[hrothgar]

Imps

Vanilla 2/1 GF

You hold

♠ 932
♥ K6543
♦ T3
♣ QT9

Partner opens 1♠ in first seat

What's your plan?
Do you consider this clear cut?

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Feb 8 2008, 11:21 AM, said:

1N, fairly clear. 2S would be the only other option.

agree

[cjames]

Me too, 1N.

[pclayton]

Yes 1N is clear cut I think.

[helene_t]

1N and taking preference to spades over 2m. Why is this a poison? It is a textbook hand for that plan. 3♠ or 4♠ over 3m depending on fast-arrival style.

The only problem I can see is if p rebids 3♠ or 2♥. I might pass or raise either, not sure.

If p rebids 2N I'll try to sign off in 3♠, probably just by bidding 3♠ but we have discussed this in another recent thread.

[smyk]

My preference is to make a single raise 2♠ rather than go through 1NT. This is because I fully agree with the following points made against Constructive Major Raises by Max Hardy in his widely used book "2/1 Game Force", page 17:

"...when a responder has a raise that is not of the "constructive" nature that the bidding side creates unnecessary problems for itself by having agreed to use this method. Since responder with a minimum raise of a good five to about seven points is not permitted to make that raise at once, he is required to instead make a Forcing Notrump response. Here, where the best idea would be to keep the opponents out of the auction by making a preemptive single raise, users of the Constructive Major Raises give their opponents free rein to enter the auction and make use of the two level. Where a barricade could and should be erected, no impediment is put into the path of the opponents.

If the opponents fail to take advantage of their unwarrented opportunity to enter the auction after the forcing notrump response, users of Constructive Major Raises have yet another obstacle to overcome. After opener has made his rebid, responder now takes a preference to opener's major suit. Since the auction would also occur when the responder had a doubleton in opener's major suit, opener is at loss to know whether his side does or does not have a fit in the major suit."

... and Hardy's conclusion on page 18:

"If you feel that you must use Constructive Major Raises, be aware of the pitfalls that you create in order to have the advantage of knowing that responder's single raise will always be gilt-edged. The test of a a convention's usefulness is to measure what is gained against what is given up. Here, our opinion is that the gain is far outweighed by the loss when this convention is adopted."

[awm]

Agree with 2♠.

Yet another issue with constructive raises is the wide variety of auctions that go 1♠-2♠-4♠ in standard bidding. It's true that after 1♠-1NT-2m-2♠ you will normally get to game anyway, but the auction tends to be much more revealing to the defense. Even a "game try" auction is typically less revealing than a sequence like this where opener basically has to complete his pattern because he's not certain of the fit.

[pclayton]

smyk, on Feb 8 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

My preference is to make a single raise 2♠ rather than go through 1NT. This is because I fully agree with the following points made against Constructive Major Raises by Max Hardy in his widely used book "2/1 Game Force", page 17:

"...when a responder has a raise that is not of the "constructive" nature that the bidding side creates unnecessary problems for itself by having agreed to use this method. Since responder with a minimum raise of a good five to about seven points is not permitted to make that raise at once, he is required to instead make a Forcing Notrump response. Here, where the best idea would be to keep the opponents out of the auction by making a preemptive single raise, users of the Constructive Major Raises give their opponents free rein to enter the auction and make use of the two level. Where a barricade could and should be erected, no impediment is put into the path of the opponents.

If the opponents fail to take advantage of their unwarrented opportunity to enter the auction after the forcing notrump response, users of Constructive Major Raises have yet another obstacle to overcome. After opener has made his rebid, responder now takes a preference to opener's major suit. Since the auction would also occur when the responder had a doubleton in opener's major suit, opener is at loss to know whether his side does or does not have a fit in the major suit."

... and Hardy's conclusion on page 18:

"If you feel that you must use Constructive Major Raises, be aware of the pitfalls that you create in order to have the advantage of knowing that responder's single raise will always be gilt-edged. The test of a a convention's usefulness is to measure what is gained against what is given up. Here, our opinion is that the gain is far outweighed by the loss when this convention is adopted."

Many of us are familiar with Hardy's arguments. I own the same book you refer to.

Responding 1N has nothing to do with constructive versus non-constructive.

1N serves a temporizing force. It allows us to keep the bidding alive in case pard has a monster. More importantly, IMO, it will frequently lock out LHO who may not want to dive into a non-fit auction. There has been a paradigm shift over the last 15 years, in part due to total tricks bidding. In many ways its safer to bid at the 3 level after 1 major - 2 major than it is at the 2 level after 1 major - 1N.

[smyk]

Responding 1NT is needed when you adopt the Constructive Major Raises because with 5-7 points you can't bid 2S, since it would be received as constructive.

[bid_em_up]

Yes 2♠ is clear cut I think.

[655321]

2♠

[mikeh]

While I also read Hardy on 2/1 (and probably a lot longer ago than most here), I don't think too much of his abilities as a bridge theorist. His arguments against the constructive raise have some merit, but a balanced view would have included the (significant) arguments for the treatment as well, leaving the informed reader to make his or her own decision.

For every argument we can see against the treatment, there is, in my view, an equally or more compelling argument in its favour. Furthermore, the develoment of gadgets such as Bart or Gazilli make constructive bidding after the 1N more accurate than it was when Hardy assembled other peoples' ideas into his book.

[han]

awm, on Feb 8 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

It's true that after 1♠-1NT-2m-2♠ you will normally get to game anyway...

I am not convinced of this truth.

[keylime]

2S here too. I own 5 hcp, and a side five card suit.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

What's your plan?
Do you consider this clear cut?

_I_ think that if I'm going to bid 1NT with this I may as well play Constructive Raises. And if I'm playing Constructive Raises, then by rule I'm bidding 1NT.

It's like saying "You have 5 hcp and six hearts. Your partner opens 1NT. Do you say 2 diamonds or two hearts?" The answer is "Well, am I playing transfers?"

Well, am I playing constructive raises?

[skjaeran]

Not liking the forcing 1NT at all, I've got different methods here.

I'd bid 2♥, which we use as a 2-way bid; either a weak 3x raise (3-7(8) hcp) or a 2/1 in hearts. This is a method gaining popoularity in Norway (it will never be mainstream though I'd say).

[smyk]

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)

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Feb 8 2008, 11:20 AM, said:

Imps

Vanilla 2/1 GF

You hold

♠ 932
♥ K6543
♦ T3
♣ QT9

Partner opens 1♠ in first seat

What's your plan?
Do you consider this clear cut?

Since this thread is dying down I wanted to change tack a bit.

Is passing one spade really that bad and if so why?
I assume the opp can always balance even if we had bid a direct 2s.