GF or limit raise?

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=n&s=saxxxhaxdxxxck98x]133|100|1♠-Pass-?[/hv]

 

 

 

Playing 2/1, sound openers (7 losers if 11,12 HCP or any with 13 HCP) with 2NT as GF (Jacoby) and 3♠ as a 4-card limit raise, what do you choose?

 

Feel free to state if your answer would be different based on form of scoring and vulnerability.

[hrothgar]

Under the stated conditions, I think this is a pretty clear GF

 

You have a nine card fit.

 

Before any adjustments, this counts as 8 losers. Here you have 2 bullets and no queens or Jacks, so this looks much more like 7 losers.

 

Mark me down for 2NT

[gwnn]

I would not like to play in a partnership where this is not enough as a GF.

[Cascade]

Looks like a GF to me.

 

I would consider GF in my own partnership and we play a lighter opening bid style.

 

I would only consider inviting if not vulnerable and at Matchpoints and even under those conditions I might still GF.

[kenrexford]

Gadget.

 

3♣. When partner bids 3♦, I'll show a control-rich maximum limit (3NT).

[hrothgar]

Gadget.

 

3♣. When partner bids 3♦, I'll show a control-rich maximum limit (3NT).

1. The question appears to be one of judgment, not who can pull a gadget out of their ass

 

2. Given that your gadget forces you to three NT, can we mark you down as saying that this hand is worth a GF?

[rogerclee]

Opposite a normal 2/1 player, GFing seems clear.

[han]

Gadget.

 

3♣.  When partner bids 3♦, I'll show a control-rich maximum limit (3NT).

1. The question appears to be one of judgment, not who can pull a gadget out of their ass

 

2. Given that your gadget forces you to three NT, can we mark you down as saying that this hand is worth a GF?

1. His answer clearly answers how he judge this hand.

 

2. See 1. ;)

[pclayton]

Rock bottom GF.

[655321]

I don't feel strongly about this one.

 

Treating the hand as a 4 card limit raise will only miss game when partner is 5332 11 or 12, and perhaps that is not so bad.

 

Treating the hand as a GF means you get to these games (again, perhaps not so bad ;) ), with some small chance of bidding more slams (good if they make, not so good if they don't). The hand has good controls, but nothing else.

 

Probably at the table I would show the 4 card limit raise.

[jtfanclub]

In 2/1, I GF. In SAYC, I 1 round force, then I decide whether to GF later.

 

Of course, if you're actually playing this ultra conservative opening, then it's a GF regardless.

[inquiry]

GF, absolutely

[jillybean]

GF wtp?

[kenrexford]

Gadget.

 

3♣.  When partner bids 3♦, I'll show a control-rich maximum limit (3NT).

1. The question appears to be one of judgment, not who can pull a gadget out of their ass

 

2. Given that your gadget forces you to three NT, can we mark you down as saying that this hand is worth a GF?

No. If partner does not ask with 3♦, instead bidding 3♠, I could pass.

[Finch]

This opening style is nothing like 'ultra conservative'. As described, it implies that

 

Kxxxx

Kxx

Qxx

Kx

 

is an opening bid (it's a 11-count with 7 losers, unless you modify the loser count somewhat)

 

It sounds like a normal opening bid style

 

I would show it as a limit raise.

[cherdano]

This opening style is nothing like 'ultra conservative'. As described, it implies that

 

Kxxxx

Kxx

Qxx

Kx

 

is an opening bid (it's a 11-count with 7 losers, unless you modify the loser count somewhat)

 

It sounds like a normal opening bid style

 

I would show it as a limit raise.

7 losers? This is the most disgusting post you have made, ever :P

[Guest Jlall]

Limit raise for me, don't find it particularly close.

[Yogeshdg]

That looks like GF raise.

[kenrexford]

This hand might be GF for many people but limit for others.

 

I and my partner open "shapely nine-counts" too often to force game here. In fact, 1♠-P-3♣!-P-3♠ is a sequence that is usually followed by "good luck partner" and "can't you take a joke?"

[Guest Jlall]

This hand might be GF for many people but limit for others.

 

I and my partner open "shapely nine-counts" too often to force game here. In fact, 1♠-P-3♣!-P-3♠ is a sequence that is usually followed by "good luck partner" and "can't you take a joke?"

OP stated what the requirements are for an opening bid in that partnership, what your own partner would open with is not really relevant.

[jdonn]

I just don't think I could live with myself if I didn't force to game. If partner is a balanced 12 or something it will just depend which 12 anyway. Is anyone well known for stopping on a dime on hands like this?

[the hog]

Interesting. Limit raise for me.

[han]

Is anyone well known for stopping on a dime on hands like this?

Did somebody call my name?

 

I'm well known on stopping on dimes, nickels, cents, you name it. Basically, those that know me know me for stopping.

[Impact]

Limit raise : sure I love the 5 controls and 4th trump but the CK could still prove to be wasted...so a system which allows me to show the limit raise but gives opener room for a counter-try beneath 3S is preferable (and basically I will accept anything except a short suit try in C).

 

regards,

[bhall]

With all your aces and kings, it is likely that partner's minimums will contain a few quacks. Try playing this hand opposite a selection of 5332 hands holding one ace, one king, two queens, and one jack. I think you will find that game is less than 50% in most cases. However, in some cases it will be virtually cold (e.g., when he holds a small doubleton in ♦).

 

Vulnerable, at IMPs, playing 2/1 (with F1 1N), I would bid 1N and follow with 4♠. At least then partner may get a clue that I'm gambling, and he won't be tempted to try for slam without substantial extras. At MPs against weakish defenders, I would be tempted to do the same.