Constructive Raises

[gurgistan]

I have some general questions about constructive raises. I do not play them. I am a recent convert to 2/1.

 

Questions:

1. How common is the use of CR among 2/1 players?

2. How useful are they?

3. If we gain something then we lose something. Is the loss of 3C/3D worth it?

4. Should I be playing CR?

 

Any and all help appreciated. Many thanks.

[bluecalm]

It's not clear to me what do you mean by "constructive raises" in reference to 3m bids. I was pretty sure thread is about playing 1M-2M as more constructive than usual when seeing the topic.

Care to explain ?

[gurgistan]

It's not clear to me what do you mean by "constructive raises" in reference to 3m bids. I was pretty sure thread is about playing 1M-2M as more constructive than usual when seeing the topic.

Care to explain ?

Sorry. I maybe more confused than usual.

 

I read from www.wednesdaygame.com about constructive raises in competition.

 

I took this to be the same thing as constructive raises.

[Ant590]

Yeah, afaik, "constructive raises" means 1M-2M is more meaty than usual, and some of hands not good enough to bid 2M go through the forcing NT.

[bluecalm]

Man, if you want people to comment on this idea of "constructive raises" it would be very useful if you actually describe what that means. Give some examples or something.

It's a bit of a stretch to expect people to go to that website and search for this information there because it's not even clear where to start such search...

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think constructive raises and Bergen raises work reasonably well together.

 

If you play constructive raises, you are basically better placed, if they come up,

e.g. it is more dagerous for them to balance, the range of the single raise is

slightly tightened, which improves accuraccy in game bidding.

And your at an disadvantage, if you have to go via 1NT, since you are loosing

some of the preemptive values of a single raise.

 

We play them, does it mean, you should play them as well? No.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[gwnn]

When you say "constructive raises" but then talk about 3m and last time "Lebensohl doubles" and people say that you are mixing up things, please believe those people. Please don't assume that your terminology is perfect.

 

Please come back here and show us what structure you had in mind. Then we can talk about it.

[raist]

constructive raise usually refers to 1M-2M being "constructive" (usually defined as providing 2 to 2.5 "cover cards"). with less, even with a fit (even with a 4 card fit, particuarly on 4333 hands) you go through f1NT before making a preference back to 2M

personally i prefer non-constructive raises

 

PROS:

 

1. game tries are usually safer. you end up in 3M-1 less often than if the raise is a poor 6 pointer.

2. competitive decisions can be easier to make for partner knowing that your hand is worth a good raise

 

 

CONS:

 

1. you may face some problems in competition if bidding goes

1M - (pass)-1N-(2C)

pass- (3C)-

you had a non-constructive fit. do you bid over 3C?

partner may have a good hand, may not have a good hand. and he was unable to re-evaluate his hand knowing about the existence of a fit.

 

having said that, experience players may not have that much of a problem.

and you can play DBL by opene over 2C to be generally strength showing instead of strictly t/o to "solve" this problem

 

2. with 1M-2M being wide ranging, you tend to end up going down in 3M more often after responder rejects opener's game try

 

3. it has a slightly greater blocking effect. note the sequence in point 1.

if the bidding had gone 1M-(pass)-2M, now LHO can't bid 2C. and may be forced to pass. you could end up buying the hand in 2M when otherwise they could have competed.

 

 

there are probably some more niggling pros and cons but i think these are the major ones

 

i think the advantage of showing a fit asap to allow partner to re-evaluate hand is particularly important when you have opponents who like to compete.

[pooltuna]

Q1) I would think it was standard

 

Q2) you can tell the difference between a 2♠ raise made on xxxx xx Kxxx Qxxx and one made on xxxx xx Kxxx Axxx

 

Q3) I assume you mean do you have to use Bergen. No you don't have to use Bergen. What you do lose is the ability to make a nonforcing 1NT call to 1M

 

Q4) It creates more divisions in your major suit raises which allows for better game making decisions.

[TylerE]

I think it's a very poor treatment. Sure the raise is better defined when it's actually made, but your 1NTF sequences, which are overloaded to begin with, are even worse. Also, in the modern game the 1N bid gets overcalled far more often and the fit may get shut out.

 

Plus, as lightly as many make limit raises these days, whats the actual range? 8 to a bad 9? That seems a terrible waste of a bread-and-butter sequence.

[awm]

In general it's a bad idea to make the same single raise of 1♠ to 2♠ with both:

 

(1) ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xxx

(2) ♠QJx ♥xx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx

 

Virtually all 2/1 players will distinguish these two hands by bidding 1NT (forcing) on the first hand, then correcting to 2♠. Note that this sequence often shows only two card support for spades. Some may also make a three-card limit raise on the second hand.

 

The idea of constructive raises is to take this a step further, bidding 1NT (forcing) even with ordinary single-raise hands such as:

 

(3) ♠Kxx ♥KJxx ♦xx ♣xxxx

 

Hand (2) is a "perfect" constructive raise, which normally shows 8-10 points (i.e. the very best of the single raise hands in standard bidding, combined with the bottom end of the three-card limit raises).

 

In auctions where the opponents pass, constructive raises have the advantage that you get to the three-level less often because the single raise has a tighter range (partner can pass or blast game more often, rather than making lots of game tries). You occasionally miss a game on the less-than-constructive raise because partner has trouble telling your degree of support (i.e. AQJxx xx AKxxx x is a decent game opposite hand 3, but not worth another call after 1♠-1N-2♦-2♠ which is often only doubleton support). You also have more informative sequences on some hands which help opponents on lead (for example AQJxx AQ KJxx xx was always going to game opposite hand (3), but standard raises get you 1♠-2♠-4♠ whereas constructive raises yield the more informative 1♠-1N-2♦-2♠-2N-4♠ sequence where opener's second suit is known to the defense, making a helpful diamond lead much less likely).

 

The bigger advantages/disadvantages from constructive raises come in competitive auctions. It's possible to undercompete a hand because you don't know about your fit right away (i.e. 1♠-P-1N-3♣ and it's not clear who should bid to 3♠ when opener has six spades and a minimum and responder has a three-card "less than constructive" raise). You also lose a bit because you let them in cheaper (for example there may be hands that bid 2♦ for the lead after 1♠-P-1N, but would pass after 1♠-P-2♠ rather than enter at the three-level). You do get a bit back because opponents do not know your degree of fit (for example people jump in aggressively after 1♥-P-2♥ because they know you have a fit, and there may be hands that would bid there but pass after 1♥-P-1N-P-2m-P-2♥ because the latter sequence could be a 7-card fit quite easily). You also win some and lose some on the constructive raise; for example after 1♠-P-2♠-3♦, opener can penalty double more aggressively because he knows partner has a good hand, whereas playing standard raises he may be afraid to find partner with garbage. Of course, opponents might also stay out of the bidding after the constructive raise on hands where they would jump in when responder could be weaker, which swings some penalties the other way.

 

Personally I don't like constructive raises as a method, although I still (of course) bid 1NT forcing on hand (1). They certainly have their merits however.

[pooltuna]

In general it's a bad idea to make the same single raise of 1♠ to 2♠ with both:

 

(1) ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xxx

(2) ♠QJx ♥xx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx

 

Virtually all 2/1 players will distinguish these two hands by bidding 1NT (forcing) on the first hand, then correcting to 2♠. Note that this sequence often shows only two card support for spades. Some may also make a three-card limit raise on the second hand.

 

The idea of constructive raises is to take this a step further, bidding 1NT (forcing) even with ordinary single-raise hands such as:

 

(3) ♠Kxx ♥KJxx ♦xx ♣xxxx

 

[snip]

well IMO hand 1 should go thru forcing 1NT. Hand 2 meets my definition of a LR while Hand 3 meets my definition of a constructive raise.

[kgr]

Hi,

 

I think constructive raises and Bergen raises work reasonably well together.

 

If you play constructive raises, you are basically better placed, if they come up,

e.g. it is more dagerous for them to balance, the range of the single raise is

slightly tightened, which improves accuraccy in game bidding.

And your at an disadvantage, if you have to go via 1NT, since you are loosing

some of the preemptive values of a single raise.

 

We play them, does it mean, you should play them as well? No.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I underlined part of the quoted text on which I want to comment.

I play constructive raise and weak raises go via a non-forcing 1NT.

I got this system from a better player and his idea is that 1NT is more preemptive then 2M.

...But I don't play 2/1

[Stephen Tu]

When you say "constructive raises" but then talk about 3m and last time "Lebensohl doubles" and people say that you are mixing up things, please believe those people. Please don't assume that your terminology is perfect.

 

Please come back here and show us what structure you had in mind. Then we can talk about it.

So the site OP mentions is basically advocating jump shifts to 3c/3d in competitive sequences both as mixed raises after partner's major suit opening or overcall, as opposed to using them as fit-showing jumps or natural which would be more common. One promises shortness, the other denies. so 1h-(1s)-3c/3d, 1h-(dbl)-3c/3d, (1d)-1h-(p)-3c/3d, etc. In situations where only one jump is available, only one mixed raise, e.g. 1h-(2c)-3d = mixed.

 

An unusual treatment, I haven't seen people really using this, doesn't seem totally unplayable.

 

So gurgistan, try to link directly to the site in question or give example bidding sequences, because it is clear that you don't have mastery of bridge jargon.

[Siegmund]

OP was referring to this page describing 'constructive raises in competition' - yes, a Bergenesque use of 3C and 3D as 4-card raises showing and denying a singleton.

 

It's an idea I personally quite like -- in uncontested auctions, some years ago I switched from 'textbook Bergen' to a system where 1H-2S showed a 7-10 raise with an undisclosed singleton and 1H-3C showed a 7-10 4-card raise denying a singleton.

 

That said, I have met exactly one person who asked me to play them with him. (We did, and it never came up. I DID talk him into playing them not-in-competition as an extension of regular Bergen.)

 

I consider them a sound idea, better than no agreement at all, and better than weak jumps - but perhaps not so good as fit-jumps or mini-splinters.

 

(And, forum folk, it's quite possible to learn 2/1 in certain parts of the country without ever having heard of 1M-2M constructive.)

[helene_t]

Man, if you want people to comment on this idea of "constructive raises" it would be very useful if you actually describe what that means. Give some examples or something.

It's a bit of a stretch to expect people to go to that website and search for this information there because it's not even clear where to start such search...

this

[bucky]

In general it's a bad idea to make the same single raise of 1♠ to 2♠ with both:

 

(1) ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xxx

(2) ♠QJx ♥xx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx

 

Virtually all 2/1 players will distinguish these two hands by bidding 1NT (forcing) on the first hand, then correcting to 2♠. Note that this sequence often shows only two card support for spades. Some may also make a three-card limit raise on the second hand.

 

The idea of constructive raises is to take this a step further, bidding 1NT (forcing) even with ordinary single-raise hands such as:

 

(3) ♠Kxx ♥KJxx ♦xx ♣xxxx

 

Hand (2) is a "perfect" constructive raise, which normally shows 8-10 points (i.e. the very best of the single raise hands in standard bidding, combined with the bottom end of the three-card limit raises).

 

In auctions where the opponents pass, constructive raises have the advantage that you get to the three-level less often because the single raise has a tighter range (partner can pass or blast game more often, rather than making lots of game tries). You occasionally miss a game on the less-than-constructive raise because partner has trouble telling your degree of support (i.e. AQJxx xx AKxxx x is a decent game opposite hand 3, but not worth another call after 1♠-1N-2♦-2♠ which is often only doubleton support). You also have more informative sequences on some hands which help opponents on lead (for example AQJxx AQ KJxx xx was always going to game opposite hand (3), but standard raises get you 1♠-2♠-4♠ whereas constructive raises yield the more informative 1♠-1N-2♦-2♠-2N-4♠ sequence where opener's second suit is known to the defense, making a helpful diamond lead much less likely).

 

The bigger advantages/disadvantages from constructive raises come in competitive auctions. It's possible to undercompete a hand because you don't know about your fit right away (i.e. 1♠-P-1N-3♣ and it's not clear who should bid to 3♠ when opener has six spades and a minimum and responder has a three-card "less than constructive" raise). You also lose a bit because you let them in cheaper (for example there may be hands that bid 2♦ for the lead after 1♠-P-1N, but would pass after 1♠-P-2♠ rather than enter at the three-level). You do get a bit back because opponents do not know your degree of fit (for example people jump in aggressively after 1♥-P-2♥ because they know you have a fit, and there may be hands that would bid there but pass after 1♥-P-1N-P-2m-P-2♥ because the latter sequence could be a 7-card fit quite easily). You also win some and lose some on the constructive raise; for example after 1♠-P-2♠-3♦, opener can penalty double more aggressively because he knows partner has a good hand, whereas playing standard raises he may be afraid to find partner with garbage. Of course, opponents might also stay out of the bidding after the constructive raise on hands where they would jump in when responder could be weaker, which swings some penalties the other way.

 

Personally I don't like constructive raises as a method, although I still (of course) bid 1NT forcing on hand (1). They certainly have their merits however.

Good write-up.

[bucky]

In general it's a bad idea to make the same single raise of 1♠ to 2♠ with both:

 

(1) ♠Jxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xxx

(2) ♠QJx ♥xx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx

 

Virtually all 2/1 players will distinguish these two hands by bidding 1NT (forcing) on the first hand, then correcting to 2♠. Note that this sequence often shows only two card support for spades. Some may also make a three-card limit raise on the second hand.

 

The idea of constructive raises is to take this a step further, bidding 1NT (forcing) even with ordinary single-raise hands such as:

 

(3) ♠Kxx ♥KJxx ♦xx ♣xxxx

 

[snip]

well IMO hand 1 should go thru forcing 1NT. Hand 2 meets my definition of a LR while Hand 3 meets my definition of a constructive raise.

That is pretty standard (although the limit raise with hand 2 is borderline). Many people who are religious on "constructive raise" would go through 1NT with hand (3) as well, and make a constructive 2♠ raise on hand (2). As a result, 1NT becomes more overloaded, but 2M and limit raise hands are more narrowly defined. I personally think this treatment is somewhat inefficient, because the narrowing of limit raise has diminishing return, while the downside of further overloading 1NT cannot be ignored.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I think constructive raises and Bergen raises work reasonably well together.

 

If you play constructive raises, you are basically better placed, if they come up,

e.g. it is more dagerous for them to balance, the range of the single raise is

slightly tightened, which improves accuraccy in game bidding.

And your at an disadvantage, if you have to go via 1NT, since you are loosing

some of the preemptive values of a single raise.

 

We play them, does it mean, you should play them as well? No.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

I underlined part of the quoted text on which I want to comment.

I play constructive raise and weak raises go via a non-forcing 1NT.

I got this system from a better player and his idea is that 1NT is more preemptive then 2M.

...But I don't play 2/1

As always, there is more to it, than can be pressed in a single sentence.

 

If you play forcing NT, you will also have a preemption, that you dont have,

if you happen to play a non forcing NT response, because you can lower the

range, you can response with 0HCP, assuming you have shape compensation.

 

And the inclusion of inv. strength, maybe even game forcing values, which felt

out of favor or was never really in favor, makes an intervention over 1NT more

dangerous, than an intervention after opponents bid and raised.

But than the counter argument is also, playing forcing NT assures the opponents,

that they get another round of bidding, so they dont need to get in at once.

 

All put together: play them, and find out, if they work for you (or not).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe