constructive or limit?

[manudude03]

[hv=pc=n&e=sj95hkj6dq75ckt53&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp]133|200[/hv]

 

All vul at IMPs. Pretty standard 2/1, 5542 openings 15-17 NT. A 1NT response is forcing.

We play that 2H shows 7-9. Is this hand downgradable enough to justify a 2H bid?

 

edit following mikeh's reply: 5332 hands in NT range are always opened 1NT. Invite/accept style is heavy invite, accept light.

[mikeh]

[hv=pc=n&e=sj95hkj6dq75ckt53&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp]133|200[/hv]

 

All vul at IMPs. Pretty standard 2/1, 5542 openings 15-17 NT. A 1NT response is forcing.

We play that 2H shows 7-9. Is this hand downgradable enough to justify a 2H bid?

 

Depends: how frequently would partner open 1N with a 5332 hand with a major? If the answer is 'often' then I make the constructive raise. If the answer is 'rarely' then I make the limit raise.

 

I think this hand is right on the cusp. 4333 shape is bad. Lack of any Ace is bad. 2 Kings is good, the heart J is as good a Jack value as you are likely to see, and the club 10 isn't bad either.

 

Another factor would be philosophy re invite-accept. I prefer to be full values for invitational calls, and then I accept unless I have a reason not to accept. Others may prefer to invite aggressively and have opener reject unless he has a reason to accept. I do think it important to understand that as opener I like to upgrade shape once my major is raised, so to a bean-counter I might seem sometimes to be inviting aggressively as opener, but to me that is just valuation, not philosophy.

 

If I played the latter (light invite, heavy accept) style, I would invite. I think it to be a net loser since it gets the partnership to the 3-level more often than the other style does, and the 3-level will be in jeopardy when the combined assets don't justify a game, especially on bad breaks.

 

As it is, all of the factors above make me think that the single raise is best.

[gszes]

The fact that you are playing constructive raises makes this a ton easier.

 

2h

 

If opener has something that resembles 1n (and they open 1h) they will have little

trouble inviting game (unless their hand is overall poor like this one). Too many

negatives to consider a limit raise.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=sj95hkj6dq75ckt53&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1hp]133|200|

 

All vul at IMPs. Pretty standard 2/1, 5542 openings 15-17 NT. A 1NT response is forcing.

We play that 2H shows 7-9. Is this hand downgradable enough to justify a 2H bid?

 

edit following mikeh's reply: 5332 hands in NT range are always opened 1NT. Invite/accept style is heavy invite, accept light.

[/hv]

IMO 2♥ = 10, 1N (followed by 3♥) = 9. Another argument for the simple raise, is that wherever you end up, you are likely to leak less information.

[Winstonm]

2H. Close, but shape is bad and Jxx of spades is nearly worthless. J of heart is only dubious value.

[kuhchung]

i would bid 2H even if not playing constructive raises

[johnu]

2♥ - It would never cross my mind to make a limit raise with only 3 trumps and this flat collection of quacks.

[rmnka447]

2 ♥. A couple unsupported quacks, 9 1/2 loser hand, and bad shape for a ♥ raise make this probably a little less than its HC value.

[neilkaz]

2 ♥. A couple unsupported quacks, 9 1/2 loser hand, and bad shape for a ♥ raise make this probably a little less than its HC value.

And the other guy from IL here agrees with you and tells his partners to NOT give a 3 card limit raise with this hand and to dedect a point when 4333 in support of a suit contract.

 

If they say that they like the T♣ with the K and perhaps I can do something for a chance for another trick in ♠ due to the 9 with the J I point out that they should expect to have a 9 and a 10 with 13 cards and average HCP anyhow. Then I ask where their ace is.

 

This is not 10 support points.

[aguahombre]

2♥, whether defined as constructive or not.

[ggwhiz]

deduct a point when 4333

 

I thought I was the only Neanderthal that still did this. Well I may still be alone in passing 4-triple 12 counts in 1st and 2nd.

[manudude03]

I wasn't expecting a unanimous vote, but I did bid 2H at the table. Partner had Kx QTxxx AJx QJ and passed. The defence never took the ace of spades (it was onside anyway) and blew a diamond trick, so that was +200.

 

edit: hand fixed

[gordontd]

I wasn't expecting a unanimous vote, but I did bid 2H at the table. Partner had Kx QTxxx AQx QJ and passed. The defence never took the ace of spades (it was onside anyway) so that was +200.

You seem to have two ♦Q

[manudude03]

You seem to have two ♦Q

 

Oops, corrected

[aguahombre]

Seems as if the defensive slip allowed you to break even for a probable decent MP result. The leakage from disclosing a constructive raise might have intimidated them into the "unforgivable :rolleyes: " Law violation of never letting the opponents play in a fit at the two-level.

 

Looks like a nice score for 2SX-1 (200) vs your due 170 at matchpoints.