[gambolero]

1)

---

2)

---

Does (1) qualify as a preemptive raise to 3♠?
Can we differ (1) from (2)?

[MrAce]

Assuming that you do not use 2 NT here for fit showing purposes and it is natural, then you are left with 2 options;

1-Hand 1 preempt 3♠ if this is not too weak for you (i would preempt myself with it) and hand 2 bid 2♠ or 3♥ depending on how you evaluate the hand 2. For the consistency with preempt on hand 1, i would bid 3♥ with hand 2. It is borderline but all these spot cards + singleton + 4 card fit looks not worse than 3244 10/11 hcp to me.

2-If hand 1 is too weak for preempt for you, then pass with hand 1 and with hand 2 bid 2♠, not weak 3♠

Basically how i see it is that hand 2 is way too strong for a preemptive 3♠. It is either 2 ♠ or 3♥

[Mbodell]

It depends on your agreement with partner, and also on IMPs/MP and vulnerability.

I'd probably bid 2♠ on 1, 3♠ on 1 + a minor Q, and 3♥ on 2.

[gambolero]

ok good.
Assume IMPs, white vs white
For those that use 2NT artificial here, 2NT shows good 4 card support whereas the cuebid shows exactly 3 card support right?
How good is good 4 card support? 9+ (dummy) points?
I assume the 3 card raise is a bit stronger? limit+?

[Zelandakh]

You have pretty much given Robson/Segal's approach here, which is certainly a popular one. They say that both 2NT and the cue raise show limit+ values but that 2NT "may well be shaded". They do differentiate here between systems with 4 card majors + strong NT and others, so if you play that you may well want to re-consider. They also suggest making the cue raise rather than bidding 2NT with 4 card support and a low ODR.

I would say that the above method is the most popular but it is not the only one. Some top pairs use 2NT and the cue to differentiate by strength rather than fit. The cue might also be used as a mixed raise with all limit+ going through 2NT. And you could conceivably use transfers here, so something like 2NT=♣; 3♣=♦; 3♦ = 4 card raise; 3♥ = 3 card raise.

In any case, I am with Timo in making a preemptive raise on 1 and a good raise on 2, and also with Mbodell about the additional factors involved, with vulnerability being particularly relevant.

Edit: just noticed the forum - please disregard the part above about transfers. Also ODR stands for Offensive to Defensive Ratio and is a measure of how good your hand is for playing a contract versus defending.

[P_Marlowe]

#1 some would say, this is a weak 3S, I guess, I am getting old, the hand is too weak
for me, change the vulnerability, they red, we green, I am ok with 3S, but under the
given condition, I am bidding 2S.

#2 the hand is a inv.+ raise, standard is to use bidding their suit as a good raise,
this would be 3H.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[ArtK78]

As I mentioned in another thread, my partner and I have changed the meaning of our double raise in competition to a mixed raise. So, on (2) I would bid 3♠.

On (1), it is probably OK to pass if you don't have a preemptive raise available. 2♠ would be an overbid. If it is our hand, partner will not pass out 2♥. On the other hand, announcing to the world that your hand has spade length and weakness may prompt the opps to bid more than they might otherwise bid. So, if partner does pass out 2♥, it might be right.

Playing standard methods, one might have to bid 2♠ on both (1) and (2), which is really ugly. However, as stated above, passing on (1) is not necessarily a bad thing.

[neilkaz]

Easy preemptive raise for me for hand 1. I am more afraid of passing than preempting.

Hand 2 is difficult without a 2NT type of gadget. It is on the border between a limit raise and a normal raise so lacking a way to show a mixed raise, I'd lean towards a cautious 2♠ and then bid 3♠ more later unless partnered by a PD who nevers opens on the lightish side.

If I were playing 3♠ as a mixed raise, then I pass hand 1 and give a mixed raise on hand 2.