[Winstonm]

It is a good question. I have long believed that the greatest value in the weak double jump came if RHO acted; once RHO passes - especially because imps rewards game/slam bidding - that a weak raise is not best.

Of course, our LHO may be itching to get in and a weak jump could block that bid, but to me bridge should be about taking percetage plays and bids and when 1 out of 2 opponents have already passed the chances of a competitive auction have been reduced by 50%. It makes sense to me then to try to encourage our own constructive bidding now rather than worry about what 3rd seat might do.

I think 1M-P-3M is best used as a forcing raise if other limit raises are available.

[blackshoe]

You will not be happy then with the philosophy presented in Robson and Segal, then. (The link downloads a copy of the book, zipped, in pdf form.)

[CSGibson]

Winstonm, on May 15 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

It is a good question. I have long believed that the greatest value in the weak double jump came if RHO acted; once RHO passes - especially because imps rewards game/slam bidding - that a weak raise is not best.

Of course, our LHO may be itching to get in and a weak jump could block that bid, but to me bridge should be about taking percetage plays and bids and when 1 out of 2 opponents have already passed the chances of a competitive auction have been reduced by 50%. It makes sense to me then to try to encourage our own constructive bidding now rather than worry about what 3rd seat might do.

I think 1M-P-3M is best used as a forcing raise if other limit raises are available.

are you playing advanced Culbertson in OK?

[Winstonm]

CSGibson, on May 16 2009, 01:14 PM, said:

Winstonm, on May 15 2009, 09:51 PM, said:

It is a good question.  I have long believed that the greatest value in the weak double jump came if RHO acted; once RHO passes - especially because imps rewards game/slam bidding - that a weak raise is not best.

Of course, our LHO may be itching to get in and a weak jump could block that bid, but to me bridge should be about taking percetage plays and bids and when 1 out of 2 opponents have already passed the chances of a competitive auction have been reduced by 50%.  It makes sense to me then to try to encourage our own constructive bidding now rather than worry about what 3rd seat might do.

I think 1M-P-3M is best used as a forcing raise if other limit raises are available.

are you playing advanced Culbertson in OK?

heh, heh, heh. No, although I did at one time play the Culbertson 4NT/5NT convention with good results. Have you never played forcing raises?

Opening weakish hands and responding on weakish hands is more in keeping with the Culbertson/Lenz/Jacoby style of bidding than a new revelation, btw, so I find the concept of "modern" tactics prettty funny.

Btw, my preference for 1M-P-3M as forcing comes in the package I termed Better Bergen Bidding and thus is a very distinct bid with precise parameters as to what minimum and maximum is held, both in HCP and numbers of control cards.

[Cascade]

We used to play 0-6 - maybe for the first 5 years of our partnership.

We now play 4-7 and describe them as constructive.

4-7 HCP is more common than 0-6 HCP so we pre-empt the opponents more often.

4-7 HCP and constructive helps partner bid games

4-7 HCP being a narrower range gives partner less of a problem.

It is not compulsory for us to make the pre-emptive raise with 4-7 HCP. If we do not like our shape or think our cards are too soft etc relatively to the prevailing vulnerability we are free to raise to 2M (or PASS) or if we like our hand we are free to upgrade. For us 1♥ 2♠ and 1♠ 2NT start at 8 HCP and deny a shortage and we play splinters at the three-level starting at around the same range (1♥ 2NT is a spade splinter).

[FrancesHinden]

I also prefer the mixed raise because it's a more common hand type.

After a double we play

1H x 3H as mixed
1H x 2S as a pre-emptive raise

1S x 3S as mixed
1S x 3H as a pre-emptive raise

[hanp]

It seems to me you would want to bid 3M directly with the weak hands after the double. Using 2S for the weak hands after 1H - X also seems much worse than using 3D.

[FrancesHinden]

Well the argument is that you want to bid 3M as often as possible, and you have a mixed raise type hand more often than pre-emptive type hand.

3D might well be superior, but we just play that as fit.

[Winstonm]

FrancesHinden, on May 18 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

I also prefer the mixed raise because it's a more common hand type.

After a double we play

1H x 3H as mixed
1H x 2S as a pre-emptive raise

1S x 3S as mixed
1S x 3H as a pre-emptive raise

I thought the original question was without a double, given as 1M-3M preemptive.

[kenrexford]

Winstonm, on May 18 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 18 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

I also prefer the mixed raise because it's a more common hand type.

After a double we play

1H x 3H as mixed
1H x 2S as a pre-emptive raise

1S x 3S as mixed
1S x 3H as a pre-emptive raise

I thought the original question was without a double, given as 1M-3M preemptive.

"The auction was interesting -- the opponents doubled throughout..."

[gerry]

I like to have both available, pd and I play
2nt = any splinter (split range)
3♣ = gd bal raise (split range again)
3♦ = gd 3 card raise (without decent side suit for tricks)
3♥ = mixed raise
3♠ = weak

(1 step down after a 1♥ opener)

[FrancesHinden]

Winstonm, on May 19 2009, 01:29 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 18 2009, 01:12 PM, said:

I also prefer the mixed raise because it's a more common hand type.

After a double we play

1H x 3H as mixed
1H x 2S as a pre-emptive raise

1S x 3S as mixed
1S x 3H as a pre-emptive raise

I thought the original question was without a double, given as 1M-3M preemptive.

It was.

I answered the original question.

Then I made an additional comment about what I play with a double. If you are a thread purity aficionado, ignore it.