[ArcLight]

The common (around here) limit raise shows 4+ trump support and 10-12 support points (as opposed to HCP).

Since declarer play is better today, 25 points is frequetly enough for game instead of 26. Since an opening bid theoretically shows 13 points, 13+12 = 25, then shouldnt the Limit raises upper bound be lowered from 10-12 to 10-11 (or a crappy 12).

I see some people reducing the upper band to 11 from 12. Karen Walker has this on her website. Is teh 10-12 range obsolete, as declarer play improves?

[awm]

Of course, as openings drop precipitously to 12, 11, and sometimes even 9 or 10 points...

Perhaps we should be making limit raises on 13 now.

[david_c]

ArcLight, on Aug 9 2005, 06:39 PM, said:

Since declarer play is better today, 25 points is frequetly enough for game instead of 26.

Wow, do you really believe that declarer play has improved that much? I thought the reason people are taught 25 rather than 26 nowadays was that people's opinions about bidding had changed, rather than their expectation of the card play.

Or maybe defence has got worse?

[ArcLight]

>Wow, do you really believe that declarer play has improved that much? I

Thats based on what Mike Lawrence wrote, so I'll take his word on it. He wrote the 26 level is old, and 25 points cloer to the average game.
There are lots of great play of the hand books today (far more useful than Watsons Classic Play of the Hand) plus some great software (Bridge master, and Mike Lawrences programs)


It does occur to me that of pard frequently opens light 10-12 may be better than 10-12.

[Double !]

The hcp ranges are approximations and rough guidelines for what constitutes an invitational major suit raise. (While some advocate 3+ card trump support, many more advocate that it shows 4+). I'll let Ben do the Zar explanation, but I was taught another way to look at a limit raise is that it shows about an 8-loser hand with 4+trumps (assuming an opening bid shows a 7-loser hand or better). P accepts with 6-loser hand or better, and declines with 6.5 or 7-losers. Upgrade the hand a little if it is relatively heavy in terms of controls and/or good in terms of "in and out" honor locations (secondary honors in trumps and primary honors outside, honors in combination in longer side suits, etc. often being preferable to the opposite), and downgrade slightly if minimal in terms of controls.

As a side issue: IMO, not being able to make a 2/1 followed by raise or jump-raise as invitational to allows opener to assess his/her holding in responder's side suit is a mild weakness of playing 2/1. Some attempt to address this by playing fit jump-shifts. I guess you gain something and you lose something.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

if you are playing forcing NT and constructive
raises, than a limit raise will show (10+)-(12-),
because the single raise will be made on
(7+)-(10-).

With a nice looking 12 count opposite a sound opener
and a known 9 card fit, I would always bid game,
following the rule that opener opposite opener is enough
for game.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

awm, on Aug 9 2005, 12:48 PM, said:

Of course, as openings drop precipitously to 12, 11, and sometimes even 9 or 10 points...

Perhaps we should be making limit raises on 13 now.

I do with many 13 pointers just for this reason . open junky, raise conservative . See 3 card balanced raises with 13.
1h=1nt
2x=3h etc.

[Flame]

ArcLight, on Aug 9 2005, 01:12 PM, said:

>Wow, do you really believe that declarer play has improved that much? I

Thats based on what Mike Lawrence wrote, so I'll take his word on it. He wrote the 26 level is old, and 25 points cloer to the average game.
There are lots of great play of the hand books today (far more useful than Watsons Classic Play of the Hand) plus some great software (Bridge master, and Mike Lawrences programs)


It does occur to me that of pard frequently opens light 10-12 may be better than 10-12.

I dont understand, what did he write ?
I would agree that 25 hcp is right but i dont think its due to better declarer play.
I would even agree that the avarage declarer play has improved, but those numbers arent based on the avarage declarer play but on a good declarer play.

[luke warm]

i don't remember 26 "hcp" even in goren's writings... i do remember *points* though, which included short suit points for opener and for responder if a fit is found

[Chamaco]

I think that, with a 5-4 trump fit, less importance should be givn to hcp, and more to distribution.

IMO, the easiest way to do this (maybe not the most accurate, but easy enough to be applicable) is to use the LTC.

I'd make a limit raise with 8 losers.

So the following are all examples of a lower bound for limit raises to me.
I understand some of these hands can be described better with specific gadgets (minisplinters or fitshowing jumps), but this just shows my idea on which hands that are worth an invite:

Hand 1: Axxx-x- Axxxx - xxx
Hand 2: Axxx-x- KJxx - xxxx
Hand 3: Axxxx - xx - xx- QJTx

[ArcLight]

>i don't remember 26 "hcp" even in goren's writings... i do remember *points* though, which included short suit points for opener and for responder if a fit is found


I never said 25-26 HCP, I said points which means HCP+distributional.
In Common Sense Bidding (Root & Pavlicek) they also mention 26 points, while today 25 is accepted as sufficient for major or NT game.


>I would even agree that the avarage declarer play has improved, but those numbers arent based on the avarage declarer play but on a good declarer play.

In his writings Mike Lawrence has said that average declarer play is better today. He was not addressing his comment to experts, but to average players.

[errline]

Chamaco, on Aug 10 2005, 02:44 AM, said:

I'd make a limit raise with 8 losers.

So the following are all examples of a lower bound for limit raises to me.

Hand 1: Axxx-x- Axxxx - xxx
Hand 2: Axxx-x- KJxx - xxxx
Hand 3: Axxxx - xx - xx- QJTx

The first two hands evaluate to 11 Goren support points. So they are clear limit rasies even to the more old fashioned and/or n00b player like me.

I'd have raised the third hand to 4♠, showing 5 piece trump support and very unslammish single-raise values otherwise. Assuming we were playing 5 card majors, anyway. Am I just oversimplifying it to a Law of Total Tricks thing, and would a lot of people limit raise on this hand?

[mgtusi]

errline, on Aug 10 2005, 09:27 PM, said:

Chamaco, on Aug 10 2005, 02:44 AM, said:

I'd make a limit raise with 8 losers.

So the following are all examples of a lower bound for limit raises to me.

Hand 1:   Axxx-x- Axxxx - xxx
Hand 2:   Axxx-x- KJxx - xxxx
Hand 3:   Axxxx - xx - xx- QJTx

The first two hands evaluate to 11 Goren support points. So they are clear limit rasies even to the more old fashioned and/or n00b player like me.

I'd have raised the third hand to 4♠, showing 5 piece trump support and very unslammish single-raise values otherwise. Assuming we were playing 5 card majors, anyway. Am I just oversimplifying it to a Law of Total Tricks thing, and would a lot of people limit raise on this hand?

Hi,

For my part, I raise the first hand to 4 ♠ because I have great hopes to make the contract. Two aces, four card support and a singleton worth a leap to game.

I raise the third one hand to game because it's five-card support with reasonable strength. I hope to make it too, but less confident :
- two doubletons,
- a club suit which could be useless opposite xx

The third one worth a 3 ♠ raise but I'm not proud of the dummy I'm going to spray !