[jillybean]

Playing 2/1 1M:2M 7(8)-10 3/4 card support

NV vs. V 1st position,partner opens 1♥ you hold; Qxx,Jxxx,xx,Qxxx

1N, 2♥ or pass & why (edited )

[mr1303]

Pass is never an option

If you decide this isn't enough for a constructive heart raise then 1NT (forcing) is the bid, to show a bad raise to 2H.

I think this is a bad raise, regardless of 4 card support, so I bid 1NT. However, I do think it's close.

[jdonn]

If you have a hand with support that is worth acting on but that is not good enough for how you play a single raise (such as this one) then you respond 1NT and follow with a preference back to hearts.

The only other common option would be to make a preemptive raise, but for one thing you may not be playing them, and for another this hand is really gross for that option.

Passing is not an option. Anything is better than that, even most potential psychs.

[aguahombre]

edited out by poster

[pooltuna]

jillybean, on Dec 7 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 1M:2M 7(8)-10 3/4 card support

NV vs. V 1st position,partner opens 1♥ you hold; Qxx,Jxxx,xx,Qxxx

1N, 2♥ or pass & why (edited )

if 1NT is forcing or semi-forcing plan your ♥ raise thru that

[jillybean]

ditto thanks

[aguahombre]

edited out by poster

[andy_h]

Definitely bid as we have a safehaven of at least a 5-4 fit. Bidding can make it very hard for LHO to enter in the auction (for example, if he doesn't have spades for a takeout double, or if he doesn't have a good suit to enter with a 2x overcall or if he has a strong NT). Under the systemic agreements, I would bid 1NT.

[Jlall]

1N

[akhare]

Given the parameters, 1N seems obvious. P isn't even in the picture...

[whereagles]

2♥.

I support with support, and I don't care much for "constructive raises". I think they're theoretically unsound.

[jillybean]

Ok, how weak is the hand, with 4 card support, where you will pass rather than bid 2♥ via 1N ?

[TylerE]

Abstain: I insist on playing some sort of system where I can bid 3♥ on this hand immediatly. Given the specified system I put a ♦ in with my ♥ and bid 4.

[nigel_k]

jillybean, on Dec 9 2009, 06:45 AM, said:

Ok, how weak  is the hand, with 4 card support, where you will pass rather than bid 2♥ via 1N ?

Qxx Jxxx xx Qxxx (the given hand) I bid 1N
xxx Jxxx xx Qxxx I still bid 1N all the time but it's starting to get close
xxx Jxxx xx Jxxx I pass but don't feel entirely happy about it

There are tactical considerations, but even apart from that, 3 HCP with a ruffing value and a nine card fit is not that different in playing strength from 6 HCP and no fit.

[jdonn]

TylerE, on Dec 8 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Abstain: I insist on playing some sort of system where I can bid 3♥ on this hand immediatly. Given the specified system I put a ♦ in with my ♥ and bid 4.

lol and lol?

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Dec 8 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

2♥.

I support with support, and I don't care much for "constructive raises". I think they're theoretically unsound.

But you are playing them on this hand. If I'm playing a 2♦ opening as natural then I don't open 2♦ on a weak hand with spades because I think anything but multi is theoretically unsound. Nor do I see why you are making a constructive raise on a hand that isn't a constructive raise just because you don't like constructive raises.

[whereagles]

Well, I only bid 1M-1NT with support if the hand is a flattish 4333 with 4-6 hcp or so.

All other hands with support classify as a "constructive raise" to me

[neilkaz]

jillybean, on Dec 7 2009, 06:47 PM, said:

Playing 2/1 1M:2M 7(8)-10 3/4 card support

NV vs. V 1st position,partner opens 1♥ you hold; Qxx,Jxxx,xx,Qxxx

1N, 2♥ or pass & why (edited )

This quacky junk is not a constructive raise for me, by any means. I really prefer to be able to bid 3♥ as preemptive here and have found it quite useful over the years. Lacking that just bid a forcing NT and then back to ♥.

Pass is not an option !!

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Dec 8 2009, 03:48 PM, said:

whereagles, on Dec 8 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

2♥.

I support with support, and I don't care much for "constructive raises". I think they're theoretically unsound.

But you are playing them on this hand. If I'm playing a 2♦ opening as natural then I don't open 2♦ on a weak hand with spades because I think anything but multi is theoretically unsound. Nor do I see why you are making a constructive raise on a hand that isn't a constructive raise just because you don't like constructive raises.

hopefully he recognizes good constructive advice

[peachy]

whereagles, on Dec 8 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

Well, I only bid 1M-1NT with support if the hand is a flattish 4333 with 4-6 hcp or so.

All other hands with support classify as a "constructive raise" to me

Then your definition of a constructive raise is not the same as it is generally known (7-10 or so). I do see the smiley, what does it mean?