[Winstonm]

Scoring: IMP

The Auction:

1H-Dlbe-?

---

Verses:

Scoring: IMP

The Auction:

1H-Dlbe-?

---

Verses:

Scoring: IMP

The Auction:

1H-Dlbe-?

---

Verses:

Scoring: IMP

The Auction:

1H-Dlbe-?

---

Anytime a bid is assigned a meaning, there is a ripple effect that alters the meaning of other bids. Sometimes this can have positive effects; sometimes negative effects. Here is a situation where I feel Bergen raises can be utilized intelligently and furthermore add positive ripples to the meanings of other bids.

Bergen raises were designed by a great matchpoint player, and by their nature assume light opening hands and opponents' competition; however, not every auction is competetive and Bergen raises lose some merit in uncontested auctions.
It would seem to take maximum advantage of the method, Bergen raises should be adopted anytime RHO doubles or bids 1S over 1H.

For those not sure of Bergen, the jump bids of 3C and 3D after partner opens a major both show 4-card support and either limit raise strength or just below limit raise strength, depending on the version: Bergen or Reverse Bergen. When RHO makes a takeout double or bids 1S over 1H, isn't there a tremendous amount of merit in being able to describe in a single bid the 4-card nature of your major support as well as closely approximating the strength of the hand? Besides the descriptive nature, you have the preemptive value of jumping the bidding to the 3-level, making it harder for 4th seat to stick in his nose with a weakish hand, and if he does, you have a better grasp as a partnership of your defensive values - not much if your major turns out to be a 6/4 fit.

The ripple effect is that if Bergen raises are adopted in these situations, then after a takeout double, a 2N bid could be used to show the limit raise on 3-card support, making pass or double more attractive if the opponents' compete; also, redouble would then definately deny support as no limit raise was made. A cue bid over 1H-1S-? would then show 3-card support.

Anyone already have this agreement in place? Are there any big flaws in this argument?

[hrothgar]

The big flaw with your argument is that information about double fits is much more useful than "blunt" instruments like loser count.

Most people prefer fit jumps during competitive auction.

[awm]

On the four hands in question:

(1) 2NT: limit raise or better, four trumps. Retains some space for opener to describe below 3♥, makes it potentially more difficult for opponents to compete than a Bergen raise (which would permit doubling the minor and would also limit responder's hand).

(2) Redouble. Sets up penalty doubles if opponents compete quickly to the three level. Plan to bid 2♥ at next turn if possible, allowing us to play 2♥ when partner is minimum despite the limit raise values.

(3) 2♠: limit raise or better. Usually four trumps and denies a strong five-card suit (fit jump).

(4) Double (negative). Describes a hand with both minors (which we have). Plan to bid ♥ at next turn which indicates a three-card limit raise with minor suit length.

While I agree that often different actions are warranted with three and four card support, I don't see a reason to give up fit jumps in order to play bergen raises here. Better to make descriptive bids which still might let us out of the auction at the two-level on a declined three-card limit raise.

[han]

With Ben and Arend:

1) 2NT = limit+ with 4-card support.

2) 2D = good 3-card heart raise, about 9+. This hand may be worth another call, it's close (3D would be descritive).

3) 2NT = limit+ with 4-card support.

4) 2S = limit+ with 3-card support.

3C and 3D are always support jump shifts. I think that this is basically Robson-Segal, so old stuff, but not dead yet imo. In other partnerships I have played the same structure but with the jump to 3C as a mixed raise oover the double. You lose a support jump shift, you gain a mixed raise.. donno what's better.

[pclayton]

Ripple effect LOL. There's an article about Capp over 1M in this month's bridge world. Seems these conventions are being propogated when other agreements are better.

Winston's hands:

1. 2N. OK, 3♦ Bergen uses up slightly more room, but bfd.

2. 2♦ (transfer) showing a 3 card constructive raise (or better). This is a 2♦ BROMAD call.

3. 2N Per Robson showing a 4 card mixed raise +. You want to take away my fit bid here? Pry it from my cold dead hand.

4. Not sure why this one was added. I guess I'd cue

[Winstonm]

Certainly there is debate on all sides - a give and take. Myself, I try to answer these types of questions with frequency - how often will a bid occur verses another bid and how much accuracy is gained or lost.

The answers so far seem to favor fit-showing jumps; this is certainly not a bad way to play but it makes me wonder about the frequency of holding support plus a goodish 5-card suit verses the times when you hold 3 or 4-card support and do not hold a 5-card suit. I have not run simulations, but my instincts tell me I will hold 3 or 4 card support without a secondary 5-card suit quite a bit more often, and when this is the case describing the differences in trump length has a bearing on further competetive decisions. Another point is that opener may have the more shapely hand, although weakish, and the knowledge of the trump length may be all that is needed to bid game. xxxx is the only holding I know that can so drastically affect odds - turning the odds of no losers with AKxxx from 0% opposite xxx to 40% opposite xxxx and turning AKxxxx from 40% to 78%. The reverse also holds true for defensive tricks. AKxxx opposite xxx rates to cash 2 tricks 68% of the time, while opposite xxxx only rates to cash 2 tricks 40% of the time. AKxxxx will cash two tricks 40% of the time opposite xxx, but drops to zero% of the time opposite xxxx. So it would seem that trump length would be a key factor at the critical and pivotal 3-level.


From my understanding of responses, the fit-showing jump requires a secondary change (the ripple effect) to be able to show other types of raises, hence the use of 2N as a limit raise. This may be fine to use 2N as a 3-card limit raise and a straightforward 1-3 old fashioned limit raise with 4; however, I know I don't like it much when the opponents' can preempt me with such a bid, and if it's limit it can't be preemptive; and if 2N is the only limit raise, it cannot distinguish 3 trumps from 4 trumps.

Then there is another case to be made for using fit-jumps by an passed hand in non-competetive auctions, using Bergen when RHO doubles or bids 1S, and something else entirely by a non-passed third seat when the auction is unimpeded.

My take on the benefit of Bergen in competition is this: 1) You get to separate 4-card raises from 3-card raises. 2) You add a bid with a 4-card constructive raise that has preemptive value. These two occurences I would think would have a higher frequency of use than specifically a fit-showing jump. The ripple effect is then that: 3) a redouble can deny support or be game forcing with support - no need to redouble with any limit raise hand, and 4) It would be possible to use a redouble followed by a new suit as the equivalent of a fit-showing jump. This would mean that a new suit at the 2-level (ripple) would have to be forcing in order to show the strong hand that before would redouble and then bid.

And lastly, the constructed hands were an attempt to present what would be a normal limit raise - so if they don't fit your opening bidding style, add or subtract a card at will to make them all the equivalent to your idea of a limit raise.

Thanks.

Winston

[whereagles]

In all of them I bid 3♦.

But not as bergen raise - more like a fit-bid!

[Blofeld]

I'm with Han and Phil here. In particular having 2♦ as a good 3-card raise after the double is very helpful. Not giving up fit-jumps unless the alternative is giving up takeout doubles.

[mike777]

Another excellent thread has me thinking about these hands in more depth, as of now I bid them as below but I think there are some great ideas posted here.

1) 3D, Bergen, I will use 2nt still as some form of Bergen 2NT(strong)
2) rdbl, planning on showing a 3card limit raise even across from a junky opening.
3)2S
4)2S

[mike777]

Because of this thread a partner emailed me the following, comments encouraged please.

"Well.....if you want to change methods over 1H-1S, just play the full bergen with obvious adjustmwents.
this is how it should be (with very very little additional memory work):


Pass - a penalty double of 1S, or a hand too weak to bid.

X - similar to Semi-Forcing Notrump...catchall for hands that can't make another bid
includes:
3 piece raises, not good enough for 2H
3 piece raises, too good for 2H (but not enough to force with 2C or 2D first)


game forcing hands that dont have 4-card support, and don't have a decent minor
to make a 2/1 in
double, followed by 3NT implies spades stopped) or (AKx xx KJxx Axxx)
Double, followed by cue bid may include heart support). ( xxx AKx Axxx KJx)
(xx AKx Axxx KJxx)
(xxx AK Axxx KJxx)

with the hand above with 2 small spades and AKx of hearts, you should
drive on to 4H even if partner rebids NT over your cue-bid.....

all other hands worth a response up to game invitational hands


Over the X, opener rebids naturally. 1NT should show a stopper. 2H should show 6. Otherwise,
he bids his better cheaper minor. Opener can jump shift with 17+ to a real second suit...If he doesn't have
one, he can rebid 2S to show 17+ and no second suit....perhaps a Mexican 2D type of hand that
he prefered to open his 5 card heart suit with. 2NT rebid shows 17ish and spades stopped.

1NT - balanced 7-11 with spades stopped....
2C - Natural, Game force, Tends to show 5+ (cuz we can double with: AKJ Kx Q432 Q432)
2D - Natural, Game force Tends to show 5+ (we can also double with: xx AKQ K432 Q432)
2H - constructive, 8-11 3 card raise....
2S - 4 card support, game force, with a singleton
2NT - 4 card support, game force, advanced jabcoby
3c - 4 card support -- 8-10 (or 3-4-3-3 bad 11 count)
3D - 4 card support -- 11-12 (or 3-4-3-3 bad 13 count)
3H - 4 card support 0-7 (4-7 vul)
3S - 4 card support, void
3NT - 14-16, very flat (3 card support), spades stopped ( we bid 3NT with: AKJ Jxx K43 Q432)


I'm willing to modify any of this if you see possible ways to improve it without adding too much memory work....
it all follows what we are already playing...i just added the part about 2/1 ones showing 5 card suits cause we
can do that here...."

[Double !]

What I am about to say will probably sound asinine to many, and I am in no way recommending this for a hard-working, established, high-level competition partnerships. There are many theoretically and practically superior methods. But for less than frequent partnerships, the following is an agreement that IMO might be worthy of consideration. In fact, I pre-accept the opinion that this posting might be better placed in the intermediate level section of the forum, but it was in response to this thread's topic.

I had agreements with my 2 regular partner when I was MUCH younger but playing regularly to play a redouble after 1M-X-? to show a good 3-card raise in opener's major, sort of like a drury-type hand, perhap a point less (about 9-11 support points). A single raise showed a weaker hand with 3-card support (or 4-card support with a flat hand), 2NT was limit raise, 3NT was GF 4-card support raise, and 3M was pre-emptive with 4-card support and not 4333 (we called it "inverted": this was circa early 1970s. We didn't have nearly as many tools as are now promulgated).

Why did we play this?
Our partnership intent at that time was to keep the meanings of bids as consistent as possible in an attempt to reduce partnership misunderstandings or forgetting what we were playing (including keeping the 1NT response to 1M forcing one round) and the philosophy of attempting to describe one's hand in as few bids as possible (in one bid if possible). The number of times when we got superior (matchpoint) results by doubling the opps after partner redoubled were relatively infrequent. Another factor with one partner was the fact that we were playing Precision: this approach opposite a limited opening made answering the questions of how high and in what strain to bid easier to determine in competition. Therefore, our approach was to essentially ignore the opps takeout double. This approach sacrificed two things: being able to play in 1NT after 1M-X-?, and collecting a huge number after 1M-X-XX. I felt that we lost little using this approach, and that we gained a lot in terms of clarity and consistency.

Oh, well. That was then and this is now. FWIW: without a lot of discussion or experience with some of the more modern methods such as competitive transfers, I still like this idea for lack of a better commonly-used method.

Hope this interested someone.

Thanx:
DHL

[moysian]

I think you could chosen better examples for your point. In the hands presented, it is unlikely that the 4th trump will produce an extra trick. Had the spade been singleton you could make a better argument that hands 1 and 3 are a trick better than hands 2 and 4.

You do pay a price for using Bergen for the 4-card raise over the T.O. double, and that is the opprtunity to make the WJS over the double - when you have the hand for it. That, combined with the bidding space saved by 2n, favors bidding 2n in both cases. 2n and 3d are equally effective in forcing opps to come in at 3s.

In the cases of the 1s overcaller, the opportunity to force "blind" action at the 3-level is gone. LHO knows if he has a 3s bid, or not. Better to apply normal methods to show your overall strength. 2n is still too useful as invitational to NT to take away; double or 2s shows overall strength (2d = NFB for me). 3d can be Bergen (treat 3 trumps & stiff in overcalled suit as 4-bagger seems ok to me).

[foo]

IMHO, Bergen Raises have more utility in Contested auctions than they do in Uncontested auctions. To the point where I won't play them in Uncontested auctions but might play them in Contested ones.

As usual, the issue is being able to show as many of the important hand types as possible with the bids available.

There is no question that there are more hand types without support than there are with support, the questions are how many of them are worth devoting bids to, and how many bids do I need to differentiate hands with support?

After 1H-X-??
♠72♥K942♦AK42♣943
2N, showing 4+H, LR+

♠84♥KJ3♦AK42♣9832
XX followed by a H raise shows 3 card LR

After 1H-(1S)-??
♠84♥K942♦AK53♣983
2S, showing 4+H LR+

♠84♥KJ3♦AK74♣9832
X followed by 3H shows 44 in the unbids, 3 card support, and Inv values.

...so far, We need neither Bergen Raises nor other artiificial meanings to our minor suit calls. All these hands are strong enough and have enough support that they are relatively easy cases.

Weaken the hands and We need more tools.

What does 1H-X-2S! mean? Does it still make sense for it to show long S's when 2nd seat has presumably shown 4 of them?

A reasonable suggestion I've heard in the past is for this sequence to show
Mixed Raises: hands that have support and ~8 losers but moderate rather than invitational+ values. Usually they are required to have a stiff/void.

ATT I find this combined with Fit Jump Shifts into the minors to be better than Bergen Raises.

YMMV.

[akhare]

a) 2N showing LR in the major -- fairly standard treatment I think
2♦ playing xfers over 1M/X
c) 2♠
d) 2♠ -- X might work too since we will be at the 3 level anyway w/ a cue bid, but there's danger of losing the ♥ fit if it's already 3♠+ by the time it comes around.

Atul

[000002]

I oppose the BERGEN raise because :

(1) i never use Natural SYS lately.

(2) opps always double my 3♣/♦ to show his weakish ♠ 5card suit,then, my partner has deep pain to guess how to do after opps 4♠ sacrifice & 3♠ competetition.

(3) how can i do when holding Axx x Qxxx QJxxx following partner's 1♠ opening?

(4) when we use 2nt-leap as 3card support,my partner can't unfurl his singleton/void suit ,he had to show his 4card suit since 4-4 fit better than 5-3.





000002 regards