[WrecksVee]

This is more of a bridge history question. Does anyone have any info as to when the term "mixed raise" came into use? Where did it start and who popularized it would be nice also.

Thanks!

PS: local bridge journal had a expert forum on Bergen Raises which got me curious about the background of this term.

[y66]

I could not find any discussion of the history of the term "mixed raise" in the current edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge or in the Bridge World glossary.

I saw that round table discussion of Bergen Raises. That was quite an eye opener for this relative newcomer. How can something that has been so widely promulgated by so many bridge teachers upon so many beginners and intermediates be so suspect?

One of my favorite BBO commentators has this to say:

"I think Bergen Raises is an awful convention. It is very bad to have an unnecessary artificial call by the player who will be dummy, as this gives 4th seat a chance to double (or not double) for the lead. The potential loss from this more than makes up for any extra accuracy gained from the Bergen raises. If the choice were to play Bergen Raises or entirely eliminate limit raises, I think a pair would do better on balance entirely eliminating limit raises and either raising to two or driving to game. There is little value with the mixed raise. It gets you a level higher unnecessarily, since the opponents don't always balance when you have nine trumps -- they don't know that. If the hand is a true preemptive raise, make one. Otherwise, with four trumps, you can always raise to the two-level and compete to the three-level if the opponents are in there. A good Jacoby structure will allow you to incorporate limit raises into the Jacoby structure. If you don't have that, it is better to play normal limit raises and give up the preemptive raise. The preemptive raise doesn't gain much anyway. In addition, three of a minor calls can be put to better use. Strong jump shift, natural invite, or weak jump shifts are all reasonable, and any of these uses can be valuable if dealt the right hand." -- Kit Woolsey

In fairness, the panel was approximately, evenly split. These 14 experts said Bergen Raises are useful/playable: Larry Cohen (with caution), David Berkowitz (w/o mixed raise), Mike Passell, Eric Greco, Eddie Wold (mixed raise is important), Jon Wittes, Billy Pollack, Zeke Jabbour, Drew Casen, Charlie Weed, George Jacobs (not for newcomers), Sue Picus, Mel Colchamiro (mixed raise is important; does not recommend Bergen Raises to students) and, of course, Marty Bergen (with caution to average players). Steve Robinson, panel moderator, believes it is important to have a mixed raise: there are a lot of hands where responder has four trumps that make game opposite non-game try hands, for example, Jxxx xx Kxxxx Ax opposite KQTxx Kxx x Kqxx. He has started playing what he calls 33% Bergen: 1M 3C is a mixed raise; 1M 3D=natural and invitational; 1M 3M=limit raise. He gives up the natural, invitational 3C bid over 1S; over 1H, 2S is a strong jump shift or an invitational club bid.

[sathyab]

y66, on Apr 4 2008, 08:57 AM, said:

One of my favorite BBO commentators has this to say:

"I think Bergen Raises is an awful convention. It is very bad to have an unnecessary artificial call by the player who will be dummy, as this gives 4th seat a chance to double (or not double) for the lead. The potential loss from this more than makes up for any extra accuracy gained from the Bergen raises. If the choice were to play Bergen Raises or entirely eliminate limit raises, I think a pair would do better on balance entirely eliminating limit raises and either raising to two or driving to game. There is little value with the mixed raise. It gets you a level higher unnecessarily, since the opponents don't always balance when you have nine trumps -- they don't know that. If the hand is a true preemptive raise, make one. Otherwise, with four trumps, you can always raise to the two-level and compete to the three-level if the opponents are in there. A good Jacoby structure will allow you to incorporate limit raises into the Jacoby structure. If you don't have that, it is better to play normal limit raises and give up the preemptive raise. The preemptive raise doesn't gain much anyway. In addition, three of a minor calls can be put to better use. Strong jump shift, natural invite, or weak jump shifts are all reasonable, and any of these uses can be valuable if dealt the right hand." -- Kit Woolsey

He's one of my favorite commentators as well, but I didn't know that he thought preemptive raises don't gain much. The biggest gain of Bergen mixed raises which is probably a lot more frequent than the preemptive one is that if puts a lot more pressure on the fourth hand to act. On a competitive deal would you rather that the tray came to you with (1M)-p-(3d, rev Bergen, mixed raise) or (1M)-p-(2M) ? I must add that like all artificial schemes, it does give you two chances to act, one directly over 3d and another when 3M comes back to you. Personally I'd rather act over 2M.

[dake50]

I think this is a simple recognition that of three ways to have tricks to support partner: ruffs(splinter), long side suit(help suit/fit bids), honor tricks may be sure winners(value raise) or scattered developers (mixed raise).
Which way tricks are helping partner is FA-A-R more valuable than 'how many pieces?'
I remember 30Y ago this 'mixed' idea. Usu as 'devalue because one of your 2xQ isn't working' so not up to a min GF.

[nige1]

WrecksVee, on Apr 3 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

Does anyone have any info as to when the term "mixed raise" came into use?  Where did it start and who popularized it would be nice also.

Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal may have invented the term. I don't have it to hand, but, as far as I remember, in their 1993 book on "Competitive Bidding", they recommend several different kinds of raise ...

• Pre-empt: weak.
  
• Pudding/Mixed e.g. 2N = 4 card sound flat limit raise.
  
• Fit (non) jump. 4 card raise with named side-suit of quality.
  
• Splinter: 4 card raise with named void or singleton.
  
• Unassuming cue-bid: usually a 3-card raise.
  
• Support _X/XX: 3 card raise.

... On reflection, I may have got that wrong Is the modern meaning of a "mixed raise" somewhere between a "weak pre-empt" and a "limit raise"?

[OleBerg]

nige1, on Apr 4 2008, 04:07 PM, said:

WrecksVee, on Apr 3 2008, 11:47 AM, said:

Does anyone have any info as to when the term "mixed raise" came into use?  Where did it start and who popularized it would be nice also.

Andrew Robson and Oliver Segal may have invented the term. I don't have it to hand, but, as far as I remember, in their 1993 book on "Competitive Bidding", they recommend several different kinds of raise ...

• Pre-empt: weak.
  
• Pudding/Mixed e.g. 2N = 4 card sound flat limit raise.
  
• Fit (non) jump. 4 card raise with named side-suit of quality.
  
• Splinter: 4 card raise with named void or singleton.
  
• Unassuming cue-bid: usually a 3-card raise.
  
• Support _X/XX: 3 card raise.

... On reflection, I may have got that wrong Is the modern meaning of a "mixed raise" somewhere between a "weak pre-empt" and a "limit raise"?

The book is called "Partnership bidding in bridge". I dont have it handy, but in my recollection its from 1994.

It maeks quite a strong case for having many ways of supporting partner, and Bergen is not one of them. Insted fit-jumps is used, along with putting the invitational raise into Jacoby-2nt.

As to incooperating limit-raises into Jacoby-2nt, I play that myself. It's quite easy, but as always, when you put an extra burden on a bid, it has a price. This time it is when opponents preempt, that you are on less firm ground. Especially if you open light, as it might be the opponents board.

Best Regards

Ole Berg

[kenrexford]

Y'all have this completely wrong.

The original meaning of a "mixed raise" was a raise of a call from partner in a specific event, based on the likelihood that your forced choice of partner for this event makes some situations call for aggressive bidding to compensate for timid bidding.

Bergen may have extrapolated the need to occasionally make this call as an "anticipatory" raise when you cannot raise yourself. Thus, after 1♥-P-2♥, the auction would pass out too often. As you cannot bid 1♥-P-2♥-P-P-P-3♥, you just make the "mixed" raise immediately.

[gnasher]

When I first heard the term "mixed raise", sometime in the late 1980s, it was used to mean a multi-meaning artificial raise such as
  1♦  1♥
  2♠
to show a strong 6-3, a splinter in a black suit, or a balanced raise to game. I didn't hear it used in its current sense until a few years later.

Edit: Better Bidding with Bergen, published in 1985, describes Bergen Raises but without using the term "mixed raise".

[whereagles]

Agree that 3m as mixed/Bergen raises is a waste. Prefer to put that into the Jacoby structure and tweak it a bit.