Constructive raises - shake before opening

[whereagles]

Hi. Just came back from the national open teams semifinals. We lost :) One of the hands contributing to our loss gave me a lot of food for thought and I'd like to share it with you.

 

I had agreed to play constructive raises with pard, so 1M-2M is like good 7 to 10 hcp. With 5-7 you bid 1NT + 2M. Then came this hand:

 

♠ T8x

♥ x

♦ KT9xx

♣ Qxxx

 

Pard opens 1♠ and I decide to be bureaucratic and bid the agreed forcing 1NT. It goes

 

Pard RHO me LHO

1♠ pass 1NT pass

2♠ pass pass dbl

pass 4♥ ..??

 

And there you have it: we've had the whole auction to ourselves but ended up taking the last guess: do I save or do I pass? Well, one thing I know: RHO is the best player in the country and he's a solid bidder. He's not bidding 4♥ to go down and I can tell you 4♥ does indeed make, despite pard having a very defensive hand. I ended up bidding 4♠ and it was the wrong action, as it goes for -800 (in fact pard blundered and went a few more down).

 

It's easy to see now why this happened. The weak hand didn't say what it had until it was too late. Pard was never brought to the picture. It wasn't the first time I had to cope with this sort of guess. In fact, it was the 3rd time already in 3 months.

 

I belive this is a strong enough case to say the strategy of bidding 1NT on weakish raises is plain and simply WRONG. Should we drop it? If we're talking of 5-6 hcp and a flattish 4333, I guess you can continue to raise via 1NT. Such a hand definitely doesn't want to go to the 3 level, let alone the 4 level. But any raise with distributional features, I'm convinced now it must bid 2M immediately.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

you said it your self, your were bureaucratic.

I play constr. raises my self, but I would raise

direct.

But Having decided to go through 1NT, which is

a reasonable decision, I would pass, I play a

constr. raise as (+7)-(-10).

 

You believe the problem are not constr. raises,

but I believe that the problem is, that you dont like

to play constr. raises, and therefore did make an

unilateral decision, which just turned out bad.

 

Of course an add. question is, did your partner

have 4 tricks against 4H? If not he should have passed.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[kenrexford]

You analyzed strictly with HCP's. Thus, the shape was only worth, at most, 1 point (5 HCP's, but not worth 7-10), at least as you described your hand. Later, you want to bid again because you really have an 8-count.

 

Shocking how constructive raises don't work when you don't make constructive raises when you have them. B)

[mike777]

Congrats on a great run in your tourney. Well done!

 

Is there some logic why you play constructive raises as 7-10 hcp and not around 8-11 total support points?

[Fluffy]

a preemptive 3♠ wouldn't be so bad idea s an alternative, but I wouldn't make it anyway.

 

Even if you play 2♠ =8-10, everyone will bid 2♠ with A+K or something worth.

 

 

 

Also remember that bidding 1NT with this hand would had made the bidding more complicated for your opponents if partner didn't bid 2♠ since they would not know if your 2♠ was based on real support or not.

[awm]

I admit I'm not enamored of constructive raises. They're one of a number of methods where the idea is to "conceal what's going on" -- another example is preempting on hands with good values. The hope is that opponents will guess wrong, competing over a non-fit auction or selling to a fit auction when they shouldn't. My experience has been that while this does work out occasionally, much more often the opponents choose to compete (people like to bid these days, most close decisions are resolved in favor of competing) and then partner doesn't know what to do because we have also "concealed what's going on" from her. This tends to leave our side with the last guess, where we are poorly placed and could've guessed much better in a more informative auction.

[Mbodell]

I had agreed to play constructive raises with pard, so 1M-2M is like good 7 to 10 hcp. With 5-7 you bid 1NT + 2M. Then came this hand:

 

♠ T8x

♥ x

♦ KT9xx

♣ Qxxx

 

Pard opens 1♠ and I decide to be bureaucratic and bid the agreed forcing 1NT.

I'm not as familiar with constructive raises, but surely an 8 LTC hand should be considered more like a good 7-10 than a 5-7 hand?

[joker_gib]

I play "support with support" and thus 2M is 6-10 for me.

 

Anyway, I would have bid 2♠ with that hand playing constructive raises.

 

Alain

[whereagles]

Thx all.

 

What this hand shows is it's clear that you can NOT bid it via the forcing NT. Shapely support hands must be bid via direct raise, no matter what you agreed to play.

[Blofeld]

Actually what this hand shows is that you can't just take HCP into consideration when deciding what raise to use.

 

It's completely clear that putting some raises through 1NT will lose out sometime when partner doesn't know about your support. The hope is that you will gain enough on other hands to make it worth it.

 

With the hand given I'm pretty sure most people would bid a constructive 2♠, though.

[Free]

It's not unsound to bid 1NT with a 3 card raise, although you're supposed to have a very weak hand. This is not a weak hand imo, so I'd just bid 2♠ and then show an absolute minimum.

[inquiry]

when you are deciding on how many "points" you have to raise, don't you count distribuution? I mean you had 5 hcp and a singleton with support. Surely this is worth at least 7 points?

 

If your partner has a good hand and bids, say 2D and you correct to 2S how is he going to tell this hand from something like....

 

xx Qxxx xx Kxxxx ?

[Edmunte1]

Firstly: Congrats for reaching national team semifinals (don't know your country, but it's a good result anyway).

Secondly: It's extremely important to stick to your methods and, if that gives you constanly average plus results, accept the minuses.

Thirdly: About this hand, i'm a 2♠ bidder anyway. The main disadvantage of bidding 1NT is that leaves opponents entering on a low level with hearts (and, painfully, 4♥ is a game). Due to that reason and adding the importance of a shortage, 2♠ is mandatory.

Fourthly: Did you ever thought about bidding over 2♠? Knowing about 9 cards fit in spades and probably their 9+ cards fit in ♥?

[whereagles]

Ed: thx. Semifinals is a good result, obviously, though not as good as it would be in a larger country :P

 

As for bidding over 2♠, well, that would be invitational with flattish hand and about 10-11 hcp. And in any case, I was all set to bid 3♠ over 3♥. What I didn't count on was opps to bid FOUR hearts :)

[helene_t]

What this hand shows is it's clear that you can NOT bid it via the forcing NT. Shapely support hands must be bid via direct raise, no matter what you agreed to play.

You should stick to your agreements. If the agreements are impractical, discuss the issue with p after the match.

 

I think this hand is good enough for a raise.

 

I would bid 4♠ over 4♥. Having made a raise I would probably pass, but having started with 1NT I think it's clear. That it turned out badly this time is not sufficient reason for not bidding 1NT with unbalanced hands. Make the hand a tad lighter and I would bid as you did.

 

Edmunte suggests raising 2♠. It may be nice to have a distinction between constructive and barage raises, especially if you suit is hearts, but even without such an agreement I think 3♠ is ok. Maybe I'm resulting.

[whereagles]

1. You should stick to your agreements.

 

2. I would bid 4♠ over 4♥. Having made a raise I would probably pass, but having started with 1NT I think it's clear. That it turned out badly this time is not sufficient reason for not bidding 1NT with unbalanced hands.

1. As a rule, this is true. But, in practice, if you judge evading the system is more likely to bring in a good result than being bureaucratic, then you should evade it. Matches are won at the table, not in the post-mortem :P

 

2. This wasn't the 1st, but the 3rd time, that I bid a shapely weakish raise via 1NT and got into trouble later. The frequency is high enough for me to be convinced that shapely supp hands must raise directly.

[helene_t]

You play a strong club system, right? I recall Terry Reese recomending (in the context of Precision) 1NT being used with balanced hands and the direct raise with unbalanced hands. Maybe this distinction (instead of 1NT for weaker hands and direct raise for better hands) makes more sense in a strong club context.

 

Btw Lawrence makes the same distinction for the limit raises. 3M shows a 4-card raise or an unbalanced hand with 3-card support. Balanced hands with 3-card support bid 1NT followed by a jump in opener's suit.

[whereagles]

No strong club. Just regular 2/1 with some home-made tweaks. Which makes it even more important to support with support :P

[skjaeran]

No strong club. Just regular 2/1 with some home-made tweaks. Which makes it even more important to support with support :)

I'm playing a 2/1 light (2/1=GF unless rebid) with a NF 1NT response to 1M. We use 2-way bids in the suit below the opening: 1♠-2♥ and 1♥-2♦ is either a natural 2/1 bid or a weak 3c raise 3-7(8-) and a direct raise is constructive (8+)9-11 (a bad 12 possible). So far this has been working well for us.

[Free]

No strong club. Just regular 2/1 with some home-made tweaks. Which makes it even more important to support with support :)

I'm playing a 2/1 light (2/1=GF unless rebid) with a NF 1NT response to 1M. We use 2-way bids in the suit below the opening: 1♠-2♥ and 1♥-2♦ is either a natural 2/1 bid or a weak 3c raise 3-7(8-) and a direct raise is constructive (8+)9-11 (a bad 12 possible). So far this has been working well for us.

I've played that a few times, once it came up and wasn't a big success... Of course, one hand doesn't prove anything, but I'm skeptical <_<

 

I also wonder why it's not either natural or a constructive raise? 1M-2M is more preemptive, and with a constructive raise opener will be able to bid more after 1M-2(M-1)

[joker_gib]

I also wonder why it's not either natural or a constructive raise? 1M-2M is more preemptive, and with a constructive raise opener will be able to bid more after 1M-2(M-1)

Yes !

 

Is this a problem to reverse it Harald ?

 

And, as Frederick says, play it 2M-1 as constructive or natural...

 

1M-2M is more premptive, particularly on 1♠-2♠ because opps can't double 2♥ to show the suit....

 

 

Alain

[whereagles]

Actually, let me show you the whole hand:

 

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=skq4haj432d92cat7&w=saj7532hkq8dqc964&e=st86h9dkt764cq832&s=s9ht765daj853ckj5]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♠ (pass) 1NT (pass)

2♠ (pass) pass (dbl)

pass (4♥) ..4♠ (pass)

pass (dbl) end[/hv]

It's funny how things happen. If I had bid 3♠ over 2♠, South would pass and pard may or may not have bid 4♠. In either case, North would surely pass and score +200 to +400 with the heart game on.

 

If I had made a direct 2♠ raise, South might have found his OBAR double and there's no stopping North from bidding game. Sure, we won't bid 4♠ in this case, but would still score -620 when we could have "preempted" opps out of game.

 

Who could have guessed this? :)

[jtfanclub]

It's funny how things happen. If I had bid 3♠ over 2♠, South would pass and pard may or may not have bid 4♠. In either case, North would surely pass and score +200 to +400 with the heart game on.

Interesting.

 

I know that this is for Precision, and not SAYC, but in my version we use 2♠ to show a minimum hand with 5 or a trash hand* with 6 spades, and 3♠ for minimum but non-trash hands with 6 spades. So our auction would go 1♠-1NT-3♠-P. Makes it very difficult for the opponents to interfere, not least because after 1♠-1NT-2♠-P responder could easily have a 10 count with a doubleton spade. No reason to keep looking when partner has shown a minimum.

 

I doubt you want to use this exact method, but having opener rebid 3♠ with minimum-ish hands with 6 spades, and bidding 2 spades with some hands with only 5 spades, may really help out your system.

 

*A hand which would not have opened had it been a 5 card suit, eg. AJxxxx KQx xx xx

[skjaeran]

No strong club. Just regular 2/1 with some home-made tweaks. Which makes it even more important to support with support :)

I'm playing a 2/1 light (2/1=GF unless rebid) with a NF 1NT response to 1M. We use 2-way bids in the suit below the opening: 1♠-2♥ and 1♥-2♦ is either a natural 2/1 bid or a weak 3c raise 3-7(8-) and a direct raise is constructive (8+)9-11 (a bad 12 possible). So far this has been working well for us.

I've played that a few times, once it came up and wasn't a big success... Of course, one hand doesn't prove anything, but I'm skeptical :)

 

I also wonder why it's not either natural or a constructive raise? 1M-2M is more preemptive, and with a constructive raise opener will be able to bid more after 1M-2(M-1)

The main reason is that as we play it the by far most frequent sequence will be 1M - 2(M-1) - 2M, leaving more space to explore when partner's got the natural 2/1 hand.

 

Playing it as you propose the bidding will frequently be 1M - 2(M-1) - something, making it harder to distinguish the natural 2/1 hand and at the same time steal useful bidding space.

 

After 1M-2M (constructive) it's also easy for opener to just blast game, invite game or invite slam (which all of them are more frequent than over the weak raise) without having to think about the possible natural strong hand with partner.

[Finch]

2. This wasn't the 1st, but the 3rd time, that I bid a shapely weakish raise via 1NT and got into trouble later. The frequency is high enough for me to be convinced that shapely supp hands must raise directly.

I play in two regular partnerships. One of them plays 2/1, SF 1NT, and constructive raises (and would bid 1NT on your sample hand - I have made a 'constructive raise' on a 5-count, but it was a better hand than this). The other partnership just raises to 2S in the normal way on any hand with support.

 

Both these partnerships have been playing a fair amount of bridge for at least 15 years, and I can't say that either method has seemed superior, as long as responder with the 'pile raise' (as we call it) remains disciplined, and doesn't change their mind later in the auction.