[hanp]

Another hand from the Dutch bridge league:

Scoring: IMP

---

1S - (2H) - ??

[Fluffy]

a simple 2♠ for me

[gnasher]

I hate this sort of hand, because it has the offensive strength of a limit raise but not the defence. I'd show a limit raise anyway. I'm nearer to 4♠ than to 2♠.

[mich-b]

With standard agreements my choice would be 3♥ (limit raise+).

But, I was recently convinced that it is important to have a bid that shows a "mixed raise" in this situation. Some use 2NT here to show the mixed raise, some suggest using 3♠ as mixed raise, and bidding a simple 2♠ with the "preemptive" hands.

[Codo]

I agree with Gonzalo and hate it.

( Of course I do not hate to agree with him, but that I do not have a more describtive bid then 2 Spade here...)

[Hanoi5]

I'd prefer 3♥ to 2♠ and could bid 4♠ right away.

[cherdanno]

Don't you have spots in Holland? I bid 3♠, mixed raise, if we play that of course. I guess 4♠ otherwise.

[gnasher]

I don't think having a mixed raise available solves this problem. Offensively, this hand is a trick stronger than that.

[655321]

I do think it is very useful to have two bids (cue bid and 2NT) to distinguish between 3 and 4 card support, so obviously 2NT if playing such a convention.

Hate to be one of those people who always answer a bidding question with one of their pet conventions though, so 3♥ otherwise I guess.

[the hog]

Pretty obvious limit raise. I don't hate it at all.
This sort of hand is your "bread and butter" hand - too good for 2S and not enough for 4. I don't understand what all the futzing about in the comments is about.

[andy_h]

Agree with 655321. 2NT/3♥ whichever one is available.

[pooltuna]

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 06:37 AM, said:

Another hand from the Dutch bridge league:

Scoring: IMP

---

1S - (2H) - ??

If I have a bid available that shows a constructive raise I use that otherwise I upgrade to a LR Call

[jdonn]

I am surprised a limit raise is not unanimous. Am I missing something? 2♠ is nothing but bad evaluation, sorry.

[phil_20686]

The robson segal book has convinced me that what you really need is two types of limit plus raise, one for offensive hands and one for defensive hands. I wish i had already passed then i could bid 3c and solve the problem.

I would bid 2n as an offensive (limit) raise to 3s. 3H would show more defense.

[hanp]

jdonn, on Oct 14 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

I am surprised a limit raise is not unanimous. Am I missing something? 2♠ is nothing but bad evaluation, sorry.

Guilty, I bid 4S at the table.

[aguahombre]

cherdanno, on Oct 14 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

Don't you have spots in Holland?

Apparently only important spots, like the diamond ten. I vote for 3H lr+, even without that spot. --and I don't regret not having a mixed raise available with this nice concentration, which I can't describe but surely like.

[Jlall]

I would bid 4S and love it, no surprises there I'm sure.

[Phil]

3♥. You play 2N and 3♥ as both limit raises here, right?

[hanp]

We already lost the board before I could bid. RHO had overcalled on xx QJxxx AQJx xx and his partner, with 5-5 in the reds, was never going to let us play 4S. We played 5S-1, at the other table they played 4S= after our teammates didn't overcall.

[Phil]

hanp, on Oct 14 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

We already lost the board before I could bid. RHO had overcalled on xx QJxxx AQJx xx and his partner, with 5-5 in the reds, was never going to let us play 4S. We played 5S-1, at the other table they played 4S= after our teammates didn't overcall.

What did your counterpart bid with this hand over 1♠? In some case, your teammate could have shown the red two suiter.