[shnk]

I've been talked into playing constructive 1M-2M raises showing 7-10 and exactly 3 card support.
Then I get dealt Jxx/xxx/Qxxx/Kxx, partner opens 1S, pass to me, I cleverly respond 1NT (forcing) thinking I'll correct back to spades next. 4th seat bids 2H, partner 2S, then opp raises to 3H so the auction is:
1♠ - P - 1NT - 2♥
2♠ - 3♥ - ?

Clearly I want to compete to the 3 level with a known 9+ card fit right?
But partner took my 3S as a 3 card limit raise, bid game; 4S goes down one.
Is this a common way to play 1M-2M?
Is it really worth it to play this way, the idea being we can make more marginal game tries?
Other pros/cons?

[the_clown]

Hi,

normally with a limit raise, you just bid game once partner shows he has 6 spades.(wiht a limit raise you were prepared to play opposite 5332 12 count, so the extra distribution partner has should be enough for game)

Personally I prefer to play constructive raises, mainly for two reasons:
1.You are obviosly much better placed when you know partner has 7-10 and can make game tries more accurately.

2.When it goes 1M-1N-2x-2M they have no idea if you have a fit which makes it more difficult to balance when its right.

Of course playing constructive raise loses when they preempt and you cant show your support, but all in all is a reasonable agreement. Constructive raises are usually off if you are passed hand, since you can bid Drury to show 8-11 HCP and 2M with less.

[Vampyr]

Ideally you would like to distinguish between the two ranges of raise you include in your 1NT bid. Here the opponents have bid up to 3♥, so your options are to bid 3♠ or not, right? Wrong. You can use a game-try (also known as maximal) double here to show the better hand. You are much more likely to have this hand-type than a penalty double of hearts.

Maximal doubles apply when the opponents have bid and raised (or otherwise shown a fit) to the three-level in the suit directly below yours. If there is "room" -- say the opponents' suit was diamonds -- you can agree that the suit(s) you are able to bid (in this case hearts) is the spade game-try. (or reverse that and still use the double as a game-try if you have a system where a natural 3♥ is a sensible bid at this juncture.)

EDIT: Not really sure if this is appropriate for this forum, but anyway I hope it is food for thought.

[BillHiggin]

IMHO, the idea that LOTT applies here is not appropriate. In general, 4333 shape is a good reason to downgrade the total trump count. I am not just making this up, see chapter 9 of Larry Cohen's To Bid or Not to Bid.
More commonly, I see players making Bergan raises or super accepts of transfers with 4 card support but 4333 shape and finding that the Law does not work well in this case. Here the fact that the trump support is one of the 3 card suits still suffers from the inflexibility of that sterile shape.

[MrAce]

shnk, on 2013-May-31, 02:59, said:

I've been talked into playing constructive 1M-2M raises showing 7-10 and exactly 3 card support.
Then I get dealt Jxx/xxx/Qxxx/Kxx, partner opens 1S, pass to me, I cleverly respond 1NT (forcing) thinking I'll correct back to spades next. 4th seat bids 2H, partner 2S, then opp raises to 3H so the auction is:
1♠ - P - 1NT - 2♥
2♠ - 3♥ - ?

Clearly I want to compete to the 3 level with a known 9+ card fit right?
But partner took my 3S as a 3 card limit raise, bid game; 4S goes down one.
Is this a common way to play 1M-2M?
Is it really worth it to play this way, the idea being we can make more marginal game tries?
Other pros/cons?

This is why i do not play 1M-2M const. without discussing the subsequent auctions and/or details.

Of course, just like all other toys, this one also comes with a prize.

-When you bid NT and then 2M, pd never knows if you guys have a real fit or not. If he has 6 of them he will not know the existence of 9 card fit. (However this has flip side of the coin, when you guys stop at 2M, enemies will also be unware if you guys have a fit or not, thus they will not be able to balance effectively everytime)

-It creates problems with 4 card fit and weak hands, and forces you to play 1M-3M as weak, forces you to play some sort of Bergen. Some try to bid 1NT with 4 cards fit if they are strongly against bergen (which i hate too btw) but i have seen world class players having very reasonable accidents after starting NT with 4 card fit. There are ways to go arround this issue but i am not comfortable discussing them in B/N forums.

Overall it is a good method if you make practice with your pd for the subsequent auctions and in competition. I strongly suggest NOT TO PLAY it by a passed hand. 1M-2M should be 5-8 or a very bad 9, and drury will cover the rest 9-10-11 hcps. If you are not already playing SF NT, i also suggest that. Coming from pass 1NT response should be natural imo.

[TylerE]

I think constructive raises are a very poor treatment, in fact one of the very few (Along with Stolen bid doubles and Mini-Roman 2♦) that I outright refuse to play. I have never been convinced that it offers any real advantage, and it has definite disadvantages. This is true about most conventions that treat point count as more important than shape or hand texture.

[mycroft]

When it goes 1M-2M, you're in great shape playing Constructive.
When you make a limit raise (however you do that), you're also in great shape, no matter what your meaning is (because you won't have a crappy 10).
When it goes 1M-1NT, you hate it even more than you hated it before, because that's just One More Hand partner could have that you have to work out, whether the opponents are nice and pass or not.
Certainly, if you get to get to 2M, it puts the burden on the opponents to decide whether to balance (because you're playing an 8- or 9- card fit) or not (because everybody's 7s and sixes, or maybe you're in an ugly 5=2 with a side 4=4 minor you might decide to play at the 3 level). But if they compete after 1NT, you have the problems you have.

I play it when partners expect me to; I never suggest playing it.

[wank]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-31, 05:03, said:

Ideally you would like to distinguish between the two ranges of raise you include in your 1NT bid. Here the opponents have bid up to 3♥, so your options are to bid 3♠ or not, right? Wrong. You can use a game-try (also known as maximal) double here to show the better hand. You are much more likely to have this hand-type than a penalty double of hearts.

Maximal doubles apply when the opponents have bid and raised (or otherwise shown a fit) to the three-level in the suit directly below yours. If there is "room" -- say the opponents' suit was diamonds -- you can agree that the suit(s) you are able to bid (in this case hearts) is the spade game-try. (or reverse that and still use the double as a game-try if you have a system where a natural 3♥ is a sensible bid at this juncture.)

EDIT: Not really sure if this is appropriate for this forum, but anyway I hope it is food for thought.

the convention she's referring to is far from necessary and anyway only applies once you've found a fit. here you've not shown any fit. a more usual, and entirely useful, meaning for double here would be penalty. the difference is that once you've found a fit it's rarely worth it to stop and take penalties, plus it reduces the chances of actually having a hand suitable for a penalty double - points in spades are of dubious value defensively, etc.

one of the earlier posters had it right - if you have a hand which was going to invite opposite a potential minimum balanced hand, once partner shows an extra spade you can just punt game. as such 3S is just competitive.

[mikl_plkcc]

shnk, on 2013-May-31, 02:59, said:

I've been talked into playing constructive 1M-2M raises showing 7-10 and exactly 3 card support.
Then I get dealt Jxx/xxx/Qxxx/Kxx, partner opens 1S, pass to me, I cleverly respond 1NT (forcing) thinking I'll correct back to spades next. 4th seat bids 2H, partner 2S, then opp raises to 3H so the auction is:
1♠ - P - 1NT - 2♥
2♠ - 3♥ - ?

Clearly I want to compete to the 3 level with a known 9+ card fit right?
But partner took my 3S as a 3 card limit raise, bid game; 4S goes down one.
Is this a common way to play 1M-2M?
Is it really worth it to play this way, the idea being we can make more marginal game tries?
Other pros/cons?

Please dump this treatment. Your situation has demonstrated where the problem exactly lies.

[nigel_k]

If you do get this sort of auction and hold a limit raise, just bid game. 3♠ cannot be a limit raise under any methods because you may wish to bid it with only two trumps.

Constructive raises work very well and the upside is huge. Having a five point range for a single raise and making partner guess whether to make a game try is no different in principle than having a five point range for a 1NT opener and making responder guess whether to invite.

[TylerE]

nigel_k, on 2013-June-02, 01:00, said:

Constructive raises work very well and the upside is huge. Having a five point range for a single raise and making partner guess whether to make a game try is no different in principle than having a five point range for a 1NT opener and making responder guess whether to invite.

They may have worked well 50 years ago. In the modern environment where uncontested part score auctions are rare, they prevent you from making the most useful possible bid, raising 1M to 2M, exactly when it is most important to do so post-haste.

PS: Try to find a single top-level pair who plays them. Good luck with that.