Pre-emptive Raise versus Limit Raise

[32519]

Pre-emptive raises and limit raises both have their plusses and minusses.

 

But which one do you think is better, and why?

 

How is your decision be influenced by the auction?

[blackshoe]

If you're asking which is the better use of the jump raise (1♠-3♠ for example) I'd say pre-emptive, provided you have a good way to show the limit raise (like say Bergen or Hardy).

 

If you're asking whether one is better than the other generally, I'd say neither is.

 

As for the auction, it's fairly standard around here to play weak jumps in competition, even if you play limit jumps otherwise. I like to play 'em weak in all cases.

[phil_20686]

1338131669[/url]' post='641664']

Pre-emptive raises and limit raises both have their plusses and minusses.

 

But which one do you think is better, and why?

 

How is your decision be influenced by the auction?

 

I like to have both. And a mixed raise. And sometimes a second way to limit raise.

[32519]

If you're asking whether one is better than the other generally, I'd say neither is.

 

What do you recommend?

[blackshoe]

As phil said. Both. B-)

[Vampyr]

Yes. Have a way to show both types of hands.

[Cthulhu D]

Yes. Have a way to show both types of hands.

 

How do you guys actually do this? I'm currently playing 2/1 with a 14-16 NT and raises like this after 1S:

 

2C: GF Balanced, clubs or 3 card limit raise (10-12)

(2DH) are game forcing hands

2S: Weak, constructive

2NT: Limit+

(3CDH): Invitational with 6 baggers

3S: Mixed - 8-10 4 card support

 

1NT is essentially not forcing, and I think you need that as forcing to do all raise types, both because it buys you some sequences, and there is less pressure to show the invitational 6 baggers straight away.

 

What are other people doing? Or are you just changing the 3S bid according to vulnerability.

[Statto]

Pre-emptive raises seem to be the norm these days, and probably for a reason.

 

There a lots of potential bids available to show a good raise: various splinters, and a non-GF 'Jacoby' 2NT amongst the most popular.

[blackshoe]

Hardy Raises:

2M: 5+ to 9-, 3 or 4 trumps.

3M: 0 to 5-, 4 trumps.

4M: 0 to 8, 5 trumps, possibly 4 and a void, no A or K

3C: 9+ to 12-, three trumps and a singleton, or four trumps no singleton (3D asks which).

3"under" (3D/1H, 3H/1S): 9+ to 12-, four trumps and a singleton or void (3M asks which).

3"over" (3S/1H, 3NT/1S): 12+ to 15-, four trumps and a singleton or void (not enough room to ask, here).

4C: 12+ to 15-, 4 trumps with 2 of the top 3 honors, balanced

4D: 12+ to 15-, 4 trumps not as good as 4C, balanced.

1NT: may include 9+ to 12-, 3 trumps, balanced (rebid 3M), or a raise to 4M with an A or K (rebid 4M).

2NT: 15+, 4+ trumps, not necessarily balanced (Jacoby 2NT)

2/1: GF, natural, unlimited, may include 3 card support for opener's M.

 

There's also the full Bergen Raise structure, and the Romex structure, which I won't go into right now.

[Cthulhu D]

Hardy Raises:

 

1NT has to be forcing to play this though right? You absolutely don't want partner passing 1NT with some balanced 11 if you were planning on bidding 4H with some expectation of making! Also with the 3"over" bid couldn't you just use the cheapest bid to ask and 4M is a stiff in the suit you cannot show? (clubs over 1S and spades over 1H)

[32519]

I like to have both. And a mixed raise. And sometimes a second way to limit raise.

 

Looking at the various ways to show a raise truly makes the game of bridge fascinating. I can choose from the following but cannot have them all.

 

Without Opposition Intervention

1. Jacoby 2NT Raise = 12+ HCP and 4-trump support

2. Limit Raise = 10-12 total points and 4-card support, typically 1M-3M

3. Fit Jump Raise = 10-11 HCP, good 5+ card suit, 4-cards in partners suit if a major (5 if a minor)

4. Bergen Raise = 3♣: 7-9 HCP, 4-trump support, 3♦: 10-12 HCP, 4-trump support, 3M: 0-6 HCP (4-6 HCP?), 4-trump support

5. Pre-emptive raise = minimum values, 4-trump support

 

With Intervention from either side

1. Mixed Raise = 8-11 (6-10?) total points, jump cue-bid of the suit opened by the opponents on the 3-level, 4+ trump support

2. Cue-bid Raise = Cue-bid of the suit overcalled promising 10-12 HCP and 3+ card support for the suit opened when a major, 4+ for ♦ and 5+ for ♣

 

Mixed raises and cue-bid raises are not to be confused.

 

But everything comes at a price e.g. If I include Fit Jumps and Mixed raises, I need to rethink my agreements and/or lose one of the following:

1. Weak Jump Shifts

2. Negative Free Bids

3. BROMAD

4. Splinters/Mini-splinters

 

What do others recommend to retain and what gets sacrificed?

[fromageGB]

I think you pays your money and you takes your choice. But whatever, you need to keep both preemptive and constructive raises, the latter in different degrees of strength.

 

My choice at the moment is to have a forcing next step (1♥ 1♠ or 1♠ 1NT) and put 0-6 hcp 3 card raises through that, with a direct 2M a full-bloodied 7-10. The forcing next step also covers 11-12 3 card raises. With 4 card support I like Bergen, but use the red suits when spades are trumps, and have the 3M-2 cheaper bid 7-10, where there is room for a next step invitation, and 3M-1 as solely 11/12. Yes, that hand my well bid game anyway, but it's good to get the strength across when opener has a good hand. A 13+ goes via the Jacoby 2NT bid, or, rather, 2M+1.

 

After opposition overcall I am an adherent of transfers up to 2M, so 2M is a preemptive 3 card raise, and 2M-1 ("transfer to 2M") is a constructive 7-10, while 2NT is 11+. With 4 card support 3M is up to 6, 7/8 transfers like a 3 card suit but then rebids 3M if partner does not invite or trial, and 9+ cue bids the opposition suit. This is of course invitational+, and responder can bid game if opener doesn't. The important thing is to show both your length of support and strength, so that partner can make the right judgement as to game, or action after further competition. We also play fit jump, and if a passed hand, fit non-jump, with good suits and support.

 

I am not saying this combination is best, and it won't suit everyone, but I am giving it as an example if the sort of functionality you should be looking for to suit your system and methods.

[fromageGB]

To complete the picture, I should say that a 13+ 3 card support starts with 2/1 if there is good 5 card suit, but without one, 2M+2 is 13-15 and 16+ starts with 2♣ (normally opener follows with a 2♦ relay)

[blackshoe]

1NT has to be forcing to play this though right? You absolutely don't want partner passing 1NT with some balanced 11 if you were planning on bidding 4H with some expectation of making! Also with the 3"over" bid couldn't you just use the cheapest bid to ask and 4M is a stiff in the suit you cannot show? (clubs over 1S and spades over 1H)

Yes, 1NT is forcing in this method. No, that won't work. 1♠-3NT-4♣ asks, and now you have three bids to show the types (4♦, 4♥, 4♠. You need four (void, singleton club, singleton diamond, singleton heart). Not to mention the room you'd need to ask where the void is. So 4♣ asks where the shortage is, and you can show that, but you can't differentiate between void and singleton (which you can do with the 3under bid. BTW, Hardy called these "under jump shifts" and "over jump shifts".

[phil_20686]

My preferred structure without intervention is something like, after 1H opening:

 

2H = simple raise 5-9

2S = three card limit

2N = 4 card inv+

3H = mixed 4-8 (but more shape than 2H)

4H = to play

 

3N,4c,4d = splinters 10-14

3S = void splinter any suit

 

Gf three card raises start with a 2/1

 

I like that a 1N response denies three card support always. I think it gains in competitive decisions.

[Zelandakh]

If you had to choose only one then I think it is clear to pick a limit raise. However, better is to have both. A structure that does this, as well as including splinters at all levels, a mixed raise and a GF raise is:-

 

1M+1 = relay, invite or better without 4 card support

2M = normal weak raise

2M+1/3M-4 = mini-splinter or "in-between" (~16-19) splinter (any side suit)

2M+2/3M-3 = GF raise

2M+3/3M-2 = limit raise

2M+4/3M-1 = mixed raise

3M = preemptive raise

3M+1 = splinter with a void (any side suit)

3M+2, +3, +4 = splinter with a singleton

 

I play all of the direct raises above 2M to show 4 card support. With 3 card support and a limit raise you relay and then show support on the following round. Obviously you do not have to split 3 card and 4 card raises up in this manner if it does not fit with the rest of your system.

[Vampyr]

All of the suggested schemes are lovely, but really you can get by with 1M-3M weak raise and 1M-2NT invitational raise or better.

[mikl_plkcc]

I am trying to play the following structure:

 

1♥

- 2♥ = 6-11

- 3♥ = 12+ (This keeps the bidding low for opener's slam potential)

- 4♥ = preempt

 

If opener has 15 points, he raises 2♥ response to 3♥, then responder raises again if holding 9 points.

[fromageGB]

I am trying to play the following structure:

 

1♥

- 2♥ = 6-11

- 3♥ = 12+ (This keeps the bidding low for opener's slam potential)

I think the problems here are that :

 

3♥ is too high for much useful slam investigation. It would work better if you used the Jacoby 2NT bid, and adopted one of the suggested sequences of continuations you can find on the internet. This means that 3♥ is then available as a weaker pre-emptive bid. This is as Vampyr gave above.

 

2♥ is really cramming too many options into one bid. Presumably the length may be 3 or 4? The huge range makes it very difficult for opener to know what to do when the 4th seat bids something over 2♥ - For just one hand it could be right to double for penalty, to bid on, or to pass, and he does not know what is best. He has to guess. If you could narrow the options - perhaps putting the 6-8 hands with 4 hearts into the now vacant 3♥ bid - his guess is more accurate. Acquiring another free bid and using that would make it even better.

[Statto]

All of the suggested schemes are lovely, but really you can get by with 1M-3M weak raise and 1M-2NT invitational raise or better.

Yup, the mini-Jacoby-2NT I mentioned earlier. Seems to be increasingly popular in the UK...

[perko90]

I'm not a fan of mixed raises, but love the preemptive raises, so I'm more in the Hardy camp. But I don't quite play it the same way. I use:

 

3M = 4-card preemptive raise

3C = 3-card limit raise

3D = 4-card limit raise

 

However, if you play it fully the Hardy way, where a balanced 3-card LR is included in the 1NT response, it's not necessary to play forcing NT. Semi-forcing NT works fine (or better, IMO). Opener only passes w/ a minimum 5-3-3-2 (or 4-5-x-x if opened 1♥) that wouldn't accept an invite.

[mgoetze]

I still don't understand why bad questions receive so many more replies than good questions on this forum.

[gwnn]

All of the suggested schemes are lovely, but really you can get by with 1M-3M weak raise and 1M-2NT invitational raise or better.

In practice most people who call 3M as a weak raise play it as mixed or something close to mixed. I've very rarely seen anyone who writes "0-5" on their CC actually make the bid on 0, and definitely not vulnerable.

[gwnn]

I still don't understand why bad questions receive so many more replies than good questions on this forum.

It's slightly dangerous to label questions as good or bad, but I think the phenomenon you describe might be related to Parkinson's Law of Triviality? People like answering simple questions because it makes them feel important and knowledgeable. However, whether the opening poster reads or completely ignores said answers is up to the opening poster and no one else...

[fromageGB]

In practice most people who call 3M as a weak raise play it as mixed or something close to mixed. I've very rarely seen anyone who writes "0-5" on their CC actually make the bid on 0, and definitely not vulnerable.

I don't think you have ever played against me, gwnn, but it is definitely weak, 4 card 0-6 on my CC ! And while I actually have bid 0 hcp NV, I probably would not do it with 0-3 vulnerable.