[firmit]

I must have missed something - If I have support, I show support - 2♠.

[jdonn]

mike777, on Feb 9 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

Is passing one spade really that bad

Yes

Quote

and if so why?

We could easily have game

[Free]

clear 1NT

[hrothgar]

smyk, on Feb 9 2008, 08:14 PM, said:

The answer depends on how you fromulate the question, like in Clinton's what "is" is.
What is "vanilla 2/1" ?

- 2♠ if "vanilla 2/1" is vanilla (no Constructive Major Raises)
- 1NT if "vanilla 2/1" is not vanilla (includes Constructive Major Raises)

I'm going to refer back to my original email at the start of our discussion about this hand.

1. I don't play "classic" constructive raises. I certainly don't require a good eight to bad 10 HCPs to raise a 1M opening to 2M.

2. I do believe that there is a set of hands with 3 card support that are too weak for an immediate raise of opener's major but too strong to pass. These hands start with a forcing NT response.

3. I believe that this hand is a representative member of this set

It is my belief that most strong players agree about my second point. I'm quite certain that folks will differ about the boundary between a forcing NT and an immediate 2M. However, the basic principle stands.

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

[P_Marlowe]

1 NT.

... and yes it is clear cut, as long as you play constructive raises,
as I do, ... not sure, if this is part of vanilla 2/1.
If you dont play construct. raises, 2S is better than 1NT, ... because
if you bid 1NT wont give you primary support.

It simply is a matter of partnership agreement,

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: Having read Justins post, and if not playing constructive raises,
I can see myself bidding 1NT with a 4333 shape, but not with this one,
ruffing values, you have a king, Q109 in a side suit.
The example Justin gave, is more like a semi psych.

[inquiry]

Can't believe nobody got it right.. my poison is botulinal neurotoxin, 1ng/kg is lethal.

This hand, playing vanilla 2/1 I respond 1NT. This is one reason I don't like vanilla 2/1, and use a 2♣ response to a major as either constructive to limit raise, or a balanced hand with very good 9 or more pts (strong balanced lack 3 card major support), or true 2/1 GF with 5+ clubs.

[Cascade]

I have no idea exactly where the boundaries of "vanilla 2/1" are.

I wouldn't want to play a system where I cannot immediately raise spades.

2♠

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Feb 9 2008, 04:50 PM, said:

mike777, on Feb 9 2008, 04:11 PM, said:

Is passing one spade really that bad

Yes

Quote

and if so why?

We could easily have game

With full knowledge that I am unfairly reading the wrong specifics out of an over-generalized comment, I would nonetheless respond "so what?" because of a recent disaster based upon abuse of this principle.

More precisely, so what if "we might have game?" The fact that we might have game seems to be too much of a reason to overbid hands. I'm not herein passing judgment on the specific problem provided, but I would note that making a call just because "we might have game" jeopardizes being in game on too many hands where we do not have a chance in Hell of making game. Furthermore, passing in a given situation does not always remove all chances of reaching game, as auctions might continue.

During the last tournament, two deals struck me as noteworthy on this subject.

On the one, partner made a 1NT forcing call because he held four spades with me (to the Jack) and otherwise a P.O.C. He held, if I recall correctly, something like ♠J9xx ♥Jxx ♦9xx ♣Qxx. My hand was something like ♠AKxxx ♥A10 ♦AK8x ♣xx. After 1♠-P-1NT-P-?, I had a problem. I posted this problem here, and a lot of votes favored 3♥ as the practical bid. That was my selection. I ended up in 4♠, of course. No prayer.

Another deal much later. I held some broken-up mess that was so messy that I cannot recall the exact hand right off. I know that I held KJ9xx in hearts, opposite partner's xxxx. I held the stiff club Queen, opposite partner's J9xx. I held two small spades, opposite AJ10. And my diamonds were AKxxx opposite Qx. So, after thinking out loud, I held ♠xx ♥KJ9xx ♦AKxxx ♣Q. Partner held ♠AJ10 ♥xxxx ♦Qx ♣J9xx. Anyway, I opened 1♥, raised to 2♥. My hand was promising, but I passed. LHO doubled in balancing seat, redoubled by partner. This was just enough encouragement to pop in 3♦, and 4♥ was found. Because of the info received, and the defense, I placed LHO with stiff Ace of hearts correctly and picked up ten tricks on the nose.

Perhaps much for an innocent comment, and perhaps a mostly accurate one.

[mikestar]

I prefer 2♠ but for me it is close. I say this agreeing with Max Hardy on constructive raises.

Pros for suit play: heart suit, diamond doubleton.
Cons for suit play: three lousy trumps, soft clubs.

For me, swap K♥ or x♠ with Q♣ and it ceases to be close.

[mikestar]

inquiry, on Feb 10 2008, 01:15 AM, said:

Can't believe nobody got it right.. my poison is botulinal neurotoxin, 1ng/kg is lethal.

So right! It's been stated that the toxin in a single botulism infected can could kill every person on Earth if it could be optimally distributed. Can't beat that.

[benlessard]

Whatever method you like from opener point of view 1M--2M is much more encouraging then 1M--1Nt. So if you play 1Nt forcing then from an uncontested bidding point of view its surely make sense to use 1Nt-- followed by a M preference to show a weaker hand with possibly 3 trumps. So its only a range agreement wheiter you called the 2M raise constructive raise or not. Some like to respond quite light so for them 4-6, 7-9 for the direct raise look ok. Me i prefer a 5-7 and 8-10 so for me this hand is a clear 1Nt.

Not playing 1Nt forcing some also prefer to responding 1Nt with subminimum weakish hand instead of raising. The problem with that is that often 1Nt will go down & 2S make or that 1Nt will be a bad MP contract. This is something i dont recommend.

For the rest I agree with pclayton post.

[mikestar]

Jlall, on Feb 9 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

<snip>
With Qxx xx Jxxxx xxx surely if you don't pass you bid 1N.

Surely this hand should pass. The chances of missing a game if you pass is far less than the chance of getting too high if opener has invitational values.

Frankly, I see some merit to a style where Richard's set #2 is treated as if it were empty. Are we ever going to learn to pass bad hands? If not, why are we playing 2/1 instead of Fantunes?