[ArcLight]

I came across this convention in Bill Root's excellent "Modern Bridge Conventions", pub 1981, so it might no longer be popular.

Is it a good convention?
Has it been superceded?

The way it works is after 1M - 3M sequence, bidding the next step (3S or 3NT) is asking pard to bid a singleton.

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Aug 14 2005, 02:03 AM, said:

I came across this convention in Bill Root's excellent "Modern Bridge Conventions", pub 1981, so it might no longer be popular.

Is it a good convention?
Has it been superceded?

The way it works is after 1M - 3M sequence, bidding the next step (3S or 3NT) is asking pard to bid a singleton.

The singleton ask is, IMO, a good strategy: the main point is whether or not it fits with the overall system we are playing, e.g.

a. if we play minisplinters, no need for singleton ask for limit hands with support.

b. if we play a limited opening system (e.g. strong club, strong diam or strong pass), then opener is limited and it nmakes little sense to have him control the bidding (the singleton ask is a slam tool, and when opener is limited and responder has a limit hand, we'll almost never have slam prospects)

[han]

The Mathe ask is still a good convention imo, it is the limit raise that is outdated.

[ArcLight]

Why is the Limit Raise outdated?
What is the alternative, Bergen Raises?

[EricK]

ArcLight, on Aug 14 2005, 02:26 PM, said:

Why is the Limit Raise outdated?
What is the alternative, Bergen Raises?

Partly because opener has to make an immediate decision about game or not just knowing the overall strength of partner's hand rather than the location of the strength.

Partly because a lot of people think that a pre-emptive raise is more useful.

Partly because a lot of people like to conserve space on strongish hands.

Bergen Raises are one alternative. using 2NT as support & inv+ strength rather than support & GF is another.

Eric

[Double !]

Maybe it's time for me meds again but, more and more I've been wondering about the idea of making 2S/1H & 2NT/1S as limit+ raise, and of having opener's next bids be game tries (help suit, short-suit, long-suit: your choice) or some way to ask or inform responder about what cards are and are not helpful to opener. The weakness of the limit raise IMO has always been the lack of clarification of which cards in responders hand are good and fitting, and which aren't. (One, maybe the only, strong point for SAYC or not playing a 2/1 style.)

DHL

[mike777]

Double !, on Aug 14 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

Maybe it's time for me meds again but, more and more I've been wondering about the idea of making 2S/1H & 2NT/1S as limit+ raise, and of having opener's next bids be game tries (help suit, short-suit, long-suit: your choice) or some way to ask or inform responder about what cards are and are not helpful to opener.  The weakness of the limit raise IMO has always been the lack of clarification of which cards in responders hand are good and fitting, and which aren't.  (One, maybe the only, strong point for SAYC or not playing a 2/1 style.)

DHL

WhY?

Why the need for so many delicate invite auctions over 1h or 1s openings?
Show your 3 or 4 card limit raises and move on.
My guess is you will win more if you overbid to games than worrying about stopping on 3 of a major in close decisions when it is right.

PLAY HANDS BETTER AND JUST BID THE DARN GAMES.

[Chamaco]

mike777, on Aug 14 2005, 10:33 PM, said:

WhY?

Why the need for so many delicate invite auctions over 1h or 1s openings?

I think the "delicarte" auctions are good for *slams* that would be unbiddable without knowing the high card location.

For bidding games, I agree with you, no need of much detail.

[luke warm]

Double !, on Aug 14 2005, 04:48 PM, said:

Maybe it's time for me meds again but, more and more I've been wondering about the idea of making 2S/1H & 2NT/1S as limit+ raise, and of having opener's next bids be game tries (help suit, short-suit, long-suit: your choice) or some way to ask or inform responder about what cards are and are not helpful to opener. The weakness of the limit raise IMO has always been the lack of clarification of which cards in responders hand are good and fitting, and which aren't. (One, maybe the only, strong point for SAYC or not playing a 2/1 style.)

DHL

why not a system that shows

1) 3 card weak
2) 3 card constructive
3) 3 card limit raises
4) 4 card weak
5) 4 card constructive
6) 4 card limits with and without shortness
7) 4 card forcing with and without shortness

playing 2/1 with over and under j/s, bergen raises, jacoby 2nt you can do all of that

[Fluffy]

ArcLight, on Aug 14 2005, 02:26 PM, said:

Why is the Limit Raise outdated?
What is the alternative, Bergen Raises?

People with enough sense to avoid bergen raises will use 2NT to show limit+ values, and 3M as pre for most experienced partnerships.

For casual partnership it is very good to play 3M as limit, and the convention seems good, the problem is: a casual partnership doesn't need a convention that happens 1/200 deals, and at my country 98% tourneys are MPs, where you want your 3NT bid to play always.

[pmacfar]

mike777, on Aug 14 2005, 06:33 PM, said:

My guess is you will win more if you overbid to games than worrying about stopping on 3 of a major in close decisions when it is right.

PLAY HANDS BETTER AND JUST BID THE DARN GAMES.

I concur here. I'd rather bid the game and go down than stop short and make the game. Hands frequently can make game because of distribution.


Phil

[awm]

pmacfar, on Aug 16 2005, 02:37 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 14 2005, 06:33 PM, said:

My guess is you will win more if you overbid to games than worrying about stopping on 3 of a major in close decisions when it is right.

PLAY HANDS BETTER AND JUST BID THE DARN GAMES.

I concur here. I'd rather bid the game and go down than stop short and make the game. Hands frequently can make game because of distribution.


Phil

This seems like kind of a strange attitude to me. Team matches are won and lost based on bidding the games that make and avoiding the ones that go down. Certainly it's sometimes good to be in a pushy 40% game (especially red). But look at these hand pairs:

(1) KQxxx KQx xxx xx opposite Axxx Axxx x xxxx

(2) KQxxx xxx KQx Qx opposite Axxx Axxx x xxxx

It seems pretty obvious to me that I'd want to be in 4♠ at IMPs on the first pair of hands. On the second pair of hands, I'd feel pretty lucky if I could make 3♠, and would want no piece of game.

There's a great deal of value in playing good methods over raises. In fact I think more IMPs are swung (overall) by decisions of game versus partscore than by decisions about slams (just because of frequency).

[pmacfar]

awm, on Aug 16 2005, 03:46 PM, said:

But look at these hand pairs:

(1) KQxxx KQx xxx xx opposite Axxx Axxx x xxxx

(2) KQxxx xxx KQx Qx opposite Axxx Axxx x xxxx

It seems pretty obvious to me that I'd want to be in 4♠ at IMPs on the first pair of hands. On the second pair of hands, I'd feel pretty lucky if I could make 3♠, and would want no piece of game.

There's a great deal of value in playing good methods over raises. In fact I think more IMPs are swung (overall) by decisions of game versus partscore than by decisions about slams (just because of frequency).

Yes, I was only talking about IMPs/MPs.

Team games require a more conservative approach because if you bid game and go down and the opps only bid the part score there will be a big swing in the match in their favor. If you bid game and make and the opps only bid the part score, the board goes in favor of your team but only by about 5 MPs (compared to 10+ in the other situation).

The sample hands provided are poor examples, why would either partner open the bidding in the first place? In the second hand, assuming the person with the 12 HCP hand opens the bidding, why would the responder be making a Limit Raise with only 8 HCP's?????

Phil

[Elianna]

pmacfar, on Aug 16 2005, 02:04 PM, said:

awm, on Aug 16 2005, 03:46 PM, said:

But look at these hand pairs:

(1) KQxxx KQx xxx xx opposite Axxx Axxx x xxxx

(2) KQxxx xxx KQx Qx opposite Axxx Axxx x xxxx

It seems pretty obvious to me that I'd want to be in 4♠ at IMPs on the first pair of hands. On the second pair of hands, I'd feel pretty lucky if I could make 3♠, and would want no piece of game.

There's a great deal of value in playing good methods over raises. In fact I think more IMPs are swung (overall) by decisions of game versus partscore than by decisions about slams (just because of frequency).

Yes, I was only talking about IMPs/MPs.

Team games require a more conservative approach because if you bid game and go down and the opps only bid the part score there will be a big swing in the match in their favor. If you bid game and make and the opps only bid the part score, the board goes in favor of your team but only by about 5 MPs (compared to 10+ in the other situation).

The sample hands provided are poor examples, why would either partner open the bidding in the first place? In the second hand, assuming the person with the 12 HCP hand opens the bidding, why would the responder be making a Limit Raise with only 8 HCP's?????

Phil

The first pair, someone may not open, but that's the pair you want to be in game in.

Those are limit raise hands: They have 8 losers (losing trick count), and four card trump support. I think that they are clear limit raises. Even if you don't believe in/use LTC, don't most people start counting points for shortnesses when they have four card trump support? Aren't they then worth either 10 or 11 points (depending how you like to count)?

[mike777]

awm, on Aug 16 2005, 02:46 PM, said:

pmacfar, on Aug 16 2005, 02:37 PM, said:

mike777, on Aug 14 2005, 06:33 PM, said:

My guess is you will win more if you overbid to games than worrying about stopping on 3 of a major in close decisions when it is right.

PLAY HANDS BETTER AND JUST BID THE DARN GAMES.

I concur here. I'd rather bid the game and go down than stop short and make the game. Hands frequently can make game because of distribution.


Phil

This seems like kind of a strange attitude to me. Team matches are won and lost based on bidding the games that make and avoiding the ones that go down. Certainly it's sometimes good to be in a pushy 40% game (especially red). But look at these hand pairs:

(1) KQxxx KQx xxx xx opposite Axxx Axxx x xxxx

(2) KQxxx xxx KQx Qx opposite Axxx Axxx x xxxx

It seems pretty obvious to me that I'd want to be in 4♠ at IMPs on the first pair of hands. On the second pair of hands, I'd feel pretty lucky if I could make 3♠, and would want no piece of game.

There's a great deal of value in playing good methods over raises. In fact I think more IMPs are swung (overall) by decisions of game versus partscore than by decisions about slams (just because of frequency).

Playing lite openers.
With hand 2 I would get to 3s with a simple bergen sequence.
I pass with hand one and who knows how the bidding goes then but having a fancy/complicated limit raise system will not help me.

Perhaps your f2f experience is very different but having a simple sequence where the opp are silent seems rare for me.
My last 2 matches(online), 18 hands, there was one non interference sequence and this was it:
p=3nt(opp)=p=p=p

Bottom line is if you think one of the main area of improvement you need is a complicated limit raise sequence, go for it. For me I just need to count out the hands and place hcp more.

[awm]

Okay let's change these to hands where everyone opens. Opener has either:

(1) KQxxx KQx xxx Kx

(2) KQxxx xxx KQx Kx

Let's suppose you're playing strong notrumps (or else you don't like opening 1NT with a five card major and three small in a side suit) and you open 1♠. If partner bids 2♠, I think you'd have to be insane to try for game even vulnerable at IMPs with either hand. So let's suppose partner makes a limit raise. Do you bid game? What if partner has:

Axxx Axxx x xxxx

With hand (1) game is excellent. I need to ruff two diamonds in dummy, or find the club ace on, or find hearts 3-3. Even if trumps are 4-0 I can make if club ace is on (or maybe if hearts 3-3). This is a wonderful game and I'd want to be there even at MPs.

With hand (2), game is not so hot. If they lead a heart I'm pretty much just down (lose 2 hearts 1 diamond 1 club even if things are lucky). Even when they don't lead hearts, I will probably need both minor suit aces onside (and trumps not 4-0) to have a chance to make. This game is something like 20% even assuming that the wrong opening lead is made! I want no part of it, even vulnerable at imps.

So how do we solve this? The simple way is to use 1♠-3♦ to show an invitational or better raise with short diamonds. Easy to bid game on hand (1) and 3♠ on hand (2) now. The more complex (and perhaps better) way is to use some scheme with an artificial limit+ raise and shortness showing/asking bids to follow.

For Mike's comment about competitive bidding -- I agree that opponents often tend to bid over my major suit openings. But that's not really relevant. If we play mini-splinters, by the time fourth hand bids it will be too late. I am well positioned to bid game on (1) and double for penalties on (2). Even playing artificial raise structures, opponents tend not to bid so aggressively after 1♠-2NT (limit+ raise unlimited). This is especially true when the limit raise can be THREE cards. And in fact the choice of bid by opponent can often HELP us. We will have auctions like:

1♠ - P - 2NT (limit+) - 3♦

Now opener passes on hand (1) to show "nothing wasted in diamonds" and responder bids game. Opener doubles on hand (2) and we take our number.

[mike777]

Must admit if playing more normal or standard opening bids I value the responder hand to be worth 7.5 almost 7 LTC. I would just bid 4S at the table.

If I lose imp match because my expert opp were able to stop at 3, WELL DONE.
In real life my mistakes are much worse than this at the table.

[coyot]

Strange... from what I've heard and seen, team matches are won and lost in partscore battles

Most of reasonably good pairs have a good game bidding - and reach most makeable games. Furthermore, the swing of game vs. partscore is +420 - +170 (+250 ) vs -50 - +140 (-190 ) NV, 450 vs. 240 Vul - which basically says "if in doubt, bid the game unless you're sure the cowards on the other table won't".

[mike777]

coyot, on Aug 17 2005, 05:34 AM, said:

Strange... from what I've heard and seen, team matches are won and lost in partscore battles

Most of reasonably good pairs have a good game bidding - and reach most makeable games. Furthermore, the swing of game vs. partscore is +420 - +170 (+250 ) vs -50 - +140 (-190 ) NV, 450 vs. 240 Vul - which basically says "if in doubt, bid the game unless you're sure the cowards on the other table won't".

I have heard and seen this posted before. My online TM experience so far has been different. To take last night's TM as one example:
HAND ONE: They open a Multi and we are pick up pair with no discussion. We get to the wrong slam, partner plays brilliant and we make it. In fact we bid no suits naturally until the 6 level after heavy interference. Our partners misdefend 3nt. We win 11 imps. Many many bridge issues on this one, not just one.
Hand two: Partner opens a very weak 6-6 hand at one level and then jumps to game on clear misfit auction, again with bidding by opp. We are x and lose 14 imps.
Hand 3?: I go down 2 in 3nt, missplay a squeeze at end to go down 1, lose 3 imps. Our partners misdefend? and make it easy for other table to go down 1.
Hand four?: Pard passes an opening bid and then competes one level too high, lose 5? Ok this was a part score battle.
hand five: Our teammates stay out of a 28 hcp 3nt game that does not make we win 4 or 5 imps? Have no idea how they manage this but it was winning decision on this hand.
Hand 8: Pard plays a 3nt very conservatively and makes 3. The opp take a bit more chances and make an overtrick, lose 1 IMP.

We lose the match by 1 IMP.
Will look forward to next match and see if part scores are really the deciding issue compared with play of hand, defense, game bidding, slam bidding, etc.

Well have just finished 2 more TM and in neither case were part scores contracts a top, important issue. Neither were fancy limit raises I hasten to add.

[pmacfar]

It certainly seems that limit raises are a topic I will put on my list for reading.

By the way, how did this thread (started with Mathe) get turned inside out into one about Limit Raises?