[mike777]

As you may or may not recall, the whole reason Bergen came up with the 2 ways to make a limit raise in the first place is that he says opener should accept a 4 card limit raise even with a dead minimum in high cards when he holds distribution (a singleton)....but he should not accept such a limit raise made with 3 trumps.

If you are going to play a system that that does not differentiate between 3 and 4 card raises and weakish, mixed or invite strength at least explain why that is winning bridge and why the opponents will let you play in an 8 card fit let alone a nine card fit at the 2 level?

[whereagles]

Bergen raises are overrated. All they tell you is 4 trumps and some nr. of hcps. They don't say anything about doubletons/singletons nor where the honors are located. While honor location is a bit secondary, side short suits are often important and bergen does a pretty good job hiding them.

[mike777]

If Bergen is overrated you should tell the mysterious ratings people about it. However using a convention based on an overrating or underrating seems a strange way to play bridge.

In any case you are not playing Bergen raises correctly so that may account for your poor results.

With all of that said one can say Bergen raises without using any judgement can have problems. The following hand type is a typical problem if an unpassed hand.

Of course I do not pass these hands so I can never be a passed hand and be this good.

1H=?

x....KQx....Jxxxx....KQxx
or
1S=?
KQx...x....Jxxxx....KQxx

I resolve it by bidding 3D a limit raise promising 4 card support

If you have time to tell partner where all your stiffs, doubletons and honor cards are with less than game force hands then you play in some strange games, do not your opp ever bid? That is why I play Bergen and Bromad on over the opp bidding because they are always bidding against me. I seem to never have silent auctions even when I open a strong 2 clubs.

[kenrexford]

I agree with the Hog on the idea to use Suit/Lead. However, I sould suggest a better application of this.

The way I play, after 1♥-X-? (passed hand or not), 1NT relays 2♣, 2♣ relays 2♦, 2♦ is a constructive raise, and 2♥ is a nuisance raise.

Using this, the relay shows either a suit (weak or strong) or a fit (lead-directional). Failure to suggest an alternative lead suggests leading the suit.

I do not want a heart lead, preferring to suggest diamonds. So, I would bid 2♣ and then convert the diamond call (assumed) to hearts. If the opponents bid before partner, I convert his support double of 2♠ or 3♣ (support for diamonds) back to 3♥.

If I did not use Flower Bids (jump to 3♣, for example as fit-showing and natural), I'd prefer 3♣ to be a mini-splinter, showing the stiff and the four-card fit all at once. Using a Bergen approach, or Jordan, or some one-way or two-way Drury, seems to leave partner with insufficient info to handle the competitive auction, especialy if there is a decision to make over 4♠.

[whereagles]

mike777, on Aug 28 2006, 05:59 PM, said:

1. If Bergen is overrated you should tell the mysterious ratings people about it. However using a convention based on an overrating or underrating seems a strange way to play bridge.

2. In any case you are not playing Bergen raises correctly so that may account for your poor results.

3. If you have time to tell partner where all your stiffs, doubletons and honor cards are with less than game force hands then you play in some strange games, do not your opp ever bid?

1. Feeling the need to go off-topic? We got a subforum for that somewhere...

2. What exactly do mean by "playing Bergen raises correctly"?

3. This is how it works: when opps get a chance to bid, the info about stiffs and honor cards will have usually already been transmitted to opener.

[mike777]

You do not just count hcp and trump support to play Bergen. You count support points in whatever style you prefer. If you are only counting some number of hcp, as you wrote, then you are not playing it correctly. As for off topic you are the one who first mentioned ratings not me As for my final point if the opp never get to bid before you transfer all that information then it does sound like a strange game but ok.

[whereagles]

mike777, on Aug 28 2006, 06:48 PM, said:

if the opp never get to bid before you transfer all that information then it does sound like a strange game but ok.

I prefer to call it "advanced bidding methods".

[TheoKole]

I use both Reverse Drury* and Jordon 2NT** bids after opening of a major by partner and double by opponent.

Reverse Drury changes slightly in these situations,

1 ♥ - (X) - 2 ♣* = 3 or 4 card fit with 7-9 HCP's and balanced hand
1 ♥ - (X) - 2 ♥ = 3 or 4 card fit with 4-6 HCP's (3? better if in trump suit)
1 ♥ - (X) - 2 NT** = 4+ card raise with invitational hand or better (balanced hand)
1 ♥ - (X) - 3 ♥ = weak shapely raise
1 ♥ - (X) - 4 ♥ = weak shapely raise (the more trumps the better)


Cheers, Theo

[mikeh]

Bear in mind that partner was 3rd seat: many players (me included) open 4 card majors freely in 3rd seat.

This is important in case you were considering Bergen: a method predicated on 5 card major opening bids. Thus it is an error to use bergen raises of a 3rd seat opening bid unless you insist upon 5 cards there... and that is a very unpopular view for most standard or 2/1 players.... do you really have to open 1♣ in 3rd with say xx AKQx KJx xxxx?

So count out Bergen.

I am a big user of drury, with lots of gadgets, but NOT in competition.

I like transfers, starting with redouble. Most who get exposed to this method begin by expressing concern about the loss of the strength-showing redouble: a concern that usually evaporates after a few sessions.

xx = next bid (1♠ (x) xx = transfer to 1N)
and so on, up to a transfer into opener's suit which shows a solid raise.

A simple raise of opener denies a decent hand... it could be very weak indeed.

On the given hand, I have a very nice hand indeed... but I would simply bid 2♦: solid raise to 2♥.

If my methods included drury and Jordan (Jordan I can live with, drury is in my view inferior here), I'd drury... but note that it is possible to use 2-way drury, thus I could show 4 card support.

[SoTired]

Without interference, I play 2-way Drury with 2C=3-card support and 2D=4-card support.
After intervening X, 2N(jordan)=4-card support, XX=3-card support (or 10+ and <3-card support).

[Chamaco]

mikeh, on Aug 28 2006, 07:54 PM, said:

I like transfers, starting with redouble. Most who get exposed to this method begin by expressing concern about the loss of the strength-showing redouble: a concern that usually evaporates after a few sessions.

xx = next bid (1♠ (x) xx = transfer to 1N)
and so on, up to a transfer into opener's suit which shows a solid raise.

A simple raise of opener denies a decent hand... it could be very weak indeed.

My concerns are not related to the chances to "go for blood", but mostly because even after a takeout double, I want to maintain ALL of the following options, with 3 card support:

- showing a preemptive (bad) 3 card raise
- showing a constructive 3/4 card raise (9-losers)
- showing a limit+ 3 card raise.

The way I am doing this is the following:

- bad raise = raise directly
- constructive 3 card raise (or featureless 4 card raise unsuitable for 2NT nor for a FJS): transfer raise
- limit+ 3 card raise: start with a XX.
- limit+ 4 card raise = 2NT
- other raises = FJS a la Robson Segal

This 3-card raise approach means that the xfer advances are on only starting from 1NT.

================

I have been toying with the idea of starting the transfer at the XX level, but it is not clear to me whether (and how) this maintains the option (that I absolutely don't want to give up) to separate: a. preemptive ; b.constructive ; c. limit+ 3 card raises ?

[mikeh]

Chamaco, on Aug 29 2006, 07:31 AM, said:

================

I have been toying with the idea of starting the transfer at the XX level, but it is not clear to me whether (and how) this maintains the option (that I absolutely don't want to give up) to separate: a. preemptive ; b.constructive ; c. limit+ 3 card raises ?

bear in mind that starting the transfers with xx rather than with 1N actually gives you an extra bid, so you will have NO trouble preserving your various raises

Indeed, we have:

weak 3 card raises: single raise
constructive raise: transfer raise
limit raise+ 2N
preemptive raise: 3M
Fit-raise: jump shift (in one partnership: transfer jump shifts apply: the transfers begin with 2N, which is a transfer into ♣, and end with a transfer into 3M, but I am not sure that there is any real gain....)

The problem with using the xx for 3 card support is that you may be uncomfortably high by the time you get to bid again, especially as a passd hand where partner may hold only 4 cards.

[whereagles]

I susbcribe to the theory that, when using transfers over 1M (dbl),

1♥ (dbl) rdbl = spades
1♥ (dbl) 1♠ = bal, unlimited

is more useful than

1♥ (dbl) rdbl = pen
1♥ (dbl) pass = usually weak, but could be 7-9 balanced, doubleton M

The main disadvantage of the method is the unnatural meaning of rdbl (and 1♥-(dbl)-1♠) as next step. I don't consider penalizing opps a priority here, though I agree sometimes it's your possible result.

[Chamaco]

mikeh, on Aug 29 2006, 02:26 PM, said:

Indeed, we have:

weak 3 card raises: single raise
constructive raise: transfer raise
limit raise+ 2N
preemptive raise: 3M
Fit-raise: jump shift (in one partnership: transfer jump shifts apply: the transfers begin with 2N, which is a transfer into ♣, and end with a transfer into 3M, but I am not sure that there is any real gain....)

The problem with using the xx for 3 card support is that you may be uncomfortably high by the time you get to bid again, especially as a passd hand where partner may hold only 4 cards.

Yes but I meant to keep 2NT for 4+ card raises, not including the 3 card raise.

Q1:
Do you think it's wortwhile to include 3 card raise into 2NT ?

Q2:
Instead, I had toyed with the following, switching the meanings of direct and xfer raises.
- direct raise: constructive 3 card raise
- xfer raise: EITHER a preemptive OR a limit raise
- 2NT = limit+ 4 card raise.

Do you think that the slight loss of preemption when we do have a preemptive raise is worth the added advantage in discriminating the hand types ?

Thanks a lot for your suggestions

[cnszsun]

mikeh, on Aug 29 2006, 10:26 PM, said:

bear in mind that starting the transfers with xx rather than with 1N actually gives you an extra bid, so you will have NO trouble preserving your various raises )

Hi, Mike, I'm a bit curious about this method.
Transferring from xx did give us one extra space to show balanced hand, penalty is not my concern. But, i suppose in the bidding:
1H-(X)-1S* and 1S-(X)-XX* here shows a limited balanced hand , like 7-10hcp if i'm right. How will you treat the stronger balanced hand if you are unpassed hand(2nt is 4 cards limit or better raise)? Thx.

[mikeh]

Strong balanced hands start with pass.... and then double.... this will show 3+ in their suit, and a defensively oriented hand, with no 3+ fit for partner: typically 4432 or 4441. With more shape and a good hand, we transfer immediately and then make a natural rebid.

With 10+ and 3 card support, we have a choice: we can transfer to notrump and then raise opener's suit (as if we had not have the double: a forcing notrump followed by a jump raise = 3 card limit in many methods) or we can limit raise immediately... depending on the hand.

[rbforster]

I'm very interested in these ideas of transfers after a double. Since this seems like a much bigger topic than the specific question than the one that started this discussion, I've started this new discussion of transfers after 1M-X. I'll be posting some of my new(?) ideas there shortly and I invite those who play these transfer methods to offer their suggestions there.

[dwunn1]

redouble

[garys27]

neilkaz, on Aug 27 2006, 07:25 PM, said:

keylime, on Aug 27 2006, 06:29 PM, said:

No one is wanting to claim the boss suit? What's wrong with 1♠ knowing that if pard has opened light you're not going to hang them....

1♠ is totally off my radar here. I want the opps to stumble into ♠ if possible and almost certainly we have at least 9♥.

The question is whether the hand is good enough for a limit raise or not. I prefer, by a slight bit, to just bid 2H unless playing some gadget.

.. neilkaz ..

1♠ is totally off my radar here. I want the opps to stumble into ♠ if possible and almost certainly we have at least 9♥.

The opponents are not going to stumble into a spade fit here if partner opened light. If p opened light, he could handle a 1s bid by me here so he must have 3s in a light opener.
I am going to support hearts because I suspect we have a nine card fit (although we might have only 8).
I will do this with my regular partners by bidding 2C over the double, showing a constuctive raise.
2H would show 3- a bad 7.
If partner has a full opener, I suspect the hands won't fit well, even though I am close to a limit raise. (and he may be light to boot), so I will go slow.
Gary