[Winstonm]

My memory is not as sharp as it once was, but I seem to remember Bergen raises being a response in The Bridge World to a statement by Al Roth that "what we need are more ways to raise" or something along those lines.

In other words, I'm not so sure how really in-depth and serious were the considerations for the structure - more like, O.K., it works, that's enough of that.

IMO, the most significant aspects Bergen introduced were 9-card-fit value and 3C/3D as artificial raises. The actual structure itself is immaterial.

[P_Marlowe]

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

My memory is not as sharp as it once was, but I seem to remember Bergen raises being a response in The Bridge World to a statement by Al Roth that "what we need are more ways to raise" or something along those lines.

In other words, I'm not so sure how really in-depth and serious were the considerations for the structure - more like, O.K., it works, that's enough of that.

IMO, the most significant aspects Bergen introduced were 9-card-fit value and  3C/3D as artificial raises.  The actual structure itself is immaterial.

Ed Manfield - I looked it up to get the spelling right, Bergen mentioneds him in "Better Bidding
with Bergen".

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

P_Marlowe, on May 2 2010, 11:53 AM, said:

Winstonm, on May 2 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

My memory is not as sharp as it once was, but I seem to remember Bergen raises being a response in The Bridge World to a statement by Al Roth that "what we need are more ways to raise" or something along those lines.

In other words, I'm not so sure how really in-depth and serious were the considerations for the structure - more like, O.K., it works, that's enough of that.

IMO, the most significant aspects Bergen introduced were 9-card-fit value and  3C/3D as artificial raises.  The actual structure itself is immaterial.

Ed Manfield - I looked it up to get the spelling right, Bergen mentioneds him in "Better Bidding
with Bergen".

With kind regards
Marlowe

Thanks. Well done.

[junyi_zhu]

babalu1997, on Apr 27 2010, 02:19 PM, said:

do people really need bergen raises?

i can see the value of premption but not with evry hand given

the issue of a bergen raise should be dependent on shap as well so as sometimes one doe not need to preempt.

nothing worng wil limit raoses actually

If some bids can show your length of trumps and strength, those bids are usually useful, no matter what they are called. It's especially useful when opener holds weak trumps and some extra, like this: xxxxx AKxx AKx x, if your partner shows a constructive raise with 4 trumps, games often have a play, partner may hold at little as
Axxx Qx xxx xxxx to give 4S an excellent play. However, it's unsafe to bid on over partner's 2S because the trump is too weak and 2S is often based on a three card support.

[Vampyr]

Rob F, on May 1 2010, 06:01 PM, said:

Sure, maybe you like the simplicity of 2/1 game forcing, since that's what lots of people play (possibly including your partner).

It's a shame, really, that the simplicity of 2/1 GF has led to its becoming very popular in some parts of the world, as it is a pretty awful system.

[gwnn]

um why? and what systems are clearly better than it?

[blackshoe]

Compared to what?

[peachy]

Vampyr, on May 3 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

It's a shame, really, that the simplicity of 2/1 GF has led to its becoming very popular in some parts of the world, as it is a pretty awful system.

Wow, What is so awful about it?

[the hog]

gwnn, on May 4 2010, 04:26 AM, said:

um why? and what systems are clearly better than it?

It is not a bad system, but Polish Club is certainly superior.

[rogerclee]

Vampyr, on May 3 2010, 01:56 PM, said:

It's a shame, really, that the simplicity of 2/1 GF has led to its becoming very popular in some parts of the world, as it is a pretty awful system.

It probably never occurred to you, but perhaps having a simple, widely played system available is good for the bridge world, even if it does not keep up with your standards of what a "good system" entails.

[jdonn]

It's clearly a lot better than what it replaced anyway.

[the hog]

rogerclee, on May 4 2010, 09:23 AM, said:

Vampyr, on May 3 2010, 01:56 PM, said:

It's a shame, really, that the simplicity of 2/1 GF has led to its becoming very popular in some parts of the world, as it is a pretty awful system.

It probably never occurred to you, but perhaps having a simple, widely played system available is good for the bridge world, even if it does not keep up with your standards of what a "good system" entails.

Actually I disagree with this. I feel it makes Bridge a bit boring if everyone plays the same system. Presumably you are familiar with the adage, "Variety is the spice of life"?

[Vampyr]

The_Hog, on May 4 2010, 04:03 AM, said:

rogerclee, on May 4 2010, 09:23 AM, said:

Vampyr, on May 3 2010, 01:56 PM, said:

It's a shame, really, that the simplicity of 2/1 GF has led to its becoming very popular in some parts of the world, as it is a pretty awful system.

It probably never occurred to you, but perhaps having a simple, widely played system available is good for the bridge world, even if it does not keep up with your standards of what a "good system" entails.

Actually I disagree with this. I feel it makes Bridge a bit boring if everyone plays the same system. Presumably you are familiar with the adage, "Variety is the spice of life"?

It's good if a particular geographic area has a widely-known "standard" system, to encourage pickup and new partnerships -- even if the "standard" system is one that no experienced partnerships actually play. What's boring is when, in places like the US and France, almost everyone actually plays the same system.

[aguahombre]

Trust me on this: everyone who professes to play 2/1 is not playing the same system.