[jillybean]

---

2/1 forcing nt, constructive raises.

[gwnn]

Normally when people play constructive raises it means something like

1S-1NT includes 5-7 hcp raises (among many other hands)
1S-2S is a 8-10 raise
1S-1NT, 2x-3S, or some other sequence is a limit raise (11-12, say)

If this is what you play, I would definitely go for the limit raise (although I wouldn't be upset if my p forced to game with this hand).

A small minority plays it differently:
1S-1NT includes 5-7 (among many others)
1S-2S is 8-11
thereby eliminating the limit raises altogether. However, I think this is misguided, since you will miss a bunch of games that club simpletons find.

My guess is based on the thread subtitle that you and your partner are currently in the minority above, so in that case I would GF.

[Fluffy]

2♥+4♠ can't see that option on the poll.

[jillybean]

 gwnn, on 2012-December-28, 14:33, said:

My guess is based on the thread subtitle that you and your partner are currently in the minority above, so in that case I would GF.

Ah, no we do play the limit raise - I will modify the poll.

[billw55]

It depends on partner's opening style. If he often holds a routine 11 count, I don't think this is a game force.

[wyman]

wish we were playing mini-splinters

Limit or GF it's really close. I think I want to be in 4S here most of the time, but I don't object to a limit raise. I do object to a constructive raise, though.

[neilkaz]

 billw55, on 2012-December-28, 14:49, said:

It depends on partner's opening style. If he often holds a routine 11 count, I don't think this is a game force.

Just a 3 card limit raise for me.

If I FG with 2H then over 2NT I want to jump to 4S to show a dead min and not encourage PD with 3S...or is that fast arrival not the style any more?

[Lord Molyb]

1NT --> 3♠
Not enough to force.

[mike777]

I will try `1nt sf
If pard passes we should not be too high.(Jxxxx..Jx...AKx..QJx or so)
If pard rebids 2c then 3s.
If pard rebids 2d then 4s.
If pard rebids 2s then 4s.

[nigel_k]

I know people open lighter than they used to, but surely this is better than a limit raise?

[CSGibson]

 nigel_k, on 2012-December-28, 16:52, said:

I know people open lighter than they used to, but surely this is better than a limit raise?

It depends. If, over a forcing NT, partner responds 2♣, I'm happy calling this a limit raise. If 2♦, I will rebid 4♠. If 2♥, I will rebid 4♥. If partner responds 2♠, then I think 3♠ is still probably right, but would not object if people bid 4.

[aguahombre]

The poll rejects my contribution; maybe because I can't answer part two, since unless I sat in for an ill player who had bid 2H, it is not applicable.

[MrAce]

2♥ then 4♠ for me in imps. I would definetely not mess with missing the game at imps when my pd opens 1♠ and i hold this. I have to admit i would not disagree with anyone who chooses limit raise.

At mp i would probably go with limnit raise, but anyway, as Wyman said it is close decision both at mp and imp.

Constructive raise is a joke imo.

[mycroft]

The old-fashioned 2/1, where only 1M-p-2m was a GF, was for hands like this one. 2♥ 10+, 5+ hearts shows this hand nicely - and it was because of hands like this that that decision was made. It's basically gone away, as the benefits of not being in a "show extras to set GF", rather than "show extras for slam" on the *rest* of the 1♠-2♥ hands overweighs it, but it does mean that on this hand, the boring old "2/1 promises a rebid" Standard is ahead.

Having said that, I'm with CSGibson (and wishing I didn't need 4 trump to make a limit splinter).

[blackshoe]

IIRC, Hardy suggested 1♠-3♣ (9+ to 11- HCP, 3 or 4 trumps, if 3, side shortage); 3♦ (how many trumps?)-4♣ (3 trumps, club shortage).

[lycier]

 blackshoe, on 2012-December-31, 16:45, said:

IIRC, Hardy suggested 1♠-3♣ (9+ to 11- HCP, 3 or 4 trumps, if 3, side shortage); 3♦ (how many trumps?)-4♣ (3 trumps, club shortage).

I agree your proposal.These are a series of Hardy Raises.
3♣=good limited raise with 9-11p and 3-4 trumps support (if 3,side shortage).
then opener rebid 3♦ show mathe ask bid.responder answer at below:
1-rebid 3♥ show 4 trumps without any side shortage.
2-rebid other suit show singleton.

[aguahombre]

Eventually everyone will catch up to the modern paradox, and not treat 9 support points as invitational values. Well, not the Roth/Stone and Fantunes people, but the rest of the world.

[RSClyde]

Only a limit raise but, if I had a little more I would game force with 2♣/2♦, not 2♥. I don't want to be in hearts as I'm now taking the ruffs in the wrong hand: though with those diamonds it may not matter. And heart/spade auctions can be ambiguous once hearts is raised.

[mgoetze]

You need to include an "abstain" option on stuff like part 2 of this poll, also 4♠ might have been a viable option.

 aguahombre, on 2013-January-01, 02:56, said:

Eventually everyone will catch up to the modern paradox, and not treat 9 support points as invitational values. Well, not the Roth/Stone and Fantunes people, but the rest of the world.

I don't understand this, opposite a Fantunes 1♠ opening you have an obvious GF here, so no, they won't treat this hand as invitational values. On the other hand, in modern styles where 1♠ can be quite light, this is more of an invitational hand. Perhaps your first "not" was unintended?

[aguahombre]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-03, 22:08, said:

You need to include an "abstain" option on stuff like part 2 of this poll, also 4♠ might have been a viable option.


I don't understand this, opposite a Fantunes 1♠ opening you have an obvious GF here, so no, they won't treat this hand as invitational values. On the other hand, in modern styles where 1♠ can be quite light, this is more of an invitational hand. Perhaps your first "not" was unintended?

The first "not" was intended. 9 support points is constructive opposite today's opening Major suit bids; it should be accepting game tries, not initiating them.

Fantunes' opening 1M, although defined as forcing, starts at about 14..In their world 9 is invitational.

I am talking about the invitational range (9-11) mentioned by Lycer and Blackshoe, not about the OP hand which is clearly within L.R. value for us, and game forcing for Fantunes.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-January-04, 00:52