[kenberg]

I confess to not being fond of constructive raises but I'm in a minority. Anyway, suppose that you are playing them

The auction begins 1M-1NT(forcing)-2NT(18-19).

The 1NT bidder could have three card M support and a hand that was two weak for a constructive raise.He also could have three card M support and a hand that was going to make a three card limit raise over opener's expected 2m rebid.

How do you sort this out? Let's take it as a two-part question:

a. Suppose you don't have artificial bids available . That is, over 2NT a call of 3m is natural and forcing.

b. Suppose you are playing your own favorite gadget.

In particular, suppose you started with some very modest hand. Can you, and should you, sign off in 3M?

Actually there are three cases: You might want to sign off, you might want to try 4M even though you are just short of a constructive raise (seems possible) and you might have an 11 count, maybe with modes shape. xx in clubs for example.

Added: Maybe best is that after the 2NT, both 3M and 4M are to play. Chances of a slam are presumably remote even if the 1NT was on a maximal limit raise.

I don't give hands because I am asking about systemic agreements.

[broze]

I really hate constructive raises and I never agree to play them. Imo they are just a bad method - the bridge world will see the light eventually. Sorry for not tackling your problems but I just see them as something else I don't have to think about!

[SteveMoe]

We know partner is 18-19 and 5332.

We have two facets to our hand:
Weak 5-6, Constructive 7-9, Invitational 10-11(12-).
0-2M, 3M cards. (Some use Forcing NT as first step in intended 4M preempt with an outside card, so direct 4M denies outside card).

Whether you bid 3N on any 6 is up to you. I would surmise 3"Not M" is to play with exactly 5 HCP (many would rebid 3N with 6 HCP and a 5+ card suit). Much depends on pattern and texture of responder's hand opposite known 5332. 3♠ when partner opened ♥ should be reserved for special meaning. I don't know what's best. Perhaps hidden splinter for M, but there's no parallel when partner opens 1♠.

With Constructive hands bid 3N unless very distributional - then consider game in long suit. We hold no constructive fitting hands.

With Balanced 3-card Limit Raise either 3N or 4M depending on shape and texture. An 11 HCP 3-card LR with additional 0/1 suit should explore slam in M.

There are 3 hands that offer slam possibilities: 1)INV with 6+ card suit and no M fit, 2)INV with 3 trump and 0/1 suit, and 3)INV with both 3 card support and 6-card source of tricks. Would seem the fitting cases can be dealt with by 4N RKB (did we agree that 18-19 is too narrow a range to worry about quantitative raises?). This leaves the 4-level bids by responder to show on-fitting hands with 11-12 HCP and 6+ cards in the suit.

[kenrexford]

The premise is off for me, because 2NT would be a game forcing relay, after which 4M is the bust 3 fit and 3M the limit raise.

But, if I were playing 2NT as 18 to 19, I would use transfers. After a transfer to Opener's major, pass with garbage or bid on logically with the limit hand. Seems easy enough.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2014-March-13, 17:39, said:

Maybe best is that after the 2NT, both 3M and 4M are to play.

Agree with this. Ditto for 3m and 3H after 1S 1N 2N.

[the_clown]

I play that 3♣ forces 3♦ and after that all bids to the 3 level are NF.
Possibly playing transfers at the 3 level is superior, but I have never tried.

[mike777]

fwiw I love constructive raises. For me 8-11 support pts since I like to open lite.

Any and all bids after 2nt would be gf. That means with a really bad hand I must just pass 2nt.

fwiw2 after 2nt I play a complicated version of BARON.

[helene_t]

I think that if not playing gadgets, 1M-1N-2N-3m should be to play while 1♠-1N-2N-3♥ should be forcing.

GIB plays transfers here and I like that.

[mikeh]

I've been playing transfers here for many years, and they work out well, altho in fairness the most common actions are pass or 3N, so the transfers don't get a lot of workout.

One can transfer to the major and then either pass or bid game...note that 3N is one of the game possibilities and is what I would suggest with a good balanced limit raise with weak trumps...this sometimes hits a home run when partner has poor trump....players in the major may lose 3 trump tricks and a side loser while we run home with 9 tricks in 3N.

The one sequence in which transfers really shine is when opener has spades and responder has hearts. Now responder can transfer at the 3 and 4 levels, and can transfer to 3♥ and then pass, bid 3N COG, or 4♥: near opener with 6+ hearts, almost a 2/1 GF response. IOW, mild slam interest opposite a pure hand with support.

We use 3♠ over 2N to show clubs with some reason to be concerned about 3N, in the sense that maybe a club game or even slam is better...we don't do it with truly weak hands worried about going down in 3N...with those we either bid 3N anyway or we pass 2N...you can't have it all, and the systemic advance of the 3♠ transfer will be 3N most of the time: opener bypasses 3N only with a hand with good playability in clubs.

Another option is to transfer to one's suit at the 3-level and then bid partner's major, if possible, at the 3-level.

1♠ 1N 2N 3♦ 3♥ 3♠

You could choose to use this to show 5 hearts and 3 spades, choice of games, but my preference would be to use this to show Hx in spades, 6+ hearts and a hand almost worth a 2/1, where H = Q or better. It almost never comes up but if it does it can be very useful for reaching low hcp slams. AQJxx Axx Axx Kx, for example, gets us to a great slam from the correct side, protecting the club K on the opening lead.

As for constructive raises: if you are primarily a mp player, don't play them. The 1N response allows far too many pre-balances by 4th chair and on partscore hands you want to get to 2M asap. Games are nice, but you'll lose more partscore battles than you'll reach bad games, or fail to reach good ones when opener swings low.

If, otoh, like me you are primarily an imp player, then constructive (I prefer what we call semi-constructive, so perhaps a slightly lower minimum than some) enhance game bidding so much as to more than offset the partscore issues, imo.

It isn't just that opener will bid more good games.

Constructive raises, when they arise, win in several ways.

Playing non-constructive, opener will often have to make a game try. This can get his side too high at the 3-level opposite a bad fitting minimum. More often, it guides the defence when responder accepts. Playing constructive raises, opener can often simply bid game, giving away nothing.

I think that many advancing players fail to appreciate just how important it is to give away as little as possible in the auction when one is venturing into thin games.

[ggwhiz]

In context of the I/A forum I've played something very simple for years without any problems.

3M or 3♦ (dreck) and 4M (constructive) are to play and all the better hands including a 3-card limit go through 3♣, checkback.

Transfers would certainly be an improvement but not unless you do ALL the legwork on follow-ups. Do you guys include texas (4♦ to 4♥ and 4♥ to 4♠)?

[kuhchung]

3M nf "I was goofing around"
4M when I think it's right (constructive and 3 card limit raise)

Surprised to see 3m forcing here. Maybe I'm biased because I play 3 level jump shifts as invitational, but I much prefer 3m nf, opener can go on to 3N with fitting honors if he wants

[kenberg]

There is a lot to think about in the above responses. Thanks.

mikeh, as is often the case, has given a great many details and possibilities. This dovetails with the ggwhiz comment "Transfers would certainly be an improvement but not unless you do ALL the legwork on follow-ups." As to the question about Texas, I take it this is in the context 1M-1NT-2NT. I confess I had never even thought of Texas here, but I can see the point.

As to whether 1M-1NT-2NT-3m should be forcing, or even invitational, assuming we have not gone with a scheme such as mike's, perhaps indeed I should re-think this. I have generally asked partners to play, after the rather different sequence 1m-1M-2NT that all bids are natural and forcing. I realize there are sophisticated alternatives, but my way works pretty well, especially when 1m-2M would have been a wjs. After 1m-1M-2NT, responder will have a weak hand only if he holds at most five cards in M and so he really cannot be certain that 3M would play better than 2NT. He can reasonably just pass. Then 1♦-1♠-2NT-3♣ shows clubs as well as spades, gives opener a chance to show three spades if he has them and so on.
This is by way of explaining why I was thinking of 3m as forcing in the 1M-1NT-2NT auction, but really it isn't the same thing at all as 1♦-1♠-2NT-3♣ and I need to re-think.

Here is how this arose. We hand an auction 1♥-1NT-3NT-4♥. Partner, the opener, just had a momentary glitch, we all have them, and apologized for what was actually a 2NT rebid. I corrected to 4♥ holding a 7 count, three hearts, a doubleton club. No problem. But I mentioned that we had never discussed just what 3♥ would mean over his proper 2NT rebid, and I opined that if you asked five players who use constructive raises you would probably get a 3-2 vote on whether 3♥ is forcing and I wasn't sure which would be the 3 votes. It seems to me this is often very undiscussed.

We have, for now, decided that 3♥ and 4♥ are both to play. With the 7 count above I can easily bid 4♥. It's true that, under current agreement, I have to also do that with an 11, or even 12, count but usually that will be fine. We may well want to think over some of the above suggestins to refine that, since sometimes having the same 4♥ bid in two very different cases is not fine.

Bottom line: Thanks for the comments, and I hope they are useful to others as well.

[jallerton]

kenberg, on 2014-March-13, 17:39, said:

I confess to not being fond of constructive raises but I'm in a minority. Anyway, suppose that you are playing them

The auction begins 1M-1NT(forcing)-2NT(18-19).

The 1NT bidder could have three card M support and a hand that was two weak for a constructive raise.He also could have three card M support and a hand that was going to make a three card limit raise over opener's expected 2m rebid.

How do you sort this out? Let's take it as a two-part question:

a. Suppose you don't have artificial bids available . That is, over 2NT a call of 3m is natural and forcing.

b. Suppose you are playing your own favorite gadget.

In particular, suppose you started with some very modest hand. Can you, and should you, sign off in 3M?

a. This might depend on your style of responses. How light might you be to respond 1NT holding 3-card support? If you need 6 points to respond then there's less mileage in being able to stop in 3M. My partners have been known to respond on somewhat weaker hands, so I prefer being able to stop in 3M. Opposite a limit raise slam is possible but not that likely. If 3m is forcing then a jump to 4m could be played as a cue agreeing the major (or maybe it's better to imply length in the suit bid as well as 3-card support).

b. I also prefer to play transfers here. Note that after 1♥-1NT-2NT, there's an extra bid available as Responder has denied spades. I like to play 3♣/♦/♥ as transfers to ♦/♥/♣ respectively whilst 3♠ over 2NT shows at least 5/5 in the majors minors.

This post has been edited by jallerton: 2014-March-14, 16:55

[Fluffy]

jallerton, on 2014-March-14, 16:27, said:

b. I also prefer to play transfers here. Note that after 1♥-1NT-2NT, there's an extra bid available as Responder has denied spades. I like to play 3♣/♦/♥ as transfers to ♦/♥/♣ respectively whilst 3♠ over 2NT shows at least 5/5 in the majors.

You must use this 3♠ bid a lot

I've always played 3♣ asking and others as natural and forcing, it works fine for me.

For us 2NT is GF, so we used to bid 3M with limit raise looking for slam, and 4M with 3 card bust. It does't work, the 3 card bust doens't make game opposite most balanced 18-19, and stopping in 3M is the way to go. Slam si also very off the mark, even when opener could be unbalanced (like for us).

[jallerton]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-14, 16:41, said:

You must use this 3♠ bid a lot

Whoops! I meant both minors, of course. I've corrected my post now.

[y66]

helene_t, on 2014-March-14, 07:52, said:

I think that if not playing gadgets, 1M-1N-2N-3m should be to play while 1♠-1N-2N-3♥ should be forcing.

In 1996, Alan Truscott wrote that it is common to play 1♠-1N-2N-3♥ as forcing in Europe. He considered it standard to play it as suggesting an end to the auction in the U.S. He mentions a transfer scheme proposed by Mark Buchignani in the Jan 1989 Bridge World.

[kenberg]

I half expected that the responses to my thread would be "Everyone knows it's played the following way....", although I really think if you asked a bunch of constructive raise enthusiasts whether 3♥ is forcing you would not get unanimity. In other words, everyone knows, but they know differently. I was glad to see the open ended and open minded responses.

jallerton above suggests that it perhaps depends on response style. Indeed. If I held Qxx / Jxx / Qxx / Jxxx what would I do after 1♥-Pass-? Even if I were not playing constructive raises I would be tempted to go with 1NT here, since I hardly want to encourage partner to do much of anything. But now pard bids 2NT. Maybe I should just pass 2NT. Very tempting. OK, give me Qx / Jxx / Qxxx / Jxxx Now I want to play in hearts, but I am pessimistic about the four level.

I think of it like this: It's life that I don't always have exactly the hand I would like to have. But constructive raises is a system where I am systemically putting myself in a position where I won't have the hand I would like to have. So system has to take care of me, and I need to be able to get out in 3♥. Maybe I can count the Q of Qx as valuable, maybe I can count the doubleton as valuable, I don't think I should be counting both features at full value. I want out in 3♥. The 7 count I mentined earlier had xx in clubs. The 7 highs get full value, the xx gets full value, I am delighted to bid 4. Maybe with 6 highs and an xx I bid 4, I have to see it first.