[jillybean]

Hi,

Some play 1M:2M as 8-10 3 card support, others play it showing 5-9 with 3 card support then I assume 1nt/2M always shows 2.

How do you play it, what are the pro's and con's?

Thanks IA

[kenrexford]

I play 1M-2M as semi-constructive. I like it because it gives Opener more confidence as to when to seek an agressive game and when to wisely bow out before leaving the safety of the two-level.

[jillybean]

kenrexford, on Jul 5 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

I play 1M-2M as semi-constructive. I like it because it gives Opener more confidence as to when to seek an agressive game and when to wisely bow out before leaving the safety of the two-level.

Thanks Ken, what does "semi-constructive" look like?

[P_Marlowe]

We play constr. raises.
1NT can include a 4-(-7) raise, a direct raise showes (+7)-(-10).

Putting a weak raise in the forcing NT has the adv. that you make it
harder for 4th seat to enter the auction,
that 2M becomes a little bit more constructive, which increases the
precision of your game bidding a little and makes it more dangerous
for them to reopen, if the auction went 1M - 2M, because now responder
can also sometimes make a XX to show some interest in going for blood.
T/O X of a 1NT bid get more riskier, because 1NT can include 10-12 bal.

The disadv. is, that a direkt raise is more preemptive, that you hide
the 3 card support, and sometimes this is the only thing partner is
interested, and sometimes your side will sell out to 2S or 3m,
T/O X of 1NT get a little less riskier and more frequent, because the chance
that we have a 8 card fit in the major is higher.
And of course you usually cant play 1NT after a 1M opening.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[helene_t]

I like constructive raises. 8-10 is a nice narrow range so we won't end up in difficult 3M contracts too often, and with 10 points there is no 3-level safety.

It comes with a price of course. If you play 1NT as semi-forcing, you can go down in 1NT when you have 5-7 points and 3-card support, and 1NT would make. Also, you can't show your support if opps bid 3m before your second turn.

[LH2650]

Mel Colchamiro has a discussion of constructive raises in his June and July columns in the ACBL Bridge Bulletin.

[Codo]

I play it as 9-11. Works fine so far in the contect of a semiforcing NT.

The pros are that this bid is well defined and partner has a nice ide whether he should bid game or not.
And it is much easier to double them in competetive auctions, because we know that we own more then half of the deck and our fit is just 8 cards long.
It is much trickier for them to compete over 1♥ 1 NT 2m 2♥ as they do not know whether we have a real fit or just a 5-2.

Downsides: 1♥ 1 NT is much less preemptive then 1 ♥ 2 ♥.

[kenrexford]

jillybean2, on Jul 5 2009, 05:10 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jul 5 2009, 02:46 PM, said:

I play 1M-2M as semi-constructive.  I like it because it gives Opener more confidence as to when to seek an agressive game and when to wisely bow out before leaving the safety of the two-level.

Thanks Ken, what does "semi-constructive" look like?

Not garbage.

[Codo]

and not forcing...?

Thanks Ken... this is what Kathryn was looking for...

[kenrexford]

Codo, on Jul 6 2009, 08:13 AM, said:

and not forcing...?

Thanks Ken... this is what Kathryn was looking for...

Wrell, I mean, it's a judgment call. I cannot really say HCP range. It's kind of like, "Will I feel bad if I place this hand on the table after declining an invite?"

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

Here's my own thoughts on the matter

Let's consider the auction

1♠ - (P) - ???

Consider the set of hands with three card spade support

1. I think that there are (clearly) some hands that are too weak for a three card limit raise and too strong to pass. (I hope that this is not controversial)

2. I prefer a style in which some of these hands are shown via and immediate 2♠ bid while others start with a forcing NT and then rebid in Spades.

The tricky part, as always, is trying to come up with a representative set of hands that sit on the cusps between

The 3 card limit raise and the three card "constructive" raise
The three card "constructive" raise and the weak raise to 2M (forcing NT followed by 2♠ or pass)

Consider the following hand:

♠ Axx
♥ Kxxx
♦ QTxx
♣ xx

I think that this is right on the boundary between a constructive raise and a three card limit raise.

Next consider

♠ Kxx
♥ xxxx
♦ Qxxx
♣ xx

To me at least, this hand is right on the boundary between a hand where I'd want to bid an immediate 2♠ and one where I'd want to start with a forcing NT.

Finally, consider

♠ Qxx
♥ xxxx
♦ xxxx
♣ Kx

Here's a hand where I don't think I cold stomache a pass, however, I'd really prefer not to make an immediate 2♠ response.

[mikeh]

Hi Kathryn

I play that a single raise is semi-constructive.. which is defined, in my view, as a hand that would accept at least one game try.... so, I would accept at least one of the 3 help suit tries he has available... we also play, in one partnership, short suit tries after a relay by opener, but that's another story. For now... consider the single raise as good 7 to poor 10.

So with lesser strength but 3 card support, we have to go through 1N.

We do play a form of BART... which allows us, after 1M 1N 2♣ to distinguish between a preference with 2 card support and 8-10 hcp, otoh, and, oto, a hand with 2 or 3 card support and fewer than 8 hcp. But that isn't essential to the method.

Pros:

A soft 4333 10 count is not a limit raise, as far as I am concerned, so that a single raise, without this type of structure, would range from a 5 count to a soft 10.. that range is so wide that opener cannot hope to be very accurate in game bidding or game tries. We will miss some decent games, and overbid to the 3 level on other hands.

Also, and this is non-trivial, the more that opener has to describe his hand, via a game try, the easier the defence. And, when responder has a wide range, the number of hands on which opener can safely blast game is smaller than when responder promises a higher minimum holding.

Accordingly, when the bid comes up.... the semi-constructive or the purely constructive (as I play in one partnership), game/no-game decisons are easier and often less informative to the opps.

The downside: and many players tend to ignore this, but it is real:

After 1M [P] 1N... 4th chair has an easy entry into the auction at the 2-level, in a suit below our major.

In essence, we are giving up almost a full level of bidding space.. and an extra round of bidding, since we will take two rounds of bidding to reach 2M, when we could have got there in one round. This latter factor is not really important... it is quite rare for the opps to have a hand on which they couldn't move over 1N but could after we belatedly get to 2M the next round. The lack of the immediate preemptive raise, however, is a real issue on many hands.

Consider: [1♠] P [2♠] 3♥.... is this a long, long heart suit with not much else or a 16 count with a 6 card suit? After [1♠] P 1N.... we'd have more idea (some hands would jump to 3♥, others would double and then bid hearts, etc) and we'd have more room to explore game... we have the 3-level available ourselves... but if he were forced, by a single raise, to bid 3♥ or pass, then we are guessing to a much greater degree.

All told, and probably because I and my serious partners are imp oriented, we prefer the increased game-bidding power of the semi- or flat-out constructive raise structure.

[kenrexford]

I can actually add another vague something to the mix. A semi-constructive raise, for me, is a hand where partner probably will be pleased if he makes a practical game try of just bidding game. There are a lot of hands where you have a five-loser hand with shape and just blast game, hoping the opponents cannot find the defense if it exists.

[jdonn]

I like constructive raises although I don't think they are totally necessary. I would contrast as follows, showing that I think it's barely more than a 1 point difference.

Regular raises:
1NT then preference with three card support: Up to a bad 6
Direct raise: 6 to a bad 10

Constructive raises: Up to an average 7
Direct raise: 8 to a bad 11

It's nice to stay a little lower sometimes with 6, 7, 10, and 11 in case that's all you can make. It's also nice, as I think Ken is saying, that it lets opener blast game more often which makes the defense difficult. The downside is on the preference auction, which is more frequent and thus less well defined. It's also less preemptive, although I know that there are many times 1NT keeps the opponents out better than a raise since they don't know you have a fit.

[awm]

I prefer a wide-ranging single raise. Of course, there are still some hands for 1NT...2M on three card support, like jdonn says the 0-bad 6 hands.

A couple issues that others haven't mentioned:

(1) Sometimes opponents are bidding either way, but partner has a decision to make. For example over 1♥-Pass-2♥-2♠, partner can usually decide whether to bid three hearts. This becomes much harder if we originally bid 1NT and we had the auction 1♥-Pass-1NT-2♠, since opener has no idea of the heart fit and bidding 3♥ here would presumably show some extras. To give another one, say opener has a decent two-suiter in competition. He is bidding either way, but after 1♥-Pass-1NT-2♠-3♣, he may well give up on a hand that makes game after our 3♥ correction (which could be a misfit).

(2) Sometimes there are issues in uncontested auctions when opener jump-shifts. Say we have the auction 1♥-Pass-1NT-Pass-3♦-Pass. We would like to be able to distinguish between the three card limit raise (good slam prospects opposite opener's game force), the three-card less than constructive raise (really just want to play 4♥), and the doubleton preference. Yet we have only two ways to bid hearts here, and one of them consumes all our space below game.

[skjaeran]

In a couple of partnerships I play the direct raise as 9-11 with 3-card support. Some 8-counts are upgraded and a few 12-counts downgraded. We also raise with some 4333 hands with 4-card support that we evaluate as not fitting for a Bergen raise.

However, we don't use a forcing 1NT. Not being able to play in 1NT is too costly when playing MP, IMO. And we prefer to have a single system.

What we do is to have a 2-way 2/1 response, showing either a natural 2/1 or a weak (3-8) raise. In one partnership this is 1♠-2♥/1♥-2♦ (2 in the suit directly below the opening suit), in one partnership this is 1M-2♦. This isn't very hard to implement.