The Misadventures of Rex and Jay--#6544

[microcap]

Playing 2/1 but not Bergen raises, partner opens 1♥. You hold:[hv=pc=n&s=sj976hkjt7dk976c5]133|100[/hv]

 

Is this an automatic 3♥ raise or something else? Of course, there will be a part 2 of the question later...

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj976hkjt7dk976c5]133|100| Playing 2/1 but not Bergen raises, partner opens 1♥.

Is this an automatic 3♥ raise or something else?

Of course, there will be a part 2 of the question later...[/hv]

IMO 3♣ (mini-splinter) = 12, 2N (Limit+) = 11 :)

3♥ = 10, 4♥ = 8, 2♥ = 6, 1N = 4, 1♠ = 2.

[wyman]

Playing 2/1 but not Bergen raises, partner opens 1♥. You hold:[hv=pc=n&s=sj976hkjt7dk976c5]133|100[/hv]

 

Is this an automatic 3♥ raise or something else? Of course, there will be a part 2 of the question later...

 

I feel like "2/1 but not Bergen raises" isn't sufficient. How do you make a mixed raise? How do you make a 4cd limit raise?

 

In any case, this is a mixed raise for me, so I make my systemic mixed raise.

[phoenix214]

feel like "2/1 but not Bergen raises" isn't sufficient. How do you make a mixed raise? How do you make a 4cd limit raise?

 

In any case, this is a mixed raise for me, so I make my systemic mixed raise.

 

3M - Mixed raise, 2NT Limit+

 

I have lived with out bergen raises in 2/1 precision, do not think they are needed anyway :P, waste of good bids

[wyman]

 

3M - Mixed raise, 2NT Limit+

 

 

Yes, this is what I play as well.

 

My point was that his description of his system was insufficient, so I'm wondering what bids he has available.

[microcap]

Yes, this is what I play as well.

 

My point was that his description of his system was insufficient, so I'm wondering what bids he has available.

 

 

2♥ is a constructive raise, 2NT is jacoby , 3♥ is a classic limit raise, MUST have 4 cards though

[wyman]

2♥ is a constructive raise, 2NT is jacoby , 3♥ is a classic limit raise, MUST have 4 cards though

 

If you've decided to roll 3-card and 4-card constructive raises into 2H, then I'd bid 2H with this hand.

 

It is becoming more fashionable to roll 4+ card limit raises into the 1M-2N structure, freeing up 3M as a 4-card constructive (i.e., "mixed") raise.

 

But you should play within the confines of your system. If you have a way to show a 4-card constructive raise (2H), and your hand is a 4-card constructive raise, then your problem is solved. If the issue is whether your hand is constructive or worth a limit raise, then my opinion is that you'd be really, really stretching to call this a LR.

[microcap]

If you've decided to roll 3-card and 4-card constructive raises into 2H, then I'd bid 2H with this hand.

 

It is becoming more fashionable to roll 4+ card limit raises into the 1M-2N structure, freeing up 3M as a 4-card constructive (i.e., "mixed") raise.

 

But you should play within the confines of your system. If you have a way to show a 4-card constructive raise (2H), and your hand is a 4-card constructive raise, then your problem is solved. If the issue is whether your hand is constructive or worth a limit raise, then my opinion is that you'd be really, really stretching to call this a LR.

 

I forgot something perhaps important-- 1M-3♣ is a 3 card 10-12 raise, a single raise is defined as a hand that would accept the appropriate game try from opener.

[wyman]

That doesn't describe my hand better than "I have a constructive raise with either three or four cards" imo

[CSGibson]

form of scoring/vulnerability?

 

My inclination is to call it a limit raise (after all, if I had another K I would game force with a splinter), but I don't object to 2♥ or 3♣ either. In fact, I have a sneaking admiration for 3♣ given your description of the call, despite the fact that my hand meets none of the parameters, I think it is probably the closest approximation of my playing strength.

[mr1303]

Both my granny and I would bid a good old fashioned 3H with this hand.

[EricK]

It looks like a limit raise to me. If you show that with 3H, then 3H is the bid I would make.

[nigel_k]

This is definitely a limit raise and not a minimum. A mixed raise or constructive raise is not enough even with a very aggressive opening style.

[wyman]

Interesting, I'll reevaluate. I consider myself pretty aggressive, despite our aggressive opening style.

 

I wouldn't have considered making a LR with this, but with so many of you making one, I will reexamine.

[microcap]

So here's the followup:

 

You hold [hv=pc=n&n=sa65h87654dacakj4]133|100[/hv]

 

After 1♥-3♥ limit raise promising at least 4 trump, are you making a slam try?

[ArtK78]

First question - it is a limit raise, so I call 3♥.

 

Second question - this is a 6 loser hand. A limit raise is typically a hand with 3-3 1/2 cover cards. Therefore, the chances of this hand producing a slam are slim and none, and Slim is on his way out of town. So, no, I do not make a slam try.

 

If you don't like losing trick analysis, then ask the classic question regarding game and slam tries - can partner have a perfect minimum hand for his bidding on which (game or) slam will be cold? If so, your hand is worth a (game or) slam try.

 

With a trump suit of 8xxxx, partner will have to have AT LEAST AKxx or KQJx to have reasonable assurance that we have only one trump loser. Of course, AKxx gives us some hope of no trump losers. After that, you need to fill in the holes in clubs and spades. Partner could have a singleton spade, but then we would have to ruff with partner's big trumps, and that doesn't seem like a good idea. So let's assume partner has Kx of spades. Now if you give partner the ♦Q you could make it up to a perfect minimum on which slam is (almost) cold: Kx KQJx xxx Qxx. Still, I don't think you would consider this a minimum limit raise - in fact, most people would force to game in response to a 1♥ opening holding that hand.

 

What about Kx KQJx xxxx xx? That would be a minimum limit raise. But is slam cold? Hardly. If you pull trump and are fortunate enough to find trump 2-2, you have 5 side suit tricks, 4 trump in hand and two ruffs in dummy - 11 tricks. And if you start cross ruffing without pulling trump, you are going to have to be very lucky to get in all the ruffs in hand without an overruff, let alone avoiding a heart lead. Suffice to say that 6♥ is not cold. Even if you give partner KQJT of hearts, slam will not be cold.

 

Is xx AKQx xxxx Qxx a limit raise? Assuming trump are 3-1 or better, you have 5 hearts in hand, a spade ruff in dummy, a diamond and 4 clubs. 12 tricks! But then I get back to the question is this a minimum limit raise? Far from it. Some would bid game on this hand. Even if it is not a game bid, it is close. So it is not a minimum limit raise.

 

I don't think you can give partner a minimum limit raise on which slam is cold. So I don't believe that opener's hand is worth a slam move.

[GreenMan]

Not a chance.

[CSGibson]

So here's the followup:

 

You hold [hv=pc=n&n=sa65h87654dacakj4]133|100[/hv]

 

After 1♥-3♥ limit raise promising at least 4 trump, are you making a slam try?

 

No.

[mike777]

So here's the followup:

 

You hold [hv=pc=n&n=sa65h87654dacakj4]133|100[/hv]

 

After 1♥-3♥ limit raise promising at least 4 trump, are you making a slam try?

 

 

Not a limit raise but close for me. An adjusted 8.5 loser hand...just short.

 

Barely worth a slam try...5.5 adjusted loser hand across from 7.5-8 loser hand across from a more solid limit raise.

 

Art's example would be a minimum limit raise.

 

But good example to discuss with your partner just what does a minimum limit raise look like for you guys...you decide.

[mikeh]

I wonder how many of the limit raise bidders here have ever thought about the theory underlying constructive raises?

 

In my partnerships we play constructive because doing so allows us to increase the low end of the single raise and also, to a lesser extent, the low end of the limit raise.

 

This is demonstrably good (ignoring competitive issues) because it generally pays, when considering raises, to have the lower bid have a wide range and the higher bid a narrow range.

 

Thus one's range for limit bids (especially if one uses 3M as the limit) should be narrower than the range for a constructive raise. Why?

 

Because over a constructive raise opener, with a good hand insufficient to bid game, can ask via whatever methods the partnership chooses, whether responder's hand is working or not. There will almost always be safety at the 3-level in these cases, and thus the decision to bid game or not is made after an additional, informative round of bidding. By contrast, after a 3M raise, opener has no chance to show or ask about information and must just bid game or pass.

 

Here, then, this hand is to me a 'good' or 'maximum' constructive raise. I suggest that it is clear that just how good this hand is, opposite a borderline 'do we look for game' opener will depend mostly on degree of fit.

 

I suppose one can construct opening hands not worth a game try opposite which game is good, but one can also very readily construct opening hands on which opener should raise a limit raise to game where there is no play. My sense is that, in partnerships that are aware of the approach I have outlined here, opener will be bidding on the great majority of hands where game is decent or better.

 

Having said all of that, this hand is really at the upper limit of constructive raises for me, and if in your partnerships opener tends to be conservative over a constructive raise, then the slight overbid may be the best short-term solution.

 

As for moving towards slam, one of the corollaries of my approach is that this would be a sub-minimum 4 card limit raise and that in turn makes slam more attractive for opener. Many medium range limits make slam at least decent.

 

Kxx AQxx xxxx Qx is well within limit raise values and slam is great: needing only 2-2 hearts, or the stiff K offside, or Kx(x) onside (one plays the A first and then low to the Q).

 

So I think one would have to make a try. Indeed, for those of you who claim both that the responding hand is a limit raise and that one shouldn't even try for slam as opener, you are presumably accepting that you are going to miss a lot of good contracts.

 

This is another effect of the notion of having a wide range for limit bids and having a relatively narrow range for the lower raise, and this makes very little sense, unless I am missing something.

[CSGibson]

 

Indeed, for those of you who claim both that the responding hand is a limit raise and that one shouldn't even try for slam as opener, you are presumably accepting that you are going to miss a lot of good contracts.

 

This is another effect of the notion of having a wide range for limit bids and having a relatively narrow range for the lower raise, and this makes very little sense, unless I am missing something.

 

What I am worried about, Mike, is that the hands that you need for slam are very specific (good trumps, working Q of clubs, spade values or diamond KQ), and it is going to be hard to either show or ask for what you need after a limit raise without getting too high on the occasions that partner's trump are not robust. Since I don't think I have the tools to evaluate whether slam is good in the space I have, I would not make a try.

[rmnka447]

Just for the record, ....

 

The responding hand is a limit raise.

 

The opening hand is not enough for a slam try. If the ♣ K was a small ♣, you might well pass the limit raise.

[mikeh]

What I am worried about, Mike, is that the hands that you need for slam are very specific (good trumps, working Q of clubs, spade values or diamond KQ), and it is going to be hard to either show or ask for what you need after a limit raise without getting too high on the occasions that partner's trump are not robust. Since I don't think I have the tools to evaluate whether slam is good in the space I have, I would not make a try.

 

If responder has what I would have for a limit, and it need not be much more than he has, that needn't get us too high.

 

Now, I appreciate that this is the IA forum. I risk sounding condescending but the reality is that most bridge players I have encountered, below the expert level, don't understand how to bid cooperatively, which explains the devotion to keycard, minorwood, and so on that we see in these forums and at the table. Most players seize the opportunity to take charge even when doing so leaves them guessing what to do, and my experience suggests that this is because the partnership (and it is a partnership issue, not a player issue) lacks the confidence or skill to know how to bid more delicately.

 

So: as opener I would cuebid...matters get complicated if one plays serious or frivolous 3N, but actually such gadgets may help (I don't usually play either for reasons that don't matter here).

 

If we can make a non-serious cuebid, then we are basically never at risk. Responder has no side Aces, so cannot logically be interested in slam opposite a non-serious try unless he has good trump. If he is looking at weakish trump, then he will assume either that we have trump issues where he can't help or that we have good trump and therefore, because we made a non-serious try, we need some Aces outside....how can we make a non-serious try with all 3 side Aces and good trump? We'd make a serious try most of the time.

 

I confess I can't use this inference...I don't have this limit raise in my repertoire. So I cuebid. But, and this is the key, in my preferred style, which is (I think) the most prevalent expert treatment in NA, a cuebid below game doesn't force partner to cuebid. A cuebid below game, other than when serious etc 3N is available, is an indication of at least mild interest and responder's primary responsibility isn't to cue back....it is to see whether he has some corresponding interest. Only if so does he cue...otherwise he makes a regressive call.

 

Once again, when we hold all 3 side Aces, it seems to me unlikely that responder would see his hand as slam suitable absent good trump.

 

That isn't to claim that this is perfect. I admit that there would be a small number of hands on which we might still reach the 5 level and be in jeopardy when partner has a bad hand for us that still looked good after our first cue. Frankly, in the short time I was writing this, I couldn't construct one but I am sure they exist.

 

On the other hand, it is trivial to construct hands on which small slam is great and where we even have a decent play for grand. We don't need magic cards, in the sense that we need the club Q or the diamond KQ, etc. A doubleton club will usually suffice to give us no losers in that suit, and remember we are entitled to play him for a decent 10 count or so if he says he likes his hand after we cuebid.

 

Now, if you play that once opener cues, responder has to cue regardless of his hand, so long as he has a 2nd round control somewhere....I can't help you and I wouldn't play your method.

[CSGibson]

(lots of quality stuff)

 

 

Thanks Mike, that makes a ton of sense to me - I do play serious/non-serious, and I would put a non-serious 3♠ on the table effectively; partner would likely only cooperate with good trump for the prior bidding, you are correct. I was thinking more of the style of cue-bidding where people would show first round controls, but even then surely 3N after 3S would say "I have interest, but nothing convenient to cue-bid". Just lazy thinking.

[monikrazy]

Max Hardy 2/1 would likely advocate bidding 3D here as an 'under jump shift'

 

An under jump shifts shows 9-12, 4 card trump support and a singleton or void in side suit.

 

This is about the weakest an under jump shift can be (its 9.1 K&R). If opener has slam interest he can inquire about the shortness by bidding 3H. With no interest he can sign off in 4H.

 

 

 

I tend to think a limit raise here slightly over-represents the strength of your hand and could create problems if opener has a strong hand.