might be too high?)

 

Being allowed to raise on 3 is just recognition that honor location matters, that allowing judgment can reach better contracts than simply having all combos of 2 hands of the same shape always reach the same contracts. Personally I like being able to avoid 3nt when the critical suit is xx vs. xxx instead of AQ with declarer vs. xxx. Or having that suit with the AQx led into instead of through, when opener rebids NT with unbid small doubleton.

[foo]

If you have a hand worth only one bid, make the bid that best describes your hand.

 

If your hand looks best for NT play, bid 1N with 3 card support. If your hand looks best for suit play, raise.

 

Call it the "AJ Simon Strategy". :P

 

If your hand is Invitational better, be very careful to bid your hand as accurately as possible.

[the hog]

Interesting post Fluffy.

We raise frequently with 3 card suits, but there are riders:

We raise if we have xx in a suit, Hx would be enough for 1NT

We raise with 5431 hands if they are minimum, otherwise we bid around the clock eg

1H 1S

2C 2H

2S

Shows a better hand than 1H 1S 2S.

 

I would argue that you can get just as much, if not more accuracy, by using a 2NT pivot over the raise to show whether the raise was based on 3 or 4 cards and the type of hand on which you raised. There have been a couple of suggestions posted over the last few days. It is still possible to get to 3NT as well by using these methods.

 

For me the only real disadvantage in 3 card raises is in competitive auctions, when you would like to play at the 3 level in a 9 card fit, but you don't know if pd raised on 3 or 4. I am happy to pay this price.