BBO Discussion Forums: GF or limit raise? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

GF or limit raise?

#1 User is offline   CSGibson 

  • Tubthumper
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,835
  • Joined: 2007-July-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, OR, USA
  • Interests:Bridge, pool, financial crime. New experiences, new people.

Posted 2008-February-18, 17:19

1♠-Pass-?




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.
Chris Gibson
0

#2 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,724
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2008-February-18, 17:20

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
Alderaan delenda est
0

#3 User is offline   gwnn 

  • Csaba the Hutt
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,027
  • Joined: 2006-June-16
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:bye

Posted 2008-February-18, 17:22

I would not like to play in a partnership where this is not enough as a GF.
... and I can prove it with my usual, flawless logic.
      George Carlin
0

#4 User is offline   Cascade 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 6,772
  • Joined: 2003-July-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Juggling, Unicycling

Posted 2008-February-18, 17:29

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.
Wayne Burrows

I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon

#5 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2008-February-18, 17:30

Gadget.

3♣. When partner bids 3♦, I'll show a control-rich maximum limit (3NT).
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#6 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,724
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2008-February-18, 17:35

kenrexford, on Feb 19 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

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?
Alderaan delenda est
0

#7 User is offline   rogerclee 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,214
  • Joined: 2007-December-16
  • Location:Pasadena, CA

Posted 2008-February-18, 17:53

Opposite a normal 2/1 player, GFing seems clear.
0

#8 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2008-February-18, 18:19

hrothgar, on Feb 18 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 19 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

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. ;)
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#9 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2008-February-18, 18:33

Rock bottom GF.
"Phil" on BBO
0

#10 User is offline   655321 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,502
  • Joined: 2007-December-22

Posted 2008-February-18, 18:38

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.
That's impossible. No one can give more than one hundred percent. By definition that is the most anyone can give.
0

#11 User is offline   jtfanclub 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,937
  • Joined: 2004-June-05

Posted 2008-February-18, 18:49

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.
0

#12 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,566
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2008-February-18, 20:12

GF, absolutely
--Ben--

#13 User is offline   jillybean 

  • hooked
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 12,203
  • Joined: 2003-November-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Multi

Posted 2008-February-18, 20:14

GF wtp?
"And no matter what methods you play, it is essential, for anyone aspiring to learn to be a good player, to learn the importance of bidding shape properly. MikeH
"100% certain that many excellent players would disagree. This is far more about style/judgment than right vs. wrong." Fred
"Hysterical Raisins again - this time on the World stage, not just the ACBL" mycroft
0

#14 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2008-February-18, 20:44

hrothgar, on Feb 18 2008, 06:35 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 19 2008, 02:30 AM, said:

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.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#15 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2008-February-18, 20:57

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.
0

#16 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,520
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2008-February-18, 21:29

FrancesHinden, on Feb 18 2008, 08:57 PM, said:

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
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

#17 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2008-February-18, 21:29

Limit raise for me, don't find it particularly close.
0

#18 User is offline   Yogeshdg 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 99
  • Joined: 2007-November-07

Posted 2008-February-18, 21:46

That looks like GF raise.
0

#19 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2008-February-18, 21:52

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?"
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#20 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2008-February-18, 21:55

kenrexford, on Feb 18 2008, 10:52 PM, said:

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.
0
  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users