limit raises and semiforcing NT

[straube]

I'm playing 2/1 GF with invitational jump shifts and semiforcing NT. My 2N is a limit raise, not Jacoby.

 

So far I've thought to have 2N handle all 3 and 4-cd limit raises, but it seems like most who are using 2N as a LR require 4 trump. The 3-cd balanced limit raises bid 1N and play there if pd passes with a minimum 5332.

 

Fine and well if responder's hand is Qxx Kxx AQ T9xxx (adjust these hands to fit your strength of opening), but what if responder has Kxx x AQxxx JTxx or Kxx xx AKxxx Jxx. I.e. you have a hand with shortness or weakness somewhere.

 

I've thought to divide things such as...

 

1N-could have a balanced 3-cd limit raise. Will invite in the major if partner bids again.

2N-4-cd limit raise or 3-cd suit oriented limit raise. We can even use 3C to ask for a fourth trump if we think that's the best use for the bid.

 

Is that good? Recommendations?

[whereagles]

Singletons and doubletons hands normally have different playing strengths. I would find advisable to try and sort those two cases out, although some statistics are necessary if you want to know whether that is more important than the 4th trump.

 

You're a bit cramped on space for that though... Not sure you can untangle stuff out below 3M. But here's a possible way out

 

1♠ 2NT

3♣ sing ask

 

now

 

...3♠ = no sing

...3♥ = singleton ♥

...3♦ = C or D singleton

 

and

 

...3♦

3♥ = bid game if sing ♣

3♠ = bid game if sing ♦

 

Similar methods after 1♥ require changing the support bid to 1♥-2♠.

[jallerton]

I'm playing 2/1 GF with invitational jump shifts and semiforcing NT. My 2N is a limit raise, not Jacoby.

 

So far I've thought to have 2N handle all 3 and 4-cd limit raises, but it seems like most who are using 2N as a LR require 4 trump. The 3-cd balanced limit raises bid 1N and play there if pd passes with a minimum 5332.

 

Fine and well if responder's hand is Qxx Kxx AQ T9xxx (adjust these hands to fit your strength of opening), but what if responder has Kxx x AQxxx JTxx or Kxx xx AKxxx Jxx. I.e. you have a hand with shortness or weakness somewhere.

 

I've thought to divide things such as...

 

1N-could have a balanced 3-cd limit raise. Will invite in the major if partner bids again.

2N-4-cd limit raise or 3-cd suit oriented limit raise. We can even use 3C to ask for a fourth trump if we think that's the best use for the bid.

 

Is that good? Recommendations?

 

Do you really mean that 2NT shows precisely a limit raise to 3M, or is it actually limit raise or better? If the latter, it's harder to untangle everything after the 2NT response, although admittedly this will not matter on the vast majority of hands.

 

Maybe I don't play enough, but I haven't found putting 3-card raises through the unbalanced 1NT response to be a major issue. Maybe it's because when Responder has a singleton and Opener was going to pass 1NT (so typically 5332), the opponents have a 9- or 10-card fit and one of them has often bid already.

[straube]

Do you really mean that 2NT shows precisely a limit raise to 3M, or is it actually limit raise or better? If the latter, it's harder to untangle everything after the 2NT response, although admittedly this will not matter on the vast majority of hands.

 

Maybe I don't play enough, but I haven't found putting 3-card raises through the unbalanced 1NT response to be a major issue. Maybe it's because when Responder has a singleton and Opener was going to pass 1NT (so typically 5332), the opponents have a 9- or 10-card fit and one of them has often bid already.

 

2N is precisely a LR. With a balanced hand we relay with 2C.

[olien]

My junior partner and I play a very similar style (2NT exactly LR with 3+, etc). Except for 2NT to be only 3-card support, the hand must also contain either a singleton or a side 6-card suit. Opener's re-bids over 2NT are as follows:

 

3♣ - asking for a good side suit

3♦ - some splinter, need perfecto

3M - attempted sign off

3oM/3NT/4♣ - LMH splinter, real slam tries

4M - to play

 

After the 1M - 2NT // 3♣ asking bid, responder's bids are as follows:

3♦ - no

3♥ - good ♣ suit (now 3♠ asks for NLH SPL.)

3♠ - good ♦ suit (now 3NT asks for NLH SPL.)

3NT/4♣/4♦ - good OM, NLH SPL

 

After 1M - 2NT // 3♣ - 3♦, 3♥ by opener asks again and the following steps are used:

3♠ - 4-card LR

3NT+ - 3-card limit raise, NLMH SPL

 

May not be best, but has worked well for us and gotten us to some well fitting slams. May be a way to distinguish 3 and 4-card support and good side suit or not, but we haven't been able to develop such a way. Hope this helps.

[olien]

We do this because it got scary responding 1NT semi-forcing with unbalanced 3-card limit raises. This way, at least both hands will be mostly balanced if opener passes.

[Siegmund]

The problem hands you have are ones where fit-jumps would be very useful.

 

I have not had much success trying to telescope several kinds of fit-jumps into one reply; I wonder if you might instead be able to telescope several kinds of your invitational jump shifts into one reply, so that you can use 1S-3C to show 3+S 5+C (or similar.) For instance, 1S-2N = any invitational 1-suiter, 1S-3new = fit, 1S-3S = balanced limit, or something.

 

The other old-fashioned solution, not having 2/1 be GF, seems to be very out of fashion right now.

 

GRB

[trevahound]

 

The other old-fashioned solution, not having 2/1 be GF, seems to be very out of fashion right now.

 

GRB

 

This is what some of us in the Seattle area are doing, based on some advice from an old timer. Our 2/1 calls are not GF (inv. or better), and then if opener doesn't create a GF with his first rebid, responder's rebid is a transfer. You transfer into your IJS suit, for example, and opener only takes the transfer if he'd have passed the IJS. You can invited with many hand shapes; the 3c LR with a side suit (the hand you're worried about being passed in 1nt in) starts with their natural suit bid 2/1, and then transfers into opener's M. If opener would pass the 3cLR, he takes the transfer. The same hand with GF values rebids 3M, not 3M-1. There are lots of other neat things freed up, too, but don't want to hijack this thread. This is in a club system, but would work equally in a str 2♣ system.

 

When I started playing bridge around 2000 or so, I was learning from a 1950's Goren book. I didn't know or play weak 2s, negative doubles, 2/1, etc... When I started playing duplicated I added all these "advanced" methods like inverted minors, 2/1 GF, Jacoby 2nt, etc... over time, they went from seeming very advanced to me to off my card completely. Who knows, maybe in another 10 years they'll have cycled back on. :)

 

Brian

[straube]

Just to re-focus (and I don't mind a bit of hijacking) but if one is forced to put limit raises betwixt a semiforcing NT and 2N, what are your opinions as to how to do this? Put all 3-cd limit raises (including perhaps even a 3055) into 1N and keep 2N as 4+ or contaminate the 2N with some 3-cd raises with shortness or perhaps even a weak doubleton. I've really organized my other responses to my liking and realize that I have a small problem here.

 

OTOH, 2N as LR (could be 3-cd if unbalanced) seems a lot narrower than 2N as 4+ cd limit raise or better and I can always reserve an asking bid if opener has Qxxxx for a trump suit.

[jallerton]

This is what some of us in the Seattle area are doing, based on some advice from an old timer. Our 2/1 calls are not GF (inv. or better), and then if opener doesn't create a GF with his first rebid, responder's rebid is a transfer. You transfer into your IJS suit, for example, and opener only takes the transfer if he'd have passed the IJS. You can invited with many hand shapes; the 3c LR with a side suit (the hand you're worried about being passed in 1nt in) starts with their natural suit bid 2/1, and then transfers into opener's M. If opener would pass the 3cLR, he takes the transfer. The same hand with GF values rebids 3M, not 3M-1. There are lots of other neat things freed up, too, but don't want to hijack this thread. This is in a club system, but would work equally in a str 2♣ system.

Brian

 

How does Responder show clubs under this transfer method? By bidding 3M or 2NT?

[straube]

This is what some of us in the Seattle area are doing, based on some advice from an old timer. Our 2/1 calls are not GF (inv. or better), and then if opener doesn't create a GF with his first rebid, responder's rebid is a transfer. You transfer into your IJS suit, for example, and opener only takes the transfer if he'd have passed the IJS. You can invited with many hand shapes; the 3c LR with a side suit (the hand you're worried about being passed in 1nt in) starts with their natural suit bid 2/1, and then transfers into opener's M. If opener would pass the 3cLR, he takes the transfer. The same hand with GF values rebids 3M, not 3M-1. There are lots of other neat things freed up, too, but don't want to hijack this thread. This is in a club system, but would work equally in a str 2♣ system.

 

When I started playing bridge around 2000 or so, I was learning from a 1950's Goren book. I didn't know or play weak 2s, negative doubles, 2/1, etc... When I started playing duplicated I added all these "advanced" methods like inverted minors, 2/1 GF, Jacoby 2nt, etc... over time, they went from seeming very advanced to me to off my card completely. Who knows, maybe in another 10 years they'll have cycled back on. :)

 

Brian

 

ok. I'm curious now. Can you explain more about your 2/1 auctions? How does opener create a GF? When he doesn't, it appears that you lose a step if responder's bids are all transfers. How does it work out so that you are ahead? Btw I play a strong club and I don't mind a detour into artificiality at all.

[trevahound]

How does Responder show clubs under this transfer method? By bidding 3M or 2NT?

 

Secondary clubs by responder? 2nt. Opener's rebid with less than a GF opposite a possible inv must be below 2nt.

[trevahound]

ok. I'm curious now. Can you explain more about your 2/1 auctions? How does opener create a GF? When he doesn't, it appears that you lose a step if responder's bids are all transfers. How does it work out so that you are ahead? Btw I play a strong club and I don't mind a detour into artificiality at all.

 

Got to run for the moment (club swiss tonight), but will respond later. Thanks.

[Siegmund]

I am not familiar with the exact variation trevahound is playing (and look forward to hearing more about it), but one of the new Krszystof Martens books does something very similar on the second round as he is proposing.

 

In my own 2/1-non-GF partnerships, we have agreed to have one possibly-artificial rebid by opener (2 of another suit, which suit depending on the auction) to handle the non-GF escapes.

[trevahound]

ok. I'm curious now. Can you explain more about your 2/1 auctions? How does opener create a GF? When he doesn't, it appears that you lose a step if responder's bids are all transfers. How does it work out so that you are ahead? Btw I play a strong club and I don't mind a detour into artificiality at all.

 

Opener creates a GF by rebidding 2nt or higher (responder has guaranteed at least inv values). After that, calls are natural.

 

If opener rebids below 2nt, the call is as natural as possible (2M becomes the dumping ground), and doesn't deny GF values, but leaves responder room to continue describing. In those cases (opener's rebid below 2nt), responder's 2nd call is a transfer. A transfer into the same suit of the 2/1 call = a single suited invite, like an IJS. A transfer into a lower suit = a two suited hand with inv + values, GF is responder bids again of course. A transfer into a higher ranked suit is natural and GF, 5+ in the lower suit, 4+ in the higher suit. A transfer into opener's M is exactly 3, with a 5+ card suit on the side (already disclosed), sometimes helping opener decide whether to accept or not. BTW, that transfer to opener's M can also be a GF hand wanting to offer 3nt as an alternative place to play (if opener tries to sign off, responder bids 3nt over that, choice of games).

 

The transfers run from 2nt to 3M-1. 3M is not a transfer, but a GF with 5+ of the first suit and 3 in opener's M.

 

BTW, one of the nicest features is this allows you to play 1M - 2nt as natural and GF (not artificial), so that 1M - 2m, while not always GF, IS always a real suit -- no need to fake a suit with a balanced hand. We use 1s - 3c and 1h - 2s as our GF artificial raises. Other jumps are freed for whatever your preference is.

 

Brian

[trevahound]

Opener creates a GF by rebidding 2nt or higher (responder has guaranteed at least inv values). After that, calls are natural.

 

If opener rebids below 2nt, the call is as natural as possible (2M becomes the dumping ground), and doesn't deny GF values, but leaves responder room to continue describing. In those cases (opener's rebid below 2nt), responder's 2nd call is a transfer. A transfer into the same suit of the 2/1 call = a single suited invite, like an IJS. A transfer into a lower suit = a two suited hand with inv + values, GF is responder bids again of course. A transfer into a higher ranked suit is natural and GF, 5+ in the lower suit, 4+ in the higher suit. A transfer into opener's M is exactly 3, with a 5+ card suit on the side (already disclosed), sometimes helping opener decide whether to accept or not. BTW, that transfer to opener's M can also be a GF hand wanting to offer 3nt as an alternative place to play (if opener tries to sign off, responder bids 3nt over that, choice of games).

 

The transfers run from 2nt to 3M-1. 3M is not a transfer, but a GF with 5+ of the first suit and 3 in opener's M.

 

BTW, one of the nicest features is this allows you to play 1M - 2nt as natural and GF (not artificial), so that 1M - 2m, while not always GF, IS always a real suit -- no need to fake a suit with a balanced hand. We use 1s - 3c and 1h - 2s as our GF artificial raises. Other jumps are freed for whatever your preference is.

 

Brian

 

Oh, they're not true transfers, btw, opener accepts with a hand that would pass after that type of IJS, and doesn't accept with a hand that would force to game after an IJS, or the two suited equiv.

[PhilKing]

The main problem with invitational jump shifts is that opener generally faces an awkward guess over whether to punt 3NT or not. It sounds like a great treatment, but in practice, opener is not that well placed. My preference is to play them slightly differently. After 1♠:

 

2NT = Inv+ raise, 4+ trumps

3♣/♦/♥ = Approximately a hand that would opener a classic vulnerable preempt

 

The IJS hands respond 1NT. Opener only passes when balanced with 11 to a terrible 13 (ie hands that would have passed an IJS). As long as opener rebids 2♣(nat or 13+ bal or good 2♠ rebid), there is no issue:

 

2♦ = 9+ relay (then 3♦/♥ = IJS)

2♥/♠ = nat

2NT = death hand (eg 1453) not particularly invitational

3♣ = WJS

3♦ = WJS

3♥ = fit jump 5♥, 4-5♣

 

The strength of the method is that responder gets to decide how to treat 11 counts with a 6 card suit more flexibly. For instance, in the above scenario, after relaying with 2♦ and hearing 2♥ (13-14 balanced) they can just punt game having not revealed their shape.

 

If opener rebids 2♦, we lose the ability to make an IJS (a simulation strongly suggested it was correct to play 3♣ as weak) and over 2♥ we lose definition in both minors. However, when opener bids two suits, most points based IJS hands can simply bid an invitational 2NT over which opener can patter out when advancing.

 

Also, I have given some of the worst case scenarios, which tend to occur after opening 1♠. After 1♥, it all works smoothly via a Kaplan inversion, so most hand types have an extra step or so.

[iandayre]

First of all, hello David, long time no see.

 

Some years ago a top expert and author said "The fourth trump is the most underrated topic in the game" and my experience has led me to agree. I would not consider any direct forcing or limit raise that did not promise 4 card support. Yes, you can construct hands when it doesn't work out but I have played semiforcing NT with 2/1 for many years with consistent good results when 1NT is passed out, even when responder held the 3 card limit raise.

[perko90]

There's certainly times where knowing whether the limit raise has 3 or 4 trumps is quite valuable. But, you can find that out, as you mentioned in your OP. And, yes, I do believe the 3♣ inquiry is the best use of that bid after a 2NT LR.

I've played semi-forcing NT for a long time. The fewer 3-card LR's it has the better! And not because of the scores when 1NT gets passed w/ an 8-card fit! Those usually come out alright, on balance. It's the regrettable continuation bets you make as opener on the upper end but flat hands, saying to yourself, "but if ptr has a 3-card LR, I want to be in game." Removing 3-card LRs entirely from 1NT is a very freeing experience! I recommend it. However, if you're not willing to go that far, at least save only the flat, weak trump, 3-card LRs for 1NT. Now when opener rebids a minor, it's really 4+ length, because passing all the 5-3-3-2 hands is worry-free.

[Zelandakh]

How about 1♠ - 2NT = limit raise or maxi-splinter, and then after 3♣ relay:

3♦ = 4 card limit (3♥ try)

3♥ = 3 card limit max

3♠ = 3 card limit min

3NT = void maxi-splinter (4♣ asks)

4♣ = maxi-splinter with singleton club

4♦ = maxi-splinter with singleton diamond

4♥ = maxi-splinter with singleton heart

 

Similarly for 1♥ - 2♠, assuming you can afford to give this response up. That seems to take care of both the limit raise hands and the unbalanced hands with fit that you might prefer not to relay. You are missing out on mini-splinters and a mixed raise compared to my usual suggestion but in return have taken many of the invitational hands away from 1NT.

[straube]

I'm actually thinking about just using help suit game tries here. The thing is opener is limited and responder is limited to a strictly invitational hand. If I use 3C as an asking bid then I haven't as much room as if 3C is a telling bid. I'm thinking that responder has already factored in whether he has a fourth trump, shortness and what all into his decision to represent his hand as a limit raise. On occasion opener will have some freak that is interested in slam, but he can use HSGTs or splinter but most of the time we won't need anything too fancy. Anyone have thoughts on this?

[whereagles]

I think shortness bids are better in evaluating how well the hands mesh. But..

[rhm]

Some years ago a top expert and author said "The fourth trump is the most underrated topic in the game" and my experience has led me to agree. I would not consider any direct forcing or limit raise that did not promise 4 card support. Yes, you can construct hands when it doesn't work out but I have played semiforcing NT with 2/1 for many years with consistent good results when 1NT is passed out, even when responder held the 3 card limit raise.

Maybe I don't play enough, but I haven't found putting 3-card raises through the unbalanced 1NT response to be a major issue. Maybe it's because when Responder has a singleton and Opener was going to pass 1NT (so typically 5332), the opponents have a 9- or 10-card fit and one of them has often bid already.

I do not buy this.

While bidding a semi-forcing 1NT with a balanced 3 card limit raise is fine, bidding 1NT with an unbalanced 3 card limit raise would make me nervous that we will miss game or that opponents will interfere.

If I have an unbalanced limit 3-card raise, which means I will have significant less HCP strength compared to a 3-card balanced limit raise, I want to make a limit raise immediately and I do want to keep opponents out of the bidding.

I value the preemptive effect a limit raise has, in particular when our side has a heart fit.

 

While the distinction between 4-card support and 3-card support can be important, my feeling is it is overrated and overdone. The top expert and author was Mike Lawrence and it is one of the great myths in American bidding theory.

Of course all else being equal chances are that a hand with only 3-card support will be weaker than with 4 card support. This is a triviality and nothing else has been shown by Mike Lawrence.

For me a 3 card limit raise must have compensating strength elsewhere. Side suit shortage might just be such compensation.

For example over 1♥ I would make a limit raise with ♠x ♥Kxx ♦AQxxx ♣xxxx or ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦AQxxx ♣xx, force to game with ♠x ♥Kxxx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx and bid 1NT with ♠Qx ♥Kxx ♦AQxxx ♣xxx.

Bidding 1NT with the first hand and hearing LHO bid 2♠ is not my cup of tea.

Maybe I don't play enough, but I haven't found putting 3- card unbalanced limit raises with 4 card limit raises to be a major issue.

Game bidding is nine times out of ten just a quantitative judgement process, not a precise evaluation whether side suit values fit or not. Most of the time we neither have the super fit nor the total duplication of values in the side suits.

I have no need finding that out until dummy comes down or unless slam comes into consideration. Games are often made, because this type of information is not revealed to the defense.

For example a trump lead is much more attractive, when dummy is known to have three card support and unattractive if not.

Keeping the defense in the dark is worth more than a hundred gadgets.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[straube]

Rainer, I appreciate your input and have felt pretty much the same way. Perhaps the only times I really care whether partner has a fourth trump vs the third is when I have a long second suit that needs to be established by ruffs or when I have poor trump. How do you feel about help suit game tries? I don't have space enough for shortness bids but if partner hears a help suit game try he can upgrade when he either has honors there or has a fourth trump and shortness and has controls in the other suits. Or if not HSGTs what would you use the intervening bids for?

[MickyB]

Agree with Rainer. Differentiating 4-card limit from 3-card limit allows a minimum 5431 to accept just the former and a good weak NT to accept just the latter, but surely the loss from just accepting a 3+card invite on both hands would be quite small.