[TWO4BRIDGE]

3C = lower Bergen
5D = 1 key card

---

Knowledge of the 4th trump can make a game bid or slam bid, as in this case , worthwhile .
Even if South's lone key card was the ♣Ace ( and not the ♥K ) , North felt that even if the both the ♥K and Q were missing, the 10 trumps made losing 2 trump tricks much less likely .

Only 3 of 10 tables bid slam.... making. The others were just in game. We were the only Bergen users.

[Cyberyeti]

Don't need Bergen, anybody who plays 4 card majors and 2N limit or better (so this is a 3♥ bid showing at least 4 trumps) will also get there. 4 trumps and a keycard is all you need to find out about to make this worth bidding.

[mycroft]

or 1♥-3♦ limit splinter (again, promising 4 trumps), which may get you to the slam even when opener's diamonds are Axxxx instead of AKJ98.

[billw55]

The only Bergen users in 10 tables? Where was this game played?

[whereagles]

minisplinter >> bergen

[Fluffy]

1♥-2♠ limit raise based on shortness, and you even get to know what your short suit is.

[kenberg]

In general I am not all that fond of Bergen raises but I have no problem acknowledging that they are sometimes useful. No one would play them if they weren't.

in this particular hand they make it easy for the reasons mentioned. I guess that playing with a partner with whom I have only basic agreements, I might as South raise 1♥ to 3♥. I figure Kxxx in trump is worth more than 3 points and the stiff diamond in the dummy, with four trump, sounds good to me so this is a limit raise. So we probably get there. But of course this is after the fact thinking, but I don't think it is crazy.

I got nothin' against them Bergen raises, I just don't usually play 'em.

[ArtK78]

I use Bergen Raises, and I happen to like them. But I would use a mini splinter on this hand.

My major suit raise structure allows for both. In this case, the auction would go 1♥ - 2♠ (one of many types of heart raises); 2NT - 3♦ (mini or maxi splinter). Opener treats the 3♦ bid as a mini splinter and bids accordingly. With a maxi splinter (better than a game forcing splinter, which is shown by 4♦ directly), responder bids again over a signoff.

Obviously, on this hand, slam becomes trivially easy to bid after this start. And you can bid a grand if partner has the ♥K and the ♣A.

[Zelandakh]

Fluffy, on 2014-August-27, 12:48, said:

1♥-2♠ limit raise based on shortness, and you even get to know what your short suit is.

Or you can also bundle maxi-splinters into this with little cost. One day I will convince Don to come over to the Dark Side.

[helene_t]

If you don't play Bergen it is probably a good idea to have a way to establish the exact trump length after a single raise - and not to make limit raises with only 3.

[mycroft]

I like Bergen and I sometimes play them. But it's not a constructive tool to me; it's an obstructive one. "You know my hand in one call, you can make the right decision; 4th hand needs to guess immediately at the 3, maybe 4 level whether to show their suit, where people not playing Bergen get to bid, should they choose to bid, one (sometimes two) level lower.

3M is the best Bergen Raise given that view.

I will not play Bergen raises with a irregular partner; the chance of them playing it the wrong way up (to me), or not bidding 3M when they should; or having a different idea of how to upvalue a 4441 or the like than I, or me forgetting(!) is higher than the benefit of them over other methods. However, one of the big benefits of Bergen raises is that partner can't make a "WJS" 3♣ call that I have no idea what to do with, so it could be worse...

[dustinst22]

Are you really using antecdotal hands to justify a convention. I think many methods can get you to slam here, but that's not the point -- cherry picking hands to "illustrate" why a convention is useful is about the worst way imaginable.

[gwnn]

mycroft, on 2014-August-28, 10:56, said:

I like Bergen and I sometimes play them. But it's not a constructive tool to me; it's an obstructive one. "You know my hand in one call, you can make the right decision; 4th hand needs to guess immediately at the 3, maybe 4 level whether to show their suit, where people not playing Bergen get to bid, should they choose to bid, one (sometimes two) level lower.

Of course opps should play the gwnn defence to Bergen: double showing a normal 2M overcall and 3M showing a real 3-level bid. But not even my partners want to play it so I guess I can't expect them to.

[the hog]

Come on 2Four, even blind freddy bidding with his dog should reach 6H on this hand.

[MrAce]

dustinst22, on 2014-August-28, 16:26, said:

Are you really using antecdotal hands to justify a convention. I think many methods can get you to slam here, but that's not the point -- cherry picking hands to "illustrate" why a convention is useful is about the worst way imaginable.

+1

[gnasher]

One of the disadvantages of conventions like Bergen is that people spend their time thinking about how clever their methods are, rather than about what their hand is actually worth. The South hand is easily worth an invitational raise, so standard bidders should have no problem with this.

People playing unsophisticated standard methods might have a problem if South had Kxxx Kxxx xx Qxx, but as others have said it's possible to solve this problem without using up all your three-level responses.

[mike777]

Ya if the bbo forums teach us anything it is that fancy conventions get us no where compared to decent declarer and defense.


Given that something as old really old as Bergen which I play should be fine.

Of course transfer walsh, relay systems may win more often... but these are not new..

these are from 1930 or 1950.

All the more I wonder from such as Mr. Hamman or Blue Team play.

All the more from the many wonderful comments from great players on bbo.

Thank you.

[rhm]

dustinst22, on 2014-August-28, 16:26, said:

Are you really using antecdotal hands to justify a convention. I think many methods can get you to slam here, but that's not the point -- cherry picking hands to "illustrate" why a convention is useful is about the worst way imaginable.

I do not mind if people illustrate their clever methods by example, which of course can not prove much but can make you think and it may help you understand the method better.
Unfortunately this example does not illustrate much. .

gnasher, on 2014-August-29, 00:50, said:

One of the disadvantages of conventions like Bergen is that people spend their time thinking about how clever their methods are, rather than about what their hand is actually worth. The South hand is easily worth an invitational raise, so standard bidders should have no problem with this.

People playing unsophisticated standard methods might have a problem if South had Kxxx Kxxx xx Qxx, but as others have said it's possible to solve this problem without using up all your three-level responses.

Agreed.
But show me the Bridge player who does not think he is playing clever methods. Are you an exception? This is not confined to people using Bergen.
I guess those who did not reach slam mostly did not value the responding hand properly and in a club game a good distributional slam is missed by the majority is the rule rather than the exception.

Bergen does of course use up all three-level responses.
I do not mind playing them, since the proposed alternatives are not that useful either or occur that infrequently that I can not be bothered.
Differentiating between different types of raises makes sense to me and it occurs frequently. Since Bergen shows a major suit fit the jump does not preempt partner, one reason I am not so fond of invitational jump shifts.
In standard the single raise covers too wide a range (leading to missed games or unsuccessful attempts) and Bergen takes at least some hands out of the single raise.
As others have pointed out the advantage of Bergen is its combination of obstructive and constructive value

Rainer Herrmann

[whereagles]

I've played many sub-clever methods. Standard methods for instance

[Zelandakh]

mike777, on 2014-August-29, 01:47, said:

Ya if the bbo forums teach us anything it is that fancy conventions get us no where compared to decent declarer and defense.

This is very true when looking at 2 hands, less true when looking at 1 or 4.