[1Wishbone1]

In reviewing some Bergen and LTC material, I began to see forward a bit with Completeness as a Goal. I haven't been able to get my usual feedback from friends so I present this, warts and all. It probably has already been done. If so, point the way. This is from a more Precision perspective but don't get all Hincky on me (People get the Willies these days as soon as you mention Precision. Why is that?...).

We will examine a Framework built around the so-called Combined Bergen Raises, from Pat Peterson, a most wonderful person ("Hi, Pat!!!")

1. Consider:

Open: 1 of a Major with 11 - 15 HCPs, looking at an LTC of 7 or better (See, for ex.: https://mrbridge.co....dding/LTC_2.pdf . There are lots of other articles. The Table Format here is nice.).


Responder has four support for Partner's Major Open:

___Responder has LTC = 8 or better (There is Logic behind this if anyone is interested)
___Resp. assumes that Opener has LTC = 7 or better. (7 LTC + 8 LTC = 15, with the "Magic Number" 18 - 15 = 3, so 'Playin' Around" should be OK to be @ 3 Level.)
_____***Bid 3 ♣***

2. Opener has LTC = 7 or better (Logic here again: In Precision, Major Suit Open is 11 - 15 HCPs. (A - A - A - K can give 8 LTC, as can a few other bids.). If Opener is worse than 7 DO NOT BID 3 D without good reason..."Bail Out! Bail Out!...")

___***Bid 3 D***: "Tell me more, Partner."

3. Responder's Schedule:

___3 ♥: Four Support, 8 LTC:
___3 ♠: Four Support, 7 LTC or better, FORCING to 3 NT.
___3 NT: Four Support, Something like... 7 LTC or better with Feature (Singleton or Void or 5 + Support, etc.)

_____Then, 4 ♣: "Bells and Whistles" - Controls, Aces, Chocolate Cake and Ice Cream, etc.
_______That is, something like: 1 M - 3 ♣ - 3 ♦ - <4 ♣> - ???
_______Perhaps 4 ♣ would be an announcement that Responder is taking over control of the hand "Tell me about your hand, Opening Partner." Opener: "Uhhh...".

With 1 M - 3 ♦ = "Limit Raise with 3 Support", the only thing left for the Majors is Weak Support with 3 and possibly something to show 2 Support. Responder's Bids left unused: 1 NT and Rebid Major (See below for alternative for the Limit Raise).

4. http://www.bridgemat...ard-majors.html

A lot of this got started with the 2nd paragraph of the above article. Perhaps it's not really a problem: "1 ♥ - 2 ♥" => If a minimum 11 + 7/8-ish implies "If we can steal 2 ♥s so much the better". My playing these days is atrocious but I did actually have a Board the other day where we got out in 2 ♥s and everybody else went down at game (I love Precision...). This appears to lead to "1M - 1 NT - <whatever> - 2 M - Pass" but people are getting away from "1 M - 1 NT <Forcing!>". Maybe "1 H - 2 H" should be the 3 Support Limit Raise. I dunno...

This would leave "1 ♥ - 1 NT" as the Weak support bid: 8 - 10 HCPs OR 3/4 Support (Weak) with 9 LTC. Opener looks to the sky ("Why me, Oh Lord, Why me?"), bids a four card suit if possible and waits for the inevitable 2 M rebid by Pard.

There is more here (Intermediate 2s for 6 in a Major, for ex.) but this seems to make sense, esp. for that icky "1♥ - 2 ♥" Sequence.

Y/N/M?

Thanx,

CW

[billyjef]

1Wishbone1, on 2018-November-21, 12:16, said:

In reviewing some Bergen and LTC material, I began to see forward a bit with Completeness as a Goal. I haven't been able to get my usual feedback from friends so I present this, warts and all. It probably has already been done. If so, point the way. This is from a more Precision perspective but don't get all Hincky on me (People get the Willies these days as soon as you mention Precision. Why is that?...).

We will examine a Framework built around the so-called Combined Bergen Raises, from Pat Peterson, a most wonderful person ("Hi, Pat!!!")

1. Consider:

Y/N/M?

Thanx,

CW

Precision 5-card major limit opener will have 6-8 LTC, or 4-6 potential tricks, roughly. Responder with only 8 LTC and 4-card support has LAW protection to the 3-level but the 8LTC I think belies the constructive value expected for a Limit Plus raise, i.e. one trick short of game or better.

My biggest concern is trying to make an 8LTC artificial raise with only 3-card support that will also force you to play at the 3-level.
A simplified breakdown of the Opener/Responder correlations would look like this.

Minimum major Opener = 6-8 LTC

Responder
Game Forcing Bid = 6LTC
Invitational Limit Raise = 7LTC
Constructive Raise = 8LTC

Also, except when responder is looking for slam, and ostensibly, responder is the captain, responder doesn't really need to differentiate between their distributional 3-card and 4-card limit raises, IMO. If responder is interested in slam, then they can use a Jacoby 2NT bid for the 4+carders or temporize with a 2/1 with the 3-carders.

So maybe something like:

2M = 3-card constructive Raise, 8 LTC

*Opener bids game with 6 LTC
3C = 3+ card distributional Limit Raise 7LTC
*Opener bid 3M with 8 LTC and game with 6/7LTC.
3D= 4-card distributional Constructive raise 8 LTC
*Opener bids 3M with 7/8 LTC and game with 6LTC

The above suggestions are blunt, lacking nuance and finesse, but will provide some success with minimal computation .

[etha]

I'm pretty sure LTC is just worse than a point range and number of trumps as a method of hand evaluation, which pretty much makes the whole idea not worthwhile.

[nige1]

etha, on 2018-November-22, 10:14, said:

I'm pretty sure LTC is just worse than a point range and number of trumps as a method of hand evaluation, which pretty much makes the whole idea not worthwhile.

Especially, when considering suit-contracts, LTC and its many variants are excellent rules of thumb for evaluating strength and shape.

[1Wishbone1]

Thank you billyjef. I'll probably add to this as there is much more circulating in my thoughts.

billyjef, on 2018-November-21, 19:37, said:

Precision 5-card major limit opener will have 6-8 LTC, or 4-6 potential tricks, roughly. Responder with only 8 LTC and 4-card support has LAW protection to the 3-level but the 8LTC I think belies the constructive value expected for a Limit Plus raise, i.e. one trick short of game or better.

This is why I ordered the LTC Count as I did. Responder should have LTC 8 or better to bid the 3♣. If opener is 7 LTC or worse, 7 LTC + 9 LTC = 16 and that implies that things are OK at the 2 level. Things get hazy at the 2 level oftimes, so Responder should *probably* not enter Bergen Country with LTC 9. What I'm trying to Map is the proper entrance to the Combined Bergen Scheme beginning at 3 ♣. This isn't a Menu Guarantee Scheme. Judgement matters. The best chance for success starts at Opener = LTC 7, Responder = LTC 8. 9 Trumps and LTC Bid Level @ 3 minimum. That's good. With less than that, Opener has to be able to bail out below game and Responder has to be able to show weak Support with 3/4 Trumps.

This is increasingly leading me to the Simple Raise as showing 7-ish to 9-ish HCPS (w/ appropriate LTC) => "1 ♥ - 1 NT - <bid> - 2 ♥".
Limit Raise: "1 ♠ - 2 ♠"
"No muss, no fuss, no bother".

Yes, "1 ♥ - 2♥" is laid bare for all to see but it announces "At least 20 HCPs and at least 8 Trump". Odds are 8 to 1 that Opponents have an 8 card suit as well but with at most 20 HCPs. That's why they play Partials.

This should allow some level of safety, esp. if Opener, for ex., is not at all thrilled to get to the 3 level normally (Sorta' like a hidden Precision Drury...).

Quote

My biggest concern is trying to make an 8 LTC artificial raise with only 3-card support that will also force you to play at the 3-level.

I hope the above Scheme offers hope here.

Quote

A simplified breakdown of the Opener/Responder correlations would look like this.

Minimum major Opener = 6-8 LTC

Responder
Game Forcing Bid = 6LTC
Invitational Limit Raise = 7LTC
Constructive Raise = 8LTC

'Zackly. If Bergen is to fulfill its promise, it must announce a high expectation that the hand is safely bidding at the 3 level with pre-emptive squeeze on Opponents Bidding. That's why the levels are listed as they are. Don't meet the Requirements? We have other ways to Bid the hand that allows to safely describe our holdings. "Invitational Bids" are less popular these days. If Partner's holdings are better known, better judgement is available.

Quote

Also, except when responder is looking for slam, and ostensibly, responder is the captain, responder doesn't really need to differentiate between their distributional 3-card and 4-card limit raises, IMO. If responder is interested in slam, then they can use a Jacoby 2NT bid for the 4+carders or temporize with a 2/1 with the 3-carders.

Also good. In the end, Bergen Raises become a very circumscribed Tool for certain 5 - 3, 5 - 4 and other Trump holdings. I haven't completed 4 - 4 Trumps. I've looked a lot at extended (or intermediate) Weak-2s. An 8 - 13/14 HCPs Range looks good. The Range allowed is 7 HCPs. With these, Bergen looks good in Precision.

Quote

So maybe something like:

2M = 3-card constructive Raise, 8 LTC

*Opener bids game with 6 LTC
3C = 3+ card distributional Limit Raise 7LTC
*Opener bid 3M with 8 LTC and game with 6/7LTC.
3D= 4-card distributional Constructive raise 8 LTC
*Opener bids 3M with 7/8 LTC and game with 6LTC

The above suggestions are blunt, lacking nuance and finesse, but will provide some success with minimal computation .

I like "blunt, lacking nuance and finesse". I thought the Scheme I laid out had these attributes .
So I ask again: Does the above Scheme make sense?

CW

[TylerE]

1Wishbone1, on 2018-November-22, 19:23, said:

So I ask again: Does the above Scheme make sense?

CW

Well, let me put it this way: As an opponent, I'd *love* for you to be playing this system, just like I'd love to see Stolen Bid X or construtive raises on my opponents CC.

[billyjef]

1Wishbone1, on 2018-November-22, 19:23, said:

So I ask again: Does the above Scheme make sense?

CW

CW: Yes the general scheme does make sense and I have spent many hours working out my own scheme based on spiral ideas, but basically the same. While my scheme leans conservatively, your is a trick more aggressive. Mine assumes declarer has 8LTC, which because our 1NT opener is 14-16, is what they will have most the time. The other difference is we also play semi-forcing notrump over the majors and don't use a combined Bergen scheme to find the 5/3 invitational situation, content to play in 1NT, rather than 3M, as long as we aren't interested in game.

So I do think your scheme makes sense.
I do think LTC is useful for many, many players, when a fit is known. In fact, with a fit, I will trust my LTC (although I use a modified form of modified LTC now) over reliance on standard evaluation methods, but, as we both agree, with the bottom line being good bridge judgement.

Tyler: Hey Tyler, we started working out a 4-card major precision system awhile back but I had to drop away from the world for awhile. Maybe we can pick things up again? I'm actually started playing with another precision player who prefers 4-card major canape style.

Regarding auctions helping defenders out, that is always the dilemma, conceal information that might be vital to finding the optimum contract or let it all hang out. I don't think there is a mega consensus except that the concern must always play into our decisions situationally and weighed out as such. I've recently read somewhere, don't know where, maybe it was something you wrote, about the whole constructive raise idea being very helpful to the opponents. I think 1M-2M has always been fertile ground for opponents, but what I read is that it is more risky for the opponents to come in if the 1M-2M are playing 4-card majors and 2M could be made on 3 pieces? Is this the idea you implying and what is your preference for 1M-2M? 2M to be wide open but less than invitational I am guessing?
Jef

[PrecisionL]

nige1, on 2018-November-22, 12:30, said:

Especially, when considering suit-contracts, LTC and its many variants are excellent rules of thumb for evaluating strength and shape.

Right on. Don't forget to use the cover card concept for your limit raises (3 CC).

[1Wishbone1]

1.

etha, on 2018-November-22, 10:14, said:

I'm pretty sure LTC is just worse than a point range and number of trumps as a method of hand evaluation, which pretty much makes the whole idea not worthwhile.

nige1, on 2018-November-22, 12:30, said:

Especially, when considering suit-contracts, LTC and its many variants are excellent rules of thumb for evaluating strength and shape.

That's why they bet on horse races, I guess. Remember, this Thread began with the idea of Mapping a Subset of Bergen Raises to Precision Limit Bids using LTC. Perhaps BRs ARE long-of-tooth and not as useful as they used to be. I'm not so sure. The Logic is impeccable: "If we have 8 Trump in a Major, the odds are 8 to 1 that Opponents have an 8 card Trump Suit as well. If we have a 9 card Trump suit, Opponents are guaranteed to have an 8 carder as well." (PLZ see: TNT Bridge, ISBN-10: 0713425431, ISBN-13: 978-0713425437). If the LAW states that we should Bid to an appropriate level based on Trump Length then "Let's get there before the Opponents do...".

OK. Fine. What then of the Precision Sequence: 1 ♥ - 2 ♥? I'll repost the Link: http://www.bridgemat...ard-majors.html Second paragraph, esp.
"There oughta be a way!..."
Well, mebbe there is, hence the Thread
(Note to billyjeff: Somewhere on this Site is a Thread on "The Four H Club". I think Glen Ashton is onto something...)

2. TylerE: I am happy for your confidence and I understand. Maybe this is all Logical and stuff and it still doesn't work. Oh, Well. So it goes.

3. billyjef: Thank you for your constructive criticism.

Quote

Mine assumes declarer has 8LTC, which because our 1NT opener is 14-16, is what they will have most the time

This goes to Structure and System. Berkowitz and Manley state that your preferred NT Range is OK for what you want to do. As W F Buckley use to say, "Who says 'A' must say 'B'." Weak/Intermediate/Strong NTs WILL make a difference on what follows in your System. BTW, I like Strong NT with Precision as a Defense against the perceived weakness of Opening 1 ♣ with Balanced 16 - 18 HCPs. (See: John Montgomery's Revision Club. A GREAT study.).

4.

Quote

The other difference is we also play semi-forcing notrump over the majors...

This is where people are moving these days, it seems. Hamman hates 5-Card Majors, Forcing NT over a Strong Club. He says that it's a gift to him. Perhaps "1 ♥ - 1 NT" is Semi-Forcing and "1 ♥ - 2 ♣" now becomes Forcing. I dunno. (The thing is, I LIKE 1 NT as a Contract. It gets passed over so much. Also, 1 ♣ - 1 NT in Precision is generally recognized as a horrible Sequence, so there is still some work to do.)

5. In the end, my question was, "Can we have Bergen Raises in Precision based on the Limit Bids and LTC?" I think so and I think that the reasons may be compelling for some:

A. Weak Support goes through the 1 M - 1 NT route that has been around for a LONG time. NO NEW EXPERIMENTAL STUFF HERE!!!
B. 3/4 Support with a Limit Raise allows 1 M - 2 M (esp. in ♥!) to be immediate and informative. The HCPs of the Limit Raise act like the colorful poisonous reptile: "Yes, I'm easily seen, but beware!...")
C. With 4 Support and the Automatic, Built-into-the-System LTC, we want to explore Game at the 3 Level RIGHT NOW! We know that Opponents have at least an 8-Fit and we don't want them to find it without some PAIN.

As always, "Your Mileage may Vary".

Other comments still welcome. Thanx all.

CW

[1Wishbone1]

billyjef --

See: https://www.bridgeba..._hl__1wishbone1

Mostly to the point here. "Five Card Spades, Four Card Hearts" might work although I want to see the Combined Bergen Raises through to the end.
Mebbe start a New Thread or continue with the above.

CW