ouch

[jillybean]

Dealer: North Vul: NS Scoring: IMP ♠ Q853 ♥ A542 ♦ 62 ♣ AJ7

 

West North East South

 

 -     1♠    Pass  2♥

 3♦    4♥    Pass  4♠

 Pass  5♣    Pass  5♥

 Pass  Pass  Pass  

 

2♥ wasn't great (terrible?) but how else can I bid this hand? I thought it was too good for a direct 4♠ bid.

[kenrexford]

Never have fewer than five hearts when you bid 2♥, unless possibly a tactical move in preparation for a slam auction that you expect to not stop below slam.

 

I'm not sure what your style is here, but (get ready), 2♣ seems to stand out as the better alternative. Sure, then the problem might have been what to do when partner leaps to 5♣ (or bids 5♣ after a 4♦ jump), but the likelihood of this mess of a problem is lower. This is especially true if partner expects clubs to be short (Kx+?).

 

A direct 4♠ is dead wrong. You have too much HCP strength, and too little as far as distribution. 3♠ works if limit, but I'm guessing that's wrong. Bergen works if you play that, but apparently you do not. If all avenues are closed, then the only solution is a minor call, which could be short.

[hrothgar]

I think that this one boils down to hand evaluation:

 

If you think that this is a limit raise, bid 3♠

If you think that this is a GF, bid 2NT

 

Given how light you (often) tend to open, I'd recommend 3♠

[cherdano]

Agree with all that Richard said.

[jillybean]

I think that this one boils down to hand evaluation:

 

If you think that this is a limit raise, bid 3♠

If you think that this is a GF, bid 2NT

 

Given how light you (often) tend to open, I'd recommend 3♠

My 11 point limit raises often have just 3 card support and this hand is stronger than that, 4♠'s, 2Aces, AJ7 could be useful.

 

Its not worth a GF so I agree I should have down graded and made a limit raise, or are you suggesting I downgrade my limit raise in general?

[mike777]

I think that this one boils down to hand evaluation:

 

If you think that this is a limit raise, bid 3♠

If you think that this is a GF, bid 2NT

 

Given how light you (often) tend to open, I'd recommend 3♠

My 11 point limit raises often have just 3 card support and this hand is stronger than that, 4♠'s, 2Aces, AJ7 could be useful.

 

Its not worth a GF so I agree I should have down graded and made a limit raise, or are you suggesting I downgrade my limit rasies in general?

Many have a way to show a 3 card limit raise and a 4 card limit raise.

[jillybean]

Many have a way to show a 3 card limit raise and a 4 card limit raise.

Ok tell me, however I fear it will be just more conventions to forget :)

[goobers]

Immediate 3S tends to show 4 trumps.

 

If you play a 1NT forcing, you can jump at next round to show a 3 card limit raise. Otherwise, bidding a new suit, and then raising the major also tends to show a 3 card limit raise.

 

1♠ - 2♣

2♥ - 2♠

 

would be a 3 card limit raise for us standard folks. (3S would not be a limit raise, 3S is forcing.)

[sceptic]

play bergen

[PedroG]

Hi All,

 

Just making questions to understand my limitations of "Novice" better ;)

 

For me this would fall in the Limit Raise 11-12 range with 3+card trump support.

 

Did I understand the Limit Raise bid wrong?

 

Should I only do Limit Raise if 3card trump?

 

Thanks for the answers...

Pedro

[EricK]

If you are going to bid something else before supporting spades then 2♣ is better than 2♥ for a number of reasons:

1. Lying about the length of a minor is less likely to get you into trouble than lying about the length of a major

2. 2♣ still gives partner room to bid 2♥ so there is no immediate rush to mention your ♥ (this is in fact a good reason not to support ♠ immediately - 4♥ may well be a better contract than 4♠)

3. If you bid 2♣ and have a double fit with partner in ♣/♠ he is likely to let you play in ♠. If you bid 2♥ and have a double fit in ♠/♥ partner might take your subsequent ♠ bids to be cue bids rather than suggestions of a contract.

[Finch]

My 11 point limit raises often have just 3 card support and this hand is stronger than that, 4♠'s, 2Aces, AJ7 could be useful.

 

Its not worth a GF so I agree I should have down graded and made a limit raise, or are you suggesting I downgrade my limit raise in general?

You can't have a hand with spade support that is "too good" for a limit raise and "not good enough" for a game force: there is no gap.

 

This hand looks to me to be a limit raise, so that is what I would do.

 

If I decided it was a game force, and I did not have any artificial means of showing a game force, I would respond 2C.

 

As a slight side point, once you bid 2H and partner raiseed, you had to pass partner's 4H bid and hope for the best. 4S was a cue bid looking for a heart slam, not an attempt to play in 4S.

[neilkaz]

I think that this one boils down to hand evaluation:

 

If you think that this is a limit raise, bid 3♠

If you think that this is a GF, bid 2NT

 

Given how light you (often) tend to open, I'd recommend 3♠

The quote says it all here, and the same applies in SAYC as well as basic non-Bergen 2/1. When you bid 2♥ over 1♠ you need to have 5 of them or the auction may misslead PD as it did here !

 

Anyhow, I open aggressively so for me, this hand is at the top end of my 4 card limit raise, but it is not a GF. I'd GF if my spots were nice enough to have decent chances to provide a trick. In SAYC or basic 2/1 the direct jump to 3♠ shows this 4 card limit raise as we all know. Opener will carry on to game unless he opened with a real minimum. This method is somewhat flawed since there's no game trial bid to ask responder how good her limit raise is. For that reason, I prefer Bergen or Jacoby 2NT+ (2NT shows a limit raise or better ..ie like Jordon 2NT over a takeout double) or my own 2♣ shows either a limit raise or better or a GF 2/1 2♣ bid (next round I rebid 3♣ with real ♣), but these methods are beyond the scope of the B/I forum.

 

Also, after PD jumped to the 4♥ game, as Francis points out, I feel and would play that your 4♠ bid is a Q looking for a ♥ slam (note, once again, PD thinks that you have at least 5♥).

 

Off course for those that play 2/1 regularily, you should all be familiar with the forcing NT and the way to show 3 card limit raises by using 1NTF and then after a routine rebid from opener, jumping to 3M. 1NT forcing can also be added to the SAYC structure, off course.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[jillybean]

OK I agree, terrible bidding on my part.

 

I don't play 2/1, forcing nt or bergen and I play 2nt as a GF major rasie here.

I play limit raises as 9-12 3/4 card or to be more specific 3card 10-12, 4card 9-11.

[blackshoe]

Max Hardy defined 3 hand types within the limit raise of a major suit:

 

1. The "bad" limit raise: a good 9 to a bad 12 HCP, no shortage, 3 trumps.

2. The "good" limit raise: a good 9 to a bad 12 HCP, either 3 trumps and a side shortage, or 4 trumps and no shortage.

3. The "game forcing" limit raise (sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? ;) ): a good 9 to a bad 12 HCP, 4 trumps and a side shortage. Others might simply call this a minimum splinter raise.

 

Hardy has ways to show each of these different types (and to distinguish between the sub-types of type 2).

 

If you have only one way to show a limit raise, it has to include both type one and type two. If you play simple splinters, that bid shows type 3 above. If you don't play splinters, you have to manufacture a bid to show type 3.

 

Jilly, your method does include both type 1 and type 2 in your one available limit raise. Your hand is type 2 (second subtype). So there ya go. :D

 

You might benefit here from learning the losing trick count - an alternative method of hand evaluation that works when you have a known fit. A GF raise normally has 7 or fewer losers; your hand has 8, which is what a limit raise has (note that a raise to 2 has 8 or 9, so even using LTC, point count considerations are still important).

 

I don't think the problem here is one of system - iow I don't think you need to spend a lot of effort learning new conventions (forcing nt, 2/1, Bergen raises, Hardy raises). Instead concentrate on hand evaluation. It'll stand you in good stead on more hand types than just this one.

 

Oh, one other thing. I seem to remember you do play splinters. If so, good. If not, that's maybe one new convention you should consider adding to your system.

[pclayton]

I really, really don't like 2♣ here, especially in a BI forum. I think this is a vanilla limit raise personally.

 

If you have an agreement with your partner that 2♣ can be a 'fudge', I suppose its fine, although I fail to see why a 4 card limit raise can't describe this hand.

 

Look at some of the continuations after 1♠ - 2♣:

 

2♦. No real problem, except our delayed support tends to show 3 cards, not 4. Furthermore, we don't want to discourage pard from getting excited with a club singelton. A hand like: AKJxx, Kx, Axxxx, x gives us a fair play for slam, but why would pard consider it after we show a 3 card raise and club length?

 

2♥. This is the best possible news for the 2♣ bidders, since we have found the hoped-for 4-4 heart fit. I suppose we can't keep this below 4♥, so we just bid it. Again, pard has no idea about the double fit, and has no idea that short clubs are good, club length is bad. I will concede that a direct 4 card limit raise doesn;t give pard reason to get excited either.

 

2♠. We'll probably bash this into 4♠. 2♣ probably didn't hurt, but its hard to see how it helped either.

 

2N. Ditto to 2♠.

 

Here are the truly ugly continuations:

 

3♣. Ugh. We will reverse thrust back to 4♠. Now pard has every reason to get excited with extras and a (presumed) double fit.

 

3♠. Ouch. Wouldn't a cue of 4♣ be handy here? Sorry; thats not available.

 

4♣. Too horrific for words. Prepare to be buried.

[Apollo81]

Whether you pick 3♠ (limit raise) or 2NT (GF raise) is up to you, but those should be the only choices up for consideration.

[vuroth]

Whether you pick 3♠ (limit raise) or 2NT (GF raise) is up to you, but those should be the only choices up for consideration.

 

Is Delayed Game Raise obsolete then, or does it just apply to a specific sort of hand?

 

V

[jillybean]

Fwiw 3 tables reached 4♠ via a limit raise, 3 bid 4♠ directly over 1♠, one got to 4♠ via 2nt and another responded 2♠ and ended the auction. And then there was my bid.

 

& yes I use (misuse?) splinters :P

[barmar]

Is Delayed Game Raise obsolete then, or does it just apply to a specific sort of hand?

It usually applies only when you have something you want to show on the way, to help partner judge whether to explore for slam. It also tends to deny 4-card support, since there are usually systemic ways to show this (Jacoby 2NT with a balanced hand, splinter with an unbalanced one).

 

Since Jilly's hand didn't fall into either category, it's not a consideration.

[neilkaz]

Whether you pick 3♠ (limit raise) or 2NT (GF raise) is up to you, but those should be the only choices up for consideration.

 

Is Delayed Game Raise obsolete then, or does it just apply to a specific sort of hand?

 

V

I use the dellayed game raise only rarely. I use it when I have the top of my 3 card limit raise and PD's rebid after my 1NTF (and/or once in a while opp intervention) has enhanced my hand somewhat, so I now I think game is a good shot.

 

I'll admit that there may be better or added uses for this .. neilkaz ..

[Echognome]

I agree with the others that the only two choices to consider are limit raise and GF raise. Which of those I choose depends on how sound my partners tend to open.

 

To clarify, a delayed game raise is used when you do not have an artificial way to show a game forcing hand with support. Then you make a forcing bid and jump to game afterwards to show your hand type. This was much more common before the Jacoby 2NT convention was invented.

 

There are other uses now for a 2/1 and a jump to game. Some use it as a picture bid and others use it as showing a very minimum 2/1 (namely I wanted to show you my secondary suit, but I do not have any extras besides that 5 card suit and some support for your major).

 

I think it's fine to play limit raises as 3+ in order to keep your agreements to a minimum. Yes, there are ways to distinguish between 3 and 4 card limit raises, but there are also ways to distinguish between mixed raises and preemptive raises and also between good preempts to game and bad preempts to game. There are many, many conventions and gadgets one could play, but why? I say that you should only worry about them once you feel comfortable in your play and defense and have a serious partner you want to work with on it.

[foo]

My 11 point limit raises often have just 3 card support and this hand is stronger than that, 4♠'s, 2Aces, AJ7 could be useful.

 

Its not worth a GF so I agree I should have down graded and made a limit raise, or are you suggesting I downgrade my limit raise in general?

The 1st problem that needs to be addressed here is defining an Invitational hand in SA, SAYC, or 2/1 GF.

There are good 9's, and bad 12's, but usually the HCP range is 10-11.

But don't forget to count your Dummy points! +1 for a doubleton, +3 for a stiff, +5 for a void in any side suit.

HCP + Shortness Points= Dummy Points.

10-11 DP => Invitational hand. 12+ DP => GF hand.

 

 

A Limit Raise, 1M-3M, is supposed to show 4 card support. If someone told you to casually make LR's with only 3 card support, they misled you. You sometimes may have no choice, but 3 card LR's should be a last resort to describe your hand.

 

Just about every Invitational hand with only 3 card support can be bid in a different way within a SA context:

a= any hand with a side 5+ card suit.

Makes a 2/1 and then raises.

 

b= flat hands with 3 card support but no side 5+ card suit have to be evaluated very carefully as to their true trick taking potential. Some will be downgraded to 1N or a simple raise. Some will require you to 2/1 in a 4 card suit that rates to be source of tricks.

Some problem hands playing SA: 1S-??

 

1= K9x.KJ9x.J9x.ATx

Grit your teeth and bid 1N or 3S.

My preference would be 1N w/ most 10 HCP and 3S with most 11 HCP, but there are exceptions to even that.

Invitational 4333's are a problem for SA and are an advertisement for the 1N forcing or semi-forcing response to 1M.

 

2= KT9.T8xx.Kx.A9xx

I'd bid 1N with this one, but change the ♦K into the ♥K here and I'd bid 3S.

 

3= KQ9.QT.JT9x.QJT9

An easy 1N with all these soft values.

 

4= 8xx.J9xx.KT.AQJ8

Bid 2C and then raise ♠'s.

 

Side note: Playing absolutely vanilla SAYC, flat Invitational hands are easier to handle because 1M-2N is natural! Having 2N available to show flat Invitational hands simplifies these situations enormously. OTOH J2N is handy when deciding between game or slam :)

[jillybean]

My 11 point limit raises often have just 3 card support and this hand is stronger than that, 4♠'s, 2Aces, AJ7 could be useful.

 

Its not worth a GF so I agree I should have down graded and made a limit raise, or are you suggesting I downgrade my limit raise in general?

The 1st problem that needs to be addressed here is defining an Invitational hand in SA, SAYC, or 2/1 GF.

There are good 9's, and bad 12's, but usually the HCP range is 10-11.

But don't forget to count your Dummy points! +1 for a doubleton, +3 for a stiff, +5 for a void in any side suit.

HCP + Shortness Points= Playing Points.

10-11 PP => Invitational hand. 12+ PP => GF hand.

 

 

A Limit Raise, 1M-3M, is supposed to show 4 card support. If someone told you to casually make LR's with only 3 card support, they misled you. You sometimes may have no choice, but 3 card LR's should be a last resort to describe your hand.

 

I am surprised to see it suggested that we count “dummy points’ and reminds me of being told I cannot open on less than 13 points. :) Likewise, only 4 card limit raises? Unless I am mistaken, this is not the modern method of hand evaluation.

 

PS I have never heard of 1M:2N natural!

[foo]

Jilly, if it works don't knock it unless or until you find something that works better.

 

SA where

1= Opener counts HCP + length points= Opening Points and Opens whenever having >= 13 Points, and

2= Dummy adds HCP + shortness= Dummy points in the presence of a fit to decide how good their hand is

...works a lot better than some of the poster's around here might want to admit.

 

Add to that the heuristic that you want to be in

3N w/ 26 Playing Points w/o a fit

3N or 4M w/ 25 PP and a fit

3N or 4M w/ 24 PP and a fit split exactly 12 + 12

5m if you can't play any other game and have 27 PP and a fit.

(Opening Points + Dummy Points = Playing Points)

...and you will be bidding plenty aggressively, I assure you.

 

More importantly, you will tend to =make= what you bid.

 

As for why a Limit Raise should promise 4+ trumps.

"The 9th trump is the most important card in Bridge."

 

A Limit Raise removes =all= the room for exploration. Opener has to make an important decision based 100% on that one bid. The knowledge that there is usually a 9+ card fit present helps Opener enormously.

 

PS. Most people add J2N to Their SA card way too soon! :)