[kenrexford]

jdonn, on Feb 22 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

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.

Agree.

Looks like 2NT-P-3♦-P-3♥-P-OhHell4♠-PPP

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on Feb 22 2008, 10:57 AM, said:

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

I would game force opposite our unsound openings.

[Cascade]

This hand is invitational opposite an overcall.

Richard makes an excellent point about the ♣ AK not pulling full weight when they are in opener's suit. The value of an AK is enhanced when they help to build up tricks with lower cards less is far less likely when they are in the opponents' suit.

[han]

cherdano, on Feb 22 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

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.)

Oh come on, you'd force to game with 16 and support.

[655321]

Apollo81, on Feb 22 2008, 10:46 AM, 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'.  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?

Left field.
What you would do opposite a standard opener is not the same as what you would do opposite a normal opener, so why compare the 2 situations? Limit raise to me is another term for invitational, so an invitational hand opposite an opening bid is not the same as an invitational hand opposite an overcall.

Anyway, it doesn't matter at all what you call the raise.
For hands with 4 card support, and less than a game force, with your methods you basically choose between 3♠, 3♣ and 2NT.
3♠ might be 0-6, or a similar range.
Then your mixed raises might be 7-10, your limit raises might be 11-14.
The exact ranges don't matter, but there is no gap between the ranges - as you increase the strength of a hand, it moves from a 3♠ bid, to a 3♣ bid, to a 2NT bid.
With a regular partner you have surely agreed the strengths for these bids, so why does it matter if you call the range above a mixed raise invitational or limit?

[Mud Reelo]

pclayton, on Feb 22 2008, 11:23 AM, said:

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

3NT. Yeah, really

Welcome to the forums.

You'll fit in nicely.

Wow, I'm an idiot. I misread the bidding and gave an arrogant answer. I'm sorry

I was of the impression that I was in 3rd seat after 1♣-(1♠) and thought that 2NT was too little.

Given the actual problem, I'll bid 2NT and pass pard's 3♠. And that I don't think it's close

[Fluffy]

Mud Reelo, on Feb 29 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

Wow, I'm an idiot. I misread the bidding and gave an arrogant answer.

Wellcome to the forums

You'll fit in nicelly

lol.