[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

(P) - 1♥ - (P) - ?

---

What say you? Do you bid 2♥ or 1NT, intending on bidding 3♥ at your next turn.

If makes a difference to you, would your view change if 1NT was only semi-forcing? (That is, partner can pass with a 5332 min or even a 4=5=2=2 min).

[helene_t]

This hand fits my definition of a constructive raise. Not playing that it's a limit raise.

[Phil]

I'll call this a 3 card LR vul at IMPs.

I don't mind playing 1N with hands like this. Good system

[JLOL]

2H

[jdonn]

2♥ though I admit it's a close one.

[kfay]

I'd bid 2♥. I'm too flat.

[mtvesuvius]

2♥, first instinct is to show a 3 card limit raise, but actually looking at the hand... I think this is a 2♥ bid, and I will accept any GT that comes my way.

[skjaeran]

2♥ with the given alternatives. But very close to a limit raise.

Playing constructive raises this is a non-problem.

[peachy]

2H. Close to 3-card limit raise but if I make a limit raise with this (via forcing 1NT) partner might start mistrusting me in the future. Sometimes one has a maximum, like here for a 2H bid. If we have hopes for game, partner will make a game try which I will accept, almost no matter what sort of tries we have on card.

[P_Marlowe]

Constr. raise.

Not having this available, I guess I would go with
a single raise.

Sometimes I am max. for my call, even in my eyes,
not often, but those hand exist.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[whereagles]

I hate constructive raises. Limit raise for me.

[Fluffy]

This is an obvious 2♥, I would find out after bidding 1NT sadly.

[keylime]

Losers are right for a LR so that's what I'll bid.