BBO Discussion Forums: bergen raises :HCP or bergen dummy points - BBO Discussion Forums

I've recently started to use reverse Bergen raises and i've received comments from my partners than i was overbidding. I first read than it was Bergen dummy points that count but it seems most play only HCP.
So on a 1 spade opening and holding say xxxx AQ JTxxx xx, this hand is 7HCP, so a 3D raise using HCP. But using bergen dummy hand evaluation it's 10 dummy points, good for a 3clubs response. Wich one should i use.
The same goes with splinter and jacoby 2NT. With 10 hcp and 13 dummy points should i bid 2NT or 3 clubs?

A limit raise is a limit raise, regardless of the system. And a limit raise in your system depends on your opening style agreements. You have to decide what hands fit into which bids.

Bergen raises try to differentiate between limit raises, mixed raises and weak (preemptive) raises. If you are playing reverse Bergen, 3c is a limit raise, 3d is a mixed raise and 3M is weak. How you determine if your hand falls into either category is based on your judgement of the hand. If you find that consistently your partner is bidding unmakeable games based on the information you are giving, you need to evaluate just who is overbidding. If you found your partner's bidding acceptable, then the overbidder is you and you need to reexamine how you are arriving at your strength determinations. If, on the other hand, you make a limit raise and your partner goes to game on a 12 count that require a perfect limit holding from you, you can look at your partner on that one.

If you can't figure out who is at fault, take the hand and post it somewhere and solicit opinions on what everyone else would do with it.

Strictly using HCP with no adjustments would not be a good approach. Bergan dummy points, losing trick count or other evaluation methods would generally be better. But, you need to use your own judgement.

Evaluation notes for this hand (regardless of evaluation method):
* The j10xxx holding is worth more than most other jack holdings because the 10 spot supports the jack and that combination is in a long side suit (a possible source of tricks).
* The AQ doubleton holding is a big red flag. Too much of your strength is concentrated in a short side suit. To count that as 6 HCP and also add for the shortness is way too much.

One method is to have a Limit Raise include three covercards or the distributional equivalent. Q or better in trumps and A or K outside of trumps. A singleton can substitute for an Ace or King.

Hi,

#1 I maybe wrong, but a 3C response is weaker than a 3D response, it was stated in a post above the other way round.
#2 The bid with the most room left, can have the most variance, which would be 3C.
A 3C raise can be based on either raw power (HCP) or distribution (playing strength), if partner needs raw power,
he can ask with 3D.
A 3D raise should be more tightly defined, my Suggestion would be using HCP.

After the weaker 3C raise, the partnership is usually Looking only, if game is on or not.
After the stronger 3D raise, opener may like to go Looking for slam.

For slam bidding, HCP power becomes more important.

Finally: The partnersip should decide, if they include points for the 9 Card trump fit, my Suggestion would be not
to do this, the Bergen raise itself showes the 9 Card suit fit.

With kind regards
Marlowe

PS: 2NT / Splinter vs. Bergen Raises - You go via 2NT / Splinter, if you want to make sure that you reach game, you use
Bergen, when you are only want to invite.
I dont think there is a Hand with 10HCP and 13 Dummy Points, that should go via 2NT, I have no idea, how Dummy Points are
defined,…, my guess would be, this is either a Hand suitable for a Splinter or only worth an invite.

2NT showes raw power, the Splinter is based on distributional power.

P_Marlowe, on 2019-August-14, 00:02, said:

Well, it was stated in the OP, so I am afraid you are wrong.

Vampyr, on 2019-August-14, 03:02, said:

http://www.bridgeguy...gen_raises.html
I believe switching 3C / 3D is called Reverse Bergen Raises, but Reverse Bergen is considered inferior,
since games come before slam, and 3C as weaker raise caters for game bidding.

…

After rereading the OP, I saw, I missed the part, that stated "reversed" Bergen.

So you are Right.

But Maybe the OP considers comment regarding the merrits of using Reverse Bergen, so my
mistake may be helpful anyway.

P_Marlowe, on 2019-August-14, 04:21, said:

I don’t think there is much in it, to be honest.

Bergen vs Reverse Bergen makes no difference, just both play the same thing. In either case 3♣ has wider limits because 1M-3♣-3 diamonds can artificially ask min or max. So in Bergen, 3♣ should be 7-10 while 3♦ is 11-12,while with Reverse 3♣ should be 9-12 and 3♦ is 7-8. I know of one partnership that even played "split Bergen": 3♣ is 7-8 or 11-12 and 3♦ is 9-10.
In all cases take distribution and honor quality into account as describe above.

I have several partners. Some of them wanted to play "Bergen Raises", some "Reverse Bergen Raises". Some of them had which was which confused. Most had no idea that "Bergen Raises" involves more than just the 3!C and 3!D bids. Finally I wrote up the full set of agreements, including 3!C as the mixed raise and 3!D invitational, and presented that write up to my partners with "we're playing this, or we're not playing Bergen". I'm usually pretty flexible, but I finally gave up on this one.

Actually, to tell the truth, I'd rather play Hardy Raises, but that's not gonna happen with these folks.

I have no idea what Bergen dummy points are, and have no strong desire to rectify that gap in my bridge knowledge.

having said that, if one is playing Bergen (and I play a variant of it, differing variants in my two current serious partnerships) one always shows 4 trump and one is usually 4432 or shapelier (because 4432 is more common than 4333), so I assume that one almost always has some dummy points, whatever they may be.

The OP did mention one revealing holding: xxxx AQ J10xxx xx

Please compare this to Jxxx xx AQxxx xx

The first has a LTC of 9 (although one might count it as less due to the 9+ spade fit) while the second has a LTC of 8 (again, possibly less due to the spade fit)

My point is this: look at where your high cards are, not just what they are. High cards can take tricks in and of themselves, and have value because of that. However, they also have value if and when they help create length tricks. AQ tight will seldom produce extra tricks...you'd need partner to hold significant length and to be able to get to those tricks if you ever establish them. AQxxx, on the other hand, may be worth 4 tricks opposite as little as xx in partner'a hand.

Upgrade for hcp located in long suits...upgrade again for honour combinations in long suits, and be conservative when your strength is concentrated in short suits....at least until and unless partner shows length therein.

As for counting 'dummy' points for making conventional calls such as 2N: my advice...don't! If you have 4 cards support, 10 hcp and a stiff, don't upgrade to J2N: make a splinter bid. Splinters, in response to a major, should be roughly good limit raise hands, that are upgraded fr shape.

The problem is that partner should be assumed to be a thinking, intelligent agent with the right to make his or her own valuation decisions: to be literally an equal player in the partnership. Your 'dummy' points, whether shortness or length, may or may not mesh well with partner. Stretch because you want to count extras for shortness, and you may find partner with wasted values, and get to high, particularly if your call conceals your shortness, and merely describes shape, as does (for example) a Jacoby 2N raise.

Getting back to xxxx AQ J10xxx xx, not only would I shudder at the idea of a limit raise, but I think it isn't that great a constructive raise (fwiw, I play constructive or limit, not mixed, although I play mixed raises in several other sequences).

Make it my example, of Jxxx xx AQxxx xx, and I'd still only show a constructive raise, even though this is a full trick stronger than the other. However, I play an aggressive opening bid style, coupled with a style in which we 'invite heavy and accept light' in that we tend to be relatively conservative in inviting game and relatively aggressive in accepting invitations....I stress the 'relatively' part, since on most hands we invite or accept/decline on the same cards as do the 'light invite, conservative accept' school.