single raise on Parter's 1M open in 2/1

[precpj]

Holding 3 card major trump and a 6-9 total support points, I have always bid 2M ( a single raise) when partner opens or overcall a Major( 1M) . Incidentally, no difference in either 2/1 or SAYC. This bidding sequence fits very well with Bergen Raises; of course, I self alert on online games and my partner alerts in face to face bridge.

 

yesterday on BBO Main bridge club , i casually pointed out that my 1st time pick up partner owed me a 2h bid when she responded 1NT with her holding K3 JXX T9 QT98XX, after I, as delaer, opened 1H. ( of course, after the play was over ) . The dutch Host insisted 1NT was 100 % correct and I was wrong and demanded an apology to my partner.. BBOers I checked so far all agreed 2H is THE call until one european Star anwered me : in 2/1 that hand is too weak for 1H 2H response. I am deeply puzzled and look foryou to share your 2/1 expereince. Can this be possible: people on european continent play 1H 2H differently and ( dutch host claims) many 2/1 books ( doublt many around anyway) clearly specify 1NT is THE BID for holding the above hand?

 

precpj

[jtfanclub]

Meh.

 

With K3 Jxx T9x QT98x I would bid 1NT playing 2/1 with no other agreements. I would expect partner to be playing constructive raises, and I just don't see it here.

 

With the actual hand, I wanna protect my king, I have an intermediate trump honor, I have a 6 card suit with intermediates, and I have two suits I can ruff in. I'd probably upgrade to 2♥. But I believe that 1NT is the book bid.

 

http://www.bridgehands.com/B/Bergen_Raise.htm

 

I think this is fairly standard.

[brianshark]

There is a variation whereby a bad simple raise with 3 card support (4-7 pts or so) can be lumped into the 1NT bid (and bid as if it were 6-9 with doubleton support) in which case the direct raise is more constructive with a range of 8-10 or so.

 

While the categorisation of standard bids is never universal, in Bridge World Standard 2001 it does indeed say that a direct raise is more constructive and weaker single raises can go through 1NT. So I guess that makes it standard 2/1 by the most authoritive source I can think of. I don't think it is standard in SAYC though.

[kenrexford]

1NT looks right to me also.

 

Although the description of the commentary sounds a bit abrupt, I think that it is actually dead-on. If you are playing 2/1 GF, then you should be somewhat familiar with 2/1 GF theory and with the variations that some play before you comment on partner's bid in that precise manner.

 

There is a wild difference between "I think you owe me a 2♥ raise" and "Oh -- you play constructive raises; did not know that."

 

You end up sounding a bit ignorant when you critique a bid that has a sizable following, and probably an expert majority following, as if providing a lesson.

 

I mean, look at partner's hand. Do you think partner missed the fact that they had 3-card support for your hearts? Do you think that partner simply over-rode your heart suit because they thought you were a poor declarer? Or, did you think that maybe they thought 1NT was the right call?

 

Now, in a forum, however, feel free to call people who bid this way idiotic! LOL Never back down from a reasoned argument and good hyperbole.

[blackshoe]

Constructive raises are not standard.

[jillybean]

SAYC 2♥

2/1 1nt

 

I think you’re always treading on thin ice giving even the best intended advice to a pickup partner. You need to create some trust and rapport before commenting on each others bidding, that goes both ways.

[gwnn]

SAYC 2♥

2/1 1NT or 2♥ :) I prefer not to play constructive raises, btw, I only bid 1NT on hands that SAYC passes, i.e. xx xxx KJxx xxxx (with support, yuck!! :( ).

[brianshark]

Which means you DO play constructive raises, you've just lowered the threshhold.

[RichMor]

precpj wrote

<<

Holding 3 card major trump and a 6-9 total support points, I have always bid 2M ( a single raise) when partner opens or overcall a Major( 1M) . Incidentally, no difference in either 2/1 or SAYC.

>>

 

IMO that is not true. There is a difference between SAYC and 2/1. In SAYC a 1NT response to 1M is not forcing. In 2/1 it is. (or is 'semi-forcing' as some play)

 

So responder can bid 1NT forcing in 2/1 and take a preference to opener's major when holding a weak hand with 3-card support. This allows a direct raise with a better than minimum hand.

 

In SAYC responder should raise with 3-card support instead of responding 1NT.

[kgr]

I'm surprised that not everybody say that constructive raises are standard. Probably caused by 2/1 articles I read where they were always included.

Question:

- Are constructive raises still played by a passed hand?

- Is 1NT also forcing with a passed hand?

[Apollo81]

The standard approach with 3-card support is to normally raise, but bid 1NT followed by 2M if you have a very poor hand. The effect of doing this will be that partner will be less likely to make a game try.

 

Thus I'd say 7-10 total support points (including the OP hand) should raise directly, and hands with 5-6 total support points should start with a forcing notrump.

 

IMO this is not the same as constructive raises.

[brianshark]

1. I don't see why not.

2. In theory it shouldn't be forcing, just like a normal 1/1 response or 2/1 response by a passed hand is passable. Playing with any expert, I would have no problem passing a "forcing?" 1NT by a passed hand with a balanced minimum. Having said that, GIB plays 1NT as forcing even by a passed hand.

[helene_t]

- Are constructive raises still played by a passed hand?

- Is 1NT also forcing with a passed hand?

No to both.

 

A passed hand with 3-card support and 10-11 points can use Drury. So 2M becomes 6-9.

[brianshark]

Helene: Surely a constructive raise is always lower than invite strength in any seat? That is, a limit raise (which must use drury in 3/4 seat) is 11-12, a constructive raise is 8-10 and the weaker raise is 5-7.

[kenrexford]

Helene: Surely a constructive raise is always lower than invite strength in any seat? That is, a limit raise (which must use drury in 3/4 seat) is 11-12, a constructive raise is 8-10 and the weaker raise is 5-7.

Heck, most people I know open most 11-12 HCP hands. Thus, the observation seems right -- Drury is the constructive raise.

[precpj]

Since I took on bridge about 49 years ago, I have always taken this game as a way to learn and minimize errors.

 

Indeed I was NOT aware of the contructive raise convention is played by some 2/1 gamers when doing 1M 2M raise. The more i think aobut the constructve raise the more curious I got to find out how popular the star and real expert circles play out the single raise !M 2M, I have polled many of them, this is what I found:

 

1. European communities: about 40 % on 1H 1NT page, the rest are 1H 2H citing similar reasons they friends on this side of ocean why they respond 2h

 

2. Repliers from Europe: about 90 % said 2H ; 2 out of high teens so far said 1nt ; quoting some of their reasons:

 

" When in doubt, support with support " guess you know who said it :)

" It is nice to differentiate between the 3 card support and the 2 cards prefence "

" constructive raise is wthe worst convention ever concocted "

" be careful of your comment at the table ..many (XXXXXs) take offense" by 2 experts...

" 2h, when no agreement was in place .."

3. Birdge world standard is probably the reason why constructive raise is popular outside north america.

 

4. on one website, constructive raise is alertalbe, on the other web, Elvis is still Alive ... just trying to be funnny. I will ask ACBL on the "alertable "

 

btw, I would appreciate if anybody can point out constructive raise is in action in bbo viewgraph presentation.. I watch a lof of JEC nighlty show with Stars, I simply dont recall Cayne ever bid 1nt with 6-9 total point with 3 card Major trump support

 

I am here to share points fellow bridge lovers, spent a lot of time on this subject , no intention to bring about any offense or intent to lecture nobody or never had any intention to lecture anybody when jokingly bringing up bididng play comments at social table just mean to have better bridge

 

PJ

[EricK]

I don't know if this is standard, but one way of looking at it is that if there is no game try which you would accept, then it is safer to go via 1NT to discourage partner from making a game try; but if there is one or more game tries you would accept, it is dangerous to avoid an immediate raise in case partner has the game try you would accept.

[kenrexford]

I watch a lof of JEC nighlty show with Stars, I simply dont recall Cayne ever bid 1nt with 6-9 total point with 3 card Major trump support

Part of "6-9" is in the contructive or semi-constructive raise range, so I suppose you would miss that.

 

The better question is whether you see any sequences where there is no intervention (1M-P-?) and Responder has exactly three-card support with about one cover. Something like Kxx-xxx-Jxxx-xxx to Kxx-xx-Jxxx-Qxxx. The latter might be just enough for a semi-constructive raise because of the doubleton and the side Queen, but not quite enough for a full constructive raise. If you see these hands coming up, with 2M calls, in a normal 2/1 system, with enough frequency to determine general trends and partnership-specific trends, you will accomplish two things.

 

First, you will get a better assessment of expert trends in this area.

 

Second, you will hopefully recognize that you watch others play bridge way too much.

[jdonn]

All this debate is scary, this is a normal 2♥ bid. You can bid 1NT first on a hand where you are classically to weak to respond, but it's silly to do so on a hand that is just good enough for a raise by normal standards. This is one of those cases, like raising a major suit response with three trumps, where forums has evolved its own standard that is not normal bridge.

[precpj]

in my second write up " replies from Europe" should be " Replies from OUTside Europe or from North America " :blink:

[precpj]

I would like to express gratitude to all of you as well as many known experts, Mike Lawrence, Eric Kokish, Patrick Huang for taking time to answer my emails. I have urged the dutch Host at the BBO table to view the subject here. To my very surprise, he accused me for making up the conclusion; I even offer him to show the replies .. Well, Life is too short to argue more with him on this subject. After all, adding 1st dutchman into my enemy list.

 

Precpj

[kenrexford]

All this debate is scary, this is a normal 2♥ bid. You can bid 1NT first on a hand where you are classically to weak to respond, but it's silly to do so on a hand that is just good enough for a raise by normal standards. This is one of those cases, like raising a major suit response with three trumps, where forums has evolved its own standard that is not normal bridge.

???

 

This is a classic 1NT by standards that have been well-established before bridge forums existed. The fact that you apparently prefer a different approach does not make this silly. It makes this a matter of style.

[jdonn]

All this debate is scary, this is a normal 2♥ bid. You can bid 1NT first on a hand where you are classically to weak to respond, but it's silly to do so on a hand that is just good enough for a raise by normal standards. This is one of those cases, like raising a major suit response with three trumps, where forums has evolved its own standard that is not normal bridge.

???

 

This is a classic 1NT by standards that have been well-established before bridge forums existed. The fact that you apparently prefer a different approach does not make this silly. It makes this a matter of style.

Are those standards that you refer to standard? (same word, different meaning. note in my passage that you quoted where I used the word "standard" in the last sentence, I mean it as the second 'standard' above, not the first.)

 

6-9 for a single raise is standard. Whether counting distribution or not, this hand has 6. Think it's a bad bid if you want, count your hand differently if you want, make different agreements like constructive raises if you want, but 2♥ is the standard response on the given hand.

[cherdano]

I read in many places (before I ever got to BBF) that playing "constructive raises (8-10)" is a standard part of 2/1. I have rarely seen anyone play it.

[rbforster]

I read in many places (before I ever got to BBF) that playing "constructive raises (8-10)" is a standard part of 2/1. I have rarely seen anyone play it.

One more vote against constructive raises - I doubt it's "standard" and I don't even know anyone who plays them. 1H-2H on 6-9 and 3 cards playing Bergen is pretty much the expected hand. You might even have a minimum flat 4 card raise if you aren't willing to push to the 3 level.