[Little Kid]

Partner opens 1♠ in first seat, which is quite nice as you hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

This hand seemed too good for a preemptive raise to 3♠, even vul. Since we played no gadgets other than a general 2/1 structure and Jacoby 2NT I decided to go via 1NT and most likely show a 3-card limit raise next. Thoughts?

[rduran1216]

how can 3S show a preempt if you play no gadgets?

[pooltuna]

if you don't have a 4 card limit raise in your bidding structure it is probably best to just bid 4♠

[helene_t]

Yeah, if you don't play 3♠ as a limit raise you need to play some other kind of limit raise.

2NT as limit+ instead of Jacoby is quite fine.

[bluecalm]

At imps I would just bash 4♠.
At mp's I think it's not so clear.
I believe 1NT -> 3♠ and bashing 4♠ are close. Game will be slightly below chance opposite 12-13 balanced count (my simul shows 42%) and if you open most 11's then you really don't want to be in 4♠ opposite those.

Quote

how can 3S show a preempt if you play no gadgets?

Maybe having preempting raise is more important than being able to differ between 3 and 4 card limit raise ?
Most people play 3♠ as preemptive and I would assume this to be the case agreeing "2/1 with no gadgets" with expert+ player.

[effervesce]

A simple 4♠ for me. Shut out those hearts!

[ArtK78]

So you have a method to show a 3-card limit raise but you don't have a method to show a 4+ card limit raise?

I would say that there is a flaw with your methods, unless you never hold a 4+ card limit raise.

[Little Kid]

ArtK78, on Aug 22 2010, 08:42 AM, said:

I would say that there is a flaw with your methods, unless you never hold a 4+ card limit raise.

It was the first time we played and we didn't agree specific methods. Overall it is a pretty safe bet though that I don't get much more than 9 hcps Normally I play mini-splinters so wasn't sure how to handle these hands otherwise.

[rogerclee]

I would rather bid 4S than 1N, but anyway if I did, it seems percentage to just bid 4S over a 2C or 2H rebid by partner, but if partner bids 2D I would only bid 3S.

Also if you are wondering why I think it is percentage to bid 4S instead of 1N even though opposite some rebids I wouldn't force to game (that is, 1N is more "accurate"):

1) 1M-4M is a great auction for your side and is very hard on the opponents, both in the bidding and the play. Giving away information about partner's hand with his rebid is very bad when we are probably just going to play a (light) 4S contract.
2) 3 card and 4 card limit raises are different, partner will not evaluate his hand correctly when he has bad trumps (among other things), which is not unlikely given our spade holding.

[Bbradley62]

bluecalm, on Aug 22 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Most people play 3♠ as preemptive and I would assume this to be the case agreeing "2/1 with no gadgets" with expert+ player.

Really? Do most posters agree with this?

[rogerclee]

Standard in a North American 2/1 style is that 3S is invitational with 4 or more spades. I think in theory this is fine and possibly better than playing 3S is preemptive. I also think it is not very hard to do better than either of these.

[eyhung]

Bbradley62, on Aug 22 2010, 07:01 AM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 22 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Most people play 3♠ as preemptive and I would assume this to be the case agreeing "2/1 with no gadgets" with expert+ player.

Really? Do most posters agree with this?

From an American perspective, I disagree. It's "standard" in America for the non-competitive jump raise to be limit, with 2NT reserved for game-forcing raises. It's certainly playable for the non-competitive jump raise to be preemptive, but I would never assume this playing with an American partner. The ACBL underscores this distinction by requiring an alert for weak 1M (P) 3M, but not an alert for weak 1M (any call besides pass) 3M.

I remember playing against a prominent young European player at an American NABC whose partner bid 1M - 3M as pre-emptive. When 3M was not alerted as weak, and we passed out the hand, my partner and I successfully appealed the passout since they violated ACBL alert procedure. (We had hands that were unsuitable for bidding over a limit raise but reasonable for bidding over a pre-emptive one.) The European was annoyed, and started humming under his breath "only in America". So bluecalm may be right in Europe, but he's not right in America.

[barryallen]

Bbradley62, on Aug 22 2010, 09:01 AM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 22 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Most people play 3♠ as preemptive and I would assume this to be the case agreeing "2/1 with no gadgets" with expert+ player.

Really? Do most posters agree with this?

I would think it is bergen that defines the strength of the 3♠ bid, or having a similar gadget?

[pooltuna]

Bbradley62, on Aug 22 2010, 09:01 AM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 22 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Most people play 3♠ as preemptive and I would assume this to be the case agreeing "2/1 with no gadgets" with expert+ player.

Really? Do most posters agree with this?

No because it violates the KISS principle IMO

[Cascade]

If standard 2/1 doesn't have a way to make a limit four-card raise then that is another reason why you don't want to play such a system.

[peachy]

I would expect 3S o be 4-card limit raise with an unknown partner, regardless of where he is from. This is what I have, this is what I would bid.

If you had agreed what sort of major raises you played and a 4-card limit raise was left with no bid to show it, then that is a problem.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Really? Do most posters agree with this?

Quote

I would expect 3S o be 4-card limit raise with an unknown partner

Quote

No because it violates the KISS principle IMO

Quote

So bluecalm may be right in Europe, but he's not right in America.

Yeah, actually I was aware most Americans play it as limit or something.
I don't think many Europeans ever heard of this limit treatment though;)
I assumed there are more bridge experts in Europe and rest of the world than in America hence my comment. I am willing to accept I am wrong on this one though.

Most of my bridge knowledge comes from watching tons and tons of hands from vugraph archives. 1M - 3M as limit raise is extremely rare. I don't remember any elite pairs play that (most play preemptive or mixed). That may skew my view on wider "expert" population too.

Quote

I would say that there is a flaw with your methods, unless you never hold a 4+ card limit raise.

It seems very reasonable to say so. It also seems reasonable to me that having 2 raises available is much better.
One thing I notice though is that top Italians (Lauria Versace and now Duboin Sementa) don't use this distinction. They just use 1M -2NT as limit raise with support and jumps in minors as mixed raise and minisplinter.
Something to think about as those people don't play random inferior stuff.

(btw, playing that way allows to have different meaning assigned to 1M - 1NT - 2m - 3M auctions; it's something like: Hx in partner's major suit and great support for partner's minor suit and maximum hand; it can also be used as splinter (!?) in partner's suit; I am not sure which one LV use as I saw both ways by various Italian pairs).

[neilkaz]

Bbradley62, on Aug 22 2010, 09:01 AM, said:

bluecalm, on Aug 22 2010, 08:00 AM, said:

Most people play 3♠ as preemptive and I would assume this to be the case agreeing "2/1 with no gadgets" with expert+ player.

Really? Do most posters agree with this?

Absolutely not !! If they don't list Bergen or Rev Bergen or the very few that play Hardy raises, then the direct jump to 3♠ is a 4 card limit raise, which happens to be what I think this hand is worth.

Of course this is my North American experience.

[gnasher]

1M-3M is a limit raise by default in English Acol and, I believe, in Standard French.

Why do people keep talking about Europe as though it were a single homogeneous bridge-playing community? Europe contains fifty different countries, with at least as many different bridge traditions. And not everyone in Europe is as ill-mannered as the player Eugene encountered.

[bluecalm]

Ok, I retract my statement. I was wrong apparently about standards among experts here.

I am sure there are many areas (like Poland) where limit raise is unheard of but those apparently are not majority.