course of action

[Codo]

2 Nt is obvious.

 

Its a style matter if you should bid 4 Spade over pds signoff.

 

If he signs of after 2NT with KQxxx,Kxx,Kxx,xx, you better bid 4.

 

But if he is a fearless junior- like all posters here, he would bid 4 Spade after 2 NT with this anyway , so you better pass 3 Spade. Still missing a game opposite KQxxx,xxx,x,Qxxx. Such is life...

[MFA]

2 Nt is obvious.

 

Its a style matter if you should bid 4 Spade over pds signoff.

 

If he signs of after 2NT with KQxxx,Kxx,Kxx,xx, you better bid 4.

 

But if he is a fearless junior- like all posters here, he would bid 4 Spade after 2 NT with this anyway , so you better pass 3 Spade. Still missing a game opposite KQxxx,xxx,x,Qxxx. Such is life...

Yes, you are right of course that it's a matter of style whether to respect partner's sign-off in 3♠. I was a little too quick to assume my usual horrific 1M overcall style.

[helene_t]

Helene has flattered me so I will have to answer. As usual, this is more a question of semantics and I am somewhat disappointed that given my answer, you cannot figure out how I use the words.

Glad that you feel flattered. Actually I found your descriptions of your overcall style inspiring.

 

Sorry for dissapointing. I wasn't sure if you meant what you just explained or if you meant that there is some third category between limit and GF.

 

As for a discussion group I think I will forward the issue to the committee that clarified the "appropriate sign" poll and leave it by that. :P

[miguelm]

If you have 2NT available, this the perfect situation for using it. If don't use it here, you might as well don't play it lol

 

I don't understand if we are vulnerable or not, but in general I will respect a sign off and bid 4S on any excuse.

[Mud Reelo]

3NT. Yeah, really

[Apollo81]

It looks to me like a lot of people redefine what a limit raise is based on what partner has shown. This is a very nitpicky point, but in my mind "limit raise" means 'invitational opposite a standard opener' and "invitational" means 'partner should bid game on most hands and sign off with no extras'. It is obvious from the replies to this post that a lot of people equate these two terms, whereas I do not.

 

I consider Axxx Kxxx xx Kxx to be a limit raise in either major, but would not call it invitational opposite an overcall.

 

If I sit down with someone and discuss a card in about 15 minutes time and agree that (1x)-1y-(p)-2NT is a limit raise, I would assume we mean 'invitational opposite a standard opener' Thus I would not accept/reject/countertry with the same hands as most of the posters. If we agreed that it is an 'invitational' raise, that's different.

 

Does anyone else share this philosophy or am I way out in left field here?

[Apollo81]

Anyway the actual hand here was KQxxx xxxx Axx Q. Certainly not an accept of a 'limit raise' as defined by my previous post, but possibly an accept and certainly a counter try of an 'invitational raise'

[Apollo81]

I was also curious to see if anyone suggested 2♣ followed by a raise to 3♠ as "better than a limit raise (as defined by 2 posts ago) but not enough to GF opposite an overcall" but I dont think anyone did.

[helene_t]

Am I completely off track with this terminology issue?

 

"Limit bid" is a weird word IMHO but I thought it meant a bid that shows 3-level safety, for example

1m-1M

3M*

 

"Invitational" I thought was more vague, could be anything from mildly invitational (such as a 6-9 points single raise) to a limit bid.

[pclayton]

3NT. Yeah, really

Welcome to the forums.

 

You'll fit in nicely.

[miguelm]

Anyway the actual hand here was KQxxx xxxx Axx Q. Certainly not an accept of a 'limit raise' as defined by my previous post, but possibly an accept and certainly a counter try of an 'invitational raise'

Don't be so sure... at Imps I would bit 4S directly.

[jdonn]

Anyway the actual hand here was KQxxx xxxx Axx Q. Certainly not an accept of a 'limit raise' as defined by my previous post, but possibly an accept and certainly a counter try of an 'invitational raise'

To me a counter try of 3♦ looks perfect on that hand.

[cherdano]

I was also curious to see if anyone suggested 2♣ followed by a raise to 3♠ as "better than a limit raise (as defined by 2 posts ago) but not enough to GF opposite an overcall" but I dont think anyone did.

To me this sequence would show a strong invite with 3-card support. (S.th. like a balanced 16-count opposite Han.)

[gnasher]

It looks to me like a lot of people redefine what a limit raise is based on what partner has shown.  This is a very nitpicky point, but in my mind "limit raise" means 'invitational opposite a standard opener' and "invitational" means 'partner should bid game on most hands and sign off with no extras'.

 

[snip]

 

Does anyone else share this philosophy or am I way out in left field here?

You're certainly in the leftmost hemisphere. I think that there are two different usages:

 

(1) In the UK, "limit raise" was traditionally used to describe any raise which was limited to the values for the level to which it was made. Used in that sense, all of these would be described as "limit raises":

1S-3S

1S-2S

1NT-2NT

1C-1S-3S [uncontested]

(1C) 1S-3S [invitational raise opposite an overcall]

 

Originally the point was to distinguish a limited non-forcing bid from the forcing or wide-range bids common in the USA at the time.

 

The term is now rarely used other than when raising a suit to the three level. When used in this way, the strength shown varies according to the context.

 

(2) I have noticed that some Americans use "limit raise" to mean "a hand that would have raised an opening bid to the three level invitationally". I don't know how widespread this usage is. Some people in the UK have also adopted this usage, probably as a result of reading American books.

 

 

The Encyclopedia of Bridge, which is published by the ACBL but edited by an expatriate Englishman, defines it as "a raise with closely defined limits of strength", and gives examples that include a single raise to the two level. That is, it follows the traditional British usage.

 

Personally, I avoid using the term. If a bid is invitational, I call it "invitational", and I don't feel any need to relate this to the strength needed for making some other category of invitational bid.

[Halo]

I was also curious to see if anyone suggested 2♣ followed by a raise to 3♠ as "better than a limit raise (as defined by 2 posts ago) but not enough to GF opposite an overcall" but I dont think anyone did.

Suppose I need to get more verbose on my posts.

[kenrexford]

Anyway the actual hand here was KQxxx xxxx Axx Q.  Certainly not an accept of a 'limit raise' as defined by my previous post, but possibly an accept and certainly a counter try of an 'invitational raise'

To me a counter try of 3♦ looks perfect on that hand.

Agree.

 

Looks like 2NT-P-3♦-P-3♥-P-OhHell4♠-PPP

[Cascade]

I believe that this this hand is worth a game force opposite a sound 1♠ opening

I would game force opposite our unsound openings.

[Cascade]

This hand is invitational opposite an overcall.

 

Richard makes an excellent point about the ♣ AK not pulling full weight when they are in opener's suit. The value of an AK is enhanced when they help to build up tricks with lower cards less is far less likely when they are in the opponents' suit.

[han]

I was also curious to see if anyone suggested 2♣ followed by a raise to 3♠ as "better than a limit raise (as defined by 2 posts ago) but not enough to GF opposite an overcall"  but I dont think anyone did.

To me this sequence would show a strong invite with 3-card support. (S.th. like a balanced 16-count opposite Han.)

Oh come on, you'd force to game with 16 and support.

[655321]

It looks to me like a lot of people redefine what a limit raise is based on what partner has shown.  This is a very nitpicky point, but in my mind "limit raise" means 'invitational opposite a standard opener' and "invitational" means 'partner should bid game on most hands and sign off with no extras'.  It is obvious from the replies to this post that a lot of people equate these two terms, whereas I do not.

 

I consider Axxx Kxxx xx Kxx to be a limit raise in either major, but would not call it invitational opposite an overcall.

 

If I sit down with someone and discuss a card in about 15 minutes time and agree that (1x)-1y-(p)-2NT is a limit raise, I would assume we mean 'invitational opposite a standard opener' Thus I would not accept/reject/countertry with the same hands as most of the posters.  If we agreed that it is an 'invitational' raise, that's different.

 

Does anyone else share this philosophy or am I way out in left field here?

Left field.

What you would do opposite a standard opener is not the same as what you would do opposite a normal opener, so why compare the 2 situations? Limit raise to me is another term for invitational, so an invitational hand opposite an opening bid is not the same as an invitational hand opposite an overcall.

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter at all what you call the raise.

For hands with 4 card support, and less than a game force, with your methods you basically choose between 3♠, 3♣ and 2NT.

3♠ might be 0-6, or a similar range.

Then your mixed raises might be 7-10, your limit raises might be 11-14.

The exact ranges don't matter, but there is no gap between the ranges - as you increase the strength of a hand, it moves from a 3♠ bid, to a 3♣ bid, to a 2NT bid.

With a regular partner you have surely agreed the strengths for these bids, so why does it matter if you call the range above a mixed raise invitational or limit?

[Mud Reelo]

3NT. Yeah, really

Welcome to the forums.

 

You'll fit in nicely.

;)

 

Wow, I'm an idiot. I misread the bidding and gave an arrogant answer. I'm sorry

 

I was of the impression that I was in 3rd seat after 1♣-(1♠) and thought that 2NT was too little.

 

Given the actual problem, I'll bid 2NT and pass pard's 3♠. And that I don't think it's close

[Fluffy]

Wow, I'm an idiot. I misread the bidding and gave an arrogant answer.

Wellcome to the forums

 

You'll fit in nicelly

 

lol.