[precpj]

I would like to express gratitude to all of you as well as many known experts, Mike Lawrence, Eric Kokish, Patrick Huang for taking time to answer my emails. I have urged the dutch Host at the BBO table to view the subject here. To my very surprise, he accused me for making up the conclusion; I even offer him to show the replies .. Well, Life is too short to argue more with him on this subject. After all, adding 1st dutchman into my enemy list.

Precpj

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Jul 27 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

All this debate is scary, this is a normal 2♥ bid. You can bid 1NT first on a hand where you are classically to weak to respond, but it's silly to do so on a hand that is just good enough for a raise by normal standards. This is one of those cases, like raising a major suit response with three trumps, where forums has evolved its own standard that is not normal bridge.

???

This is a classic 1NT by standards that have been well-established before bridge forums existed. The fact that you apparently prefer a different approach does not make this silly. It makes this a matter of style.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on Jul 29 2008, 03:12 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jul 27 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

All this debate is scary, this is a normal 2♥ bid. You can bid 1NT first on a hand where you are classically to weak to respond, but it's silly to do so on a hand that is just good enough for a raise by normal standards. This is one of those cases, like raising a major suit response with three trumps, where forums has evolved its own standard that is not normal bridge.

???

This is a classic 1NT by standards that have been well-established before bridge forums existed. The fact that you apparently prefer a different approach does not make this silly. It makes this a matter of style.

Are those standards that you refer to standard? (same word, different meaning. note in my passage that you quoted where I used the word "standard" in the last sentence, I mean it as the second 'standard' above, not the first.)

6-9 for a single raise is standard. Whether counting distribution or not, this hand has 6. Think it's a bad bid if you want, count your hand differently if you want, make different agreements like constructive raises if you want, but 2♥ is the standard response on the given hand.

[cherdano]

I read in many places (before I ever got to BBF) that playing "constructive raises (8-10)" is a standard part of 2/1. I have rarely seen anyone play it.

[rbforster]

cherdano, on Jul 29 2008, 04:00 PM, said:

I read in many places (before I ever got to BBF) that playing "constructive raises (8-10)" is a standard part of 2/1. I have rarely seen anyone play it.

One more vote against constructive raises - I doubt it's "standard" and I don't even know anyone who plays them. 1H-2H on 6-9 and 3 cards playing Bergen is pretty much the expected hand. You might even have a minimum flat 4 card raise if you aren't willing to push to the 3 level.

[precpj]

Hi,

just my final suggestions:

1. Mike Lawrence , Eric Kokish, Patrick Huang ( 1969 70 bermuda 2nd place) etc all came out 2h. I have been hesitating to disclose their reply. So why still argue ? Bridge world standard can have it as stnadard but can not win my heart over.

2. None of my partners here playing 2/1 ever questioned my 1M 2M; and none of them uttered 1NT when I posed them with the hand .

3. constructive raise is NOT official part of 2/1. Lawrence bid 2h, Kokish 2H , replies from all acbl contributors were all on 2H.. if you opt to play constructive bridge on 1M 2M I would strongly urge you to preannounce with your first time partner just for the sake of good ( if not better) bridge.

4. In case you see constructive raise ever used in upper competition vugraph presentation, PLease Please direct my attention to let me see . TO see to to believe it.


PJ

[han]

One piece of advice: don't get into arguments with Dutch hosts, they are notoriously stubborn.

[kenrexford]

han, on Jul 30 2008, 01:08 AM, said:

One piece of advice: don't get into arguments with Dutch hosts, they are notoriously stubborn.

I love stubborn, though.

The question is not whether 1♥-P-2♥ is a workable approach with 6-9. The question is not whether one is slightly, or even convincingly, better than the other (6-9 or constructive). The original post concerned a person who opted 1NT and was provided a lesson at the table as to how that person owed his partner a 2♥ call.

To me, this is equivalent to chastising partner, without discussion, for his choice of rebid in a 2/1 GF between Hardy and Lawrence differences or for passing after 1♦-P-2♣-P-2♦-P-3♣.

You can cite all of the expert opinions that you want on the issue, but you are getting misleading answers. If I ask Lawrence, Kokish, and Huang what they would respond with this hand, I'd get three answers for 2♥, apparently. If I asked them what they would respond if we have agreed to play constructive raises, I bet I get a different answer. If I ask them what to respond if we are playing canape-style openings, I might get yet another answer (maybe -- that's a tough one, especially as they may ask strict-or-tendency?).

[jtfanclub]

precpj, on Jul 30 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

3. constructive raise is NOT official part of 2/1. Lawrence bid 2h, Kokish 2H , replies from all acbl contributors were all on 2H.. if you opt to play constructive bridge on 1M 2M I would strongly urge you to preannounce with your first time partner just for the sake of good ( if not better) bridge.

Please keep in mind, like I said long long ago, even playing constructive raises this is IMO worth a 2♥ bid. You have 6 hcp, two doubletons, a 6 card suit, and a minor honor in trumps.

It's gotta be worth 8 points in support, maybe 9 if you factor in the nice T9 and Q987 combinations.

If it were: K65 765 J6 Q9543 you might get a very different answer.

[awm]

There is a general problem that we don't have a standard system any more. Back in the day there was Goren, but that has very much fallen out of favor. Compared to Goren, "standard american" and "two over one" are both rather loosely defined. Certainly there are more specific systems within those frameworks, but the vast majority of bridge players don't really know "standard american yellow card" or "washington standard" or even "bridge world standard."

I'll note that there is at least one book out there on "two over one bidding" that describes constructive raises as a standard part of the two-over-one game forcing system. I am willing to bet that there is at least one book out there which says exactly the opposite (I am not really in a habit of buying and reading these books so I can't make up a definitive list of what the different ones say). As long as this is the case, you will occasionally run into trouble when you sit down at a table and agree "2/1 partner?" and then find out that partner's version of 2/1 includes constructive raises (or bergen raises, or semi-forcing notrumps) when your version doesn't (or vice versa).

Perhaps we need to publicize "bridge base advanced" or something better, but again we run into the issue that last I checked, that system included treatments which the majority of bridge players world wide have never even heard of (i.e. serious 3NT, last train to clarksville).

[crazy4hoop]

Reasons to bid 2♥ (in no particular order):
1) 3-card heart support
2) ruffing values in diamonds and/or spades
3) a 6-card suit on the side
4) 8-loser hand
5) probably accepting most game tries (maybe not in diamonds but maybe)

Reasons to bid 1NT (again, in no particular order):
Oops, I can't find any, but here are some reasons not to bid 1NT:
1) If nonforcing, you are probably in a worse contract if partner passes
2) If forcing, you may miss 4♥ if planning to bid only 2♥ over a 2♦ rebid from partner

[peachy]

jdonn, on Jul 27 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

All this debate is scary, this is a normal 2♥ bid. You can bid 1NT first on a hand where you are classically to weak to respond, but it's silly to do so on a hand that is just good enough for a raise by normal standards. This is one of those cases, like raising a major suit response with three trumps, where forums has evolved its own standard that is not normal bridge.

Exactly what jdonn said.