[655321]

kenrexford, on Feb 21 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

I'll assume, because W/W at IMPs, that partner's parameters for his initial call are
...
(2) somewhat sound, meaning an embarassing opening up to a gotta-double-first hand,
...

Wow. So are you saying you would open AKJxx x xxxx xxx, AQTxx xx Qxx xxx, and a bunch of similar hands, or that you would not overcall 1♣?

[han]

hrothgar, on Feb 21 2008, 04:57 PM, said:

han, on Feb 22 2008, 12:51 AM, said:

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.

When I say "limit raise", I always mean a hand that would be a limit raise opposite an opening hand. Indeed, an crappy overcall plus a limit raise can easily have no play at the 3-level.

Over 2NT, overcaller should know that partner can have more than a limit raise. So overcaller signs off with the total crap that you might expect of us, makes a counter gametry with something close to an opening bid (think attractive 10-count to bad 12-count) and forces to game with a sound opening bid as usual.

If you think that I misuse the words "limit raise", please start a discussion group with TimG.

For the record, when I describe this hand as a "limit raise" I mean that I have game invitational values opposite an overcall.

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

ok great, how should I describe this hand? Single raise?

[kenrexford]

655321, on Feb 21 2008, 06:36 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Feb 21 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

I'll assume, because W/W at IMPs, that partner's parameters for his initial call are
...
(2) somewhat sound, meaning an embarassing opening up to a gotta-double-first hand,
...

Wow. So are you saying you would open AKJxx x xxxx xxx, AQTxx xx Qxx xxx, and a bunch of similar hands, or that you would not overcall 1♣?

I'd either overcall these hands 2♠ or pass. White-v-white, I'd need about a five-winner, eight-loser hand to bid 2♠, and I view that LTC liberally when the suit is spades. So, with either proposed hand, I'd overcall 2♠ at these colors.

[the hog]

Halo, on Feb 22 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

Why can't I just bid 2C and give myself some space.

Agree with this. Given the constraints I bid 2NT and pass 3S.

[MFA]

The_Hog, on Feb 22 2008, 03:03 AM, said:

Halo, on Feb 22 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

Why can't I just bid 2C and give myself some space.

Agree with this. Given the constraints I bid 2NT and pass 3S.

I think it's worth it to show the 4th trump immediately with 2NT. This is huge for partner, if he has a crappy trump suit or, say, a crappy 4-card suit on the side where he fears a bunch of deep losers.

I think it's automatic to respect a sign-off over 2NT.

[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]

Codo, on Feb 22 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

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]

han, on Feb 21 2008, 10:51 PM, said:

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.

[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]

Mud Reelo, on Feb 22 2008, 04:47 AM, said:

3NT. Yeah, really

Welcome to the forums.

You'll fit in nicely.

[miguelm]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2008, 10:49 AM, said:

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]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2008, 10:49 AM, said:

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]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2008, 09:50 AM, said:

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]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2008, 04:46 PM, said:

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]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2008, 10:50 AM, said:

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.