[jdonn]

straube, on Apr 20 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

Q9xx K Qxxxx Qxx knr 6.45 but downgrade for king in opponent's suit

Q9xx xx AQxx xxx knr 7.95

They are both mixed raises, a bid which has a wider range than 1.5 points.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Apr 20 2010, 03:19 PM, said:

'Textbook' to me is Q9xx xx AQxx xxx.

I think that's just good enough for a fit jump. Not playing fit jumps, I'd make a mixed raise with either this hand or the original one. Every bids covers a range of strengths.

[jjbrr]

That hand is way too light for a fit jump imo, both in shape and strength.

[jdonn]

A fit jump really would not have occured to me. 4-4? I don't mind the minimal strength, change an offsuit card to another diamond (or maybe even spade) and it would be fine.

[Fluffy]

I frequently make fit jumps with 5-4 (5 trumps), but with 4-4 haven't tried yet.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 12:42 PM, said:

straube, on Apr 20 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

Q9xx K Qxxxx Qxx  knr  6.45  but downgrade for king in opponent's suit

Q9xx xx AQxx xxx  knr 7.95

They are both mixed raises, a bid which has a wider range than 1.5 points.

Actually in my definitions the first one is a very good constructive raise while the second one is a minimal limit raise. Consequently if the definition of a mixed raise is something between those then yes they are both mixed raises

[billw55]

aguahombre, on Apr 19 2010, 05:49 PM, said:

I don't believe the stiff king in a suit bid on my left and two stranded queens outside the trump suit qualifies.

Agree, this hand seems kinda crummy to me.

If you consider this hand a mixed raise, what do you bid 2♠ on?

[straube]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 12:42 PM, said:

straube, on Apr 20 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

Q9xx K Qxxxx Qxx  knr  6.45  but downgrade for king in opponent's suit

Q9xx xx AQxx xxx  knr 7.95

They are both mixed raises, a bid which has a wider range than 1.5 points.

I'm still not sure if I think the first is a mixed raise.

Here's a collection of mixed raises...many of which hands have 14 cards.

http://www.bridgehan...Mixed_Raise.htm

I'd like to see the example hands that were taken from various sources (Bergen and Cohen et al)

[jdonn]

straube, on Apr 20 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Here's a collection of mixed raises...many of which hands have 14 cards.

Well I'm convinced!

[straube]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 05:02 PM, said:

straube, on Apr 20 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Here's a collection of mixed raises...many of which hands have 14 cards.

Well I'm convinced!

Wasn't trying to convince you. I'm hoping to see some example hands from the sources that link cited.

[Mbodell]

When mixed raises were explained to me, hastily by one partner, I was told a mix raise hand is good enough to take at least a trick on defense, while a preemptive raise frequently will not. So partner could count on us for a trick if he wanted to double the opponents if they compete over our mixed raise.

Do people agree with that being a reasonable definition?

If that is the case here then it seems like with all our dubious values we are not a sure trick, but that we'd likely be worth a trick promoting something in partner's hand.

[gnasher]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

A fit jump really would not have occured to me. 4-4? I don't mind the minimal strength, change an offsuit card to another diamond (or maybe even spade) and it would be fine.

I think a three-level fit jump is much more useful if it's typically a concentrated 4-4. 4-4s are more frequent, and with a 4-5 or 5-4 you're often worth game anyway. Whilst Qxxx xx AQxxx xx is only worth the three level, you wouldn't have to change much to make it a game bid.

[hanp]

Mbodell, on Apr 20 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

When mixed raises were explained to me, hastily by one partner, I was told a mix raise hand is good enough to take at least a trick on defense, while a preemptive raise frequently will not. So partner could count on us for a trick if he wanted to double the opponents if they compete over our mixed raise.

Do people agree with that being a reasonable definition?

No, I don't define my raises in terms of defense.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Apr 20 2010, 07:26 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2010, 06:54 PM, said:

A fit jump really would not have occured to me. 4-4? I don't mind the minimal strength, change an offsuit card to another diamond (or maybe even spade) and it would be fine.

I think a three-level fit jump is much more useful if it's typically a concentrated 4-4. 4-4s are more frequent, and with a 4-5 or 5-4 you're often worth game anyway. Whilst Qxxx xx AQxxx xx is only worth the three level, you wouldn't have to change much to make it a game bid.

Seems not very useful with any hand type (sorry all you forum fit jump lovers!!). Whatever I'm just bitter

[Jlall]

Mbodell, on Apr 20 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

When mixed raises were explained to me, hastily by one partner, I was told a mix raise hand is good enough to take at least a trick on defense, while a preemptive raise frequently will not. So partner could count on us for a trick if he wanted to double the opponents if they compete over our mixed raise.

Do people agree with that being a reasonable definition?

If that is the case here then it seems like with all our dubious values we are not a sure trick, but that we'd likely be worth a trick promoting something in partner's hand.

To me a mixed raise is a hand between a limit raise and a preemptive raise. This hand seems pretty perfect for that, obv too good for a preemptive raise, and not good enough for a limit raise (9 with a stiff but junky honors etc).

I would also add that it should usually have shape, with 4432 I would usually just raise to 2 and possibly compete to 3. With Phil's example of a completely concentrated 8 I would give a mixed raise though.

[straube]

Mbodell, on Apr 20 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

When mixed raises were explained to me, hastily by one partner, I was told a mix raise hand is good enough to take at least a trick on defense, while a preemptive raise frequently will not.  So partner could count on us for a trick if he wanted to double the opponents if they compete over our mixed raise.

Do people agree with that being a reasonable definition?

If that is the case here then it seems like with all our dubious values we are not a sure trick, but that we'd likely be worth a trick promoting something in partner's hand.

I think almost by definition "mixed" has both offense and defense. With no defense, you preempt the limit of your hand (3M or 4M). A preemptive raise (especially vulnerable) doesn't have to be extremely weak, but it is usually weak and offense-oriented and doesn't promise help in the defense.

I think this is an awkward hand because it has 4 minor honors. I'd think of it as the lower end of a mixed raise.

[Phil]

I have no idea where I read it, but I'm pretty sure the original definition of a mixed raise has migrated from:

"4 trump and good ODR" to now

"4 trump and a tweener between preemptive and limit"

Perhaps if someone wants to dig through RS they can find a reference.

[gwnn]

This is right from R/S.

1♥-(1♠)-???

page 11 said:

(b)
♠ 6 5
♥K 10 4 3
♦J 7 6 5
♣K 10 6
We shall call hand (b) a mixed raise - that is a semi-preemptive raise with some defence.

Mind you (regarding gnasher's 4-4 hand), the book says

♠ 6 5
♥ K 7 5 3
♦ 6 4 2
♣ A J 9 2

is not unreasonably described as mixed with clubs (which is just a fit jump to the 3 level).

one more hand, after (1♣)-1♠-p-?:

page 56 said:

♠KT73
♥64
♦A7543
♣62

3♣. A classic mixed raise: nice shape, good ODR, too strong for 3♠, too weak for
2NT.

So these would be the mixed raises from the book.

[aguahombre]

---

[billw55]

It sounds like some people are saying that the entire spectrum of raises in this sequence is preemptive --> mixed --> limit? Is a simple raise to 2M never used? If so with what hand? It seems like it should fit between preemptive and mixed, but with the examples given there isn't much room in there.