I don't think the word would be inherently interpreted with sexual connotations, but as is often the case, context is all important.
For example, your sentence is lacking context and begins with "Have you heard...?" which suggests some element of gossip. However, if you added context to that, such as:
Do you know who Jim and Tina are playing golf with?
Yeah, they've made a foursome with Jim and Tina.
The issue with your question is that, in isolation, the lack of context seems deliberate - as there's no indication for what purpose they've formed a foursome - and that's where the potential for innuendo appears.
Of course, people will also take cues from your tone and body language, so your meaning should be conveyed correctly, given that you provide sufficient context.
Just to make clear, I'm a British English speaker (and live in that region), but I think it's important to provide a global view. I'm not personally sure that the Americans would see matters any differently, but I do find issues of this nature fascinating.
It's the difference between the actual limit, and what is limited:
The limit on loans was changed to 5,000 - you have a limit on loans, and the limit changed to 5,000...
Likewise there is a limit on speed, it's limited to 55mph...
Sometimes, like the first example, it's less obvious, & I suspect you just have know how it's working in the sentence - the limit is on the radiation exposure permitted, & it's limited to 150mSv.
Best Answer
The nuance lies in adjective + to and adjective + for. I'll try to address that. I had answered this here, but this time, I'll be clearer.
Of course, it all depends on the context. Many times, using to or for with those adjectives may go unnoticed because, broadly, to many, it may mean the same and convey the message without any ambiguity.
In such sentences, 'for' connotes the fulfillment of some requirement/need; 'to' is just an indication of direction toward.
Important to, pleasant to, good to.... etc talks about how things 'appear' to you. And using 'for' talks how actually they are.
Compare:
Furthermore,