[kfay]

Playing 2/1. 3♥ shows a limit raise.

Scoring: IMP

1♥-(P)-?

---

[matmat]

3♥

[Codo]

I agree with the limit raise.

[whereagles]

Some sort of forcing raise.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

4H.

It is either a limit raise or a preemptive raise.
I prefer the preemptive raise.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Hanoi5]

What's 4♦? I don't think I want to gamble bidding 3♥ and then losing a game 'cause partner thought ♦Qxx was a bad holding. If 4♦ shows a 5 card support with a better hand than 1♥-4♥.

I think I prefer to bid 1♥-4♥ if the previous 4♦ is not available. Would we lose a slam? Maybe, but losing a game is more likely, I'd say.

[andy_h]

Limit seems good.

[hrothgar]

Ever heard the old saying "What are you, a man or a mouse"?

This is a case where I'd be happy with either extreme, but don't much like the middle course...

I can live with an immediate raise to the four level, especially if I have a gimmick available (lots of folks play that 1M - 3N shows a raise to 4 level with some defense).

I'm also reasonable happy with a single raise. This is certainly conservative, but I don't think that I'll be too sorry if partner can't muster up a game try. Moreover, if the auction is unlikely to die at 2♥, so I'll have the chance to show extra length.

The middle course (a 3♥ limit raise) really isn't calling to me...

I don't think its descriptive.
It eats up lots of bidding space
It might even be too high

[rogerclee]

This looks like a routine 3♥ to me.

[neilkaz]

This sure looks like a limit raise to me. Not good enough to force to game with the Jacks and flattish hand, and too good for a preemptive raise to game (which could be unneeded and also go set when we'd buy the hand at the 3 evel) with the defence and looks to be too good for a single raise.

[mtvesuvius]

4♥ is too pre-emptive.
2♥ is too weak.
3♥ is a limit raise, which is exactly what we have.

[Phil]

Already on record for a limit raise. If pard passes we probably don't have game, but its possible.

Good hand for a sim. I'd be interested in the number of tricks opposite a balanced 12-13 and maybe an unbalanced 11.

[jdonn]

TY for telling me we play limit raises, otherwise I couldn't say "wtp" in good conscience.

[skjaeran]

Limit raise.

[hanp]

Richard, you can live with a direct 4H bid but you don't like 3H because

Quote

I don't think its descriptive.
It eats up lots of bidding space
It might even be too high

It seems to me that all these arguments apply to a greater extend to 4H, so your post doesn't make sense to me.

Also, it seems to me that each of your arguments is wrong since we have about the playing strength and trump support of a limit raise, we do want to eat up bidding space and I don't think we should aim to stop in 2H with this kind of fit.

I appreciate that you are trying to advocate an alternative position but I think your arguments are not convincing.

[ArtK78]

This is the type of hand where I would make a Bergen limit raise and then bid game.

However, playing 3♥ as a limit raise, I have little choice than to bid 3♥.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

This is the type of hand where I would make a Bergen limit raise and then bid game.

However, playing 3♥ as a limit raise, I have little choice than to bid 3♥.

If you think it's worth a game bid then why aren't you forcing to game? Alternatively if you think it's not then why would you raise a Bergen limit raise signoff to game?

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Mar 5 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

This is the type of hand where I would make a Bergen limit raise and then bid game.

However, playing 3♥ as a limit raise, I have little choice than to bid 3♥.

If you think it's worth a game bid then why aren't you forcing to game? Alternatively if you think it's not then why would you raise a Bergen limit raise signoff to game?

Because I want partner to know that I have a game bid based on heart length and not on power, but I do have the values for a limit raise.

[jdonn]

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 5 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

This is the type of hand where I would make a Bergen limit raise and then bid game.

However, playing 3♥ as a limit raise, I have little choice than to bid 3♥.

If you think it's worth a game bid then why aren't you forcing to game? Alternatively if you think it's not then why would you raise a Bergen limit raise signoff to game?

Because I want partner to know that I have a game bid based on heart length and not on power, but I do have the values for a limit raise.

Let me put it a different way.

The only possible explanation for raising to game after the Bergen raise, regardless of why you chose to make a Bergen raise to begin with, is that you expect game to make opposite a minimum opener.

So not getting your side to game somehow when not playing Bergen raises is totally illogical.

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Mar 5 2009, 01:49 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 12:20 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 5 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

This is the type of hand where I would make a Bergen limit raise and then bid game.

However, playing 3♥ as a limit raise, I have little choice than to bid 3♥.

If you think it's worth a game bid then why aren't you forcing to game? Alternatively if you think it's not then why would you raise a Bergen limit raise signoff to game?

Because I want partner to know that I have a game bid based on heart length and not on power, but I do have the values for a limit raise.

Let me put it a different way.

The only possible explanation for raising to game after the Bergen raise, regardless of why you chose to make a Bergen raise to begin with, is that you expect game to make opposite a minimum opener.

So not getting your side to game somehow when not playing Bergen raises is totally illogical.

But there is more to consider.

If you make a preemptive raise to game (even if you have a method of differentiating between a "bad" preemptive raise and a "good" preemptive raise) you will be understating the value of your hand. Yes, you will get to game. But partner, with a very good hand, is less likely to be able to act intelligently over a preemptive raise to game, never suspecting that you have the values for a limit raise.

If you make a forcing game raise when you don't have the values for the call, partner may move towards slam when there is significant risk of going down at the 5 level.

I would like to bid game on the hand presented in the OP. Given the methods in use, I have a choice of:

1) bidding game preemptively, thereby understating my values.
2) bidding game via a forcing raise, thereby overstating my values.
3) inviting game via a limit raise, which states my values pretty accurately, but understates the playing potential of the hand.

However, if one makes a Bergen limit raise (or any other manner of making a limit raise which guarantees that I will be able to take another call) I can then bid game without either understating or overstating my values. Partner should understand that I have the values for a limit raise but too much playing strength to pass below game.

If that means that my choice of making a 3♥ limit raise given the conditions of the OP is illogical, so be it. But I prefer to give partner a reasonably accurate picture of my values rather than overbid them or underbid them. I hope to get to game most of the time when it is right, and I hope that when partner does not bid game it is not wrong. I am constrained by the conditions set in the OP. I choose not to force to game on the basis that there is no reasonable way to show my values accurately using the methods given.