[cwiggins]

In Fred Gitelman's first article on improving 2/1 GF, he says that he uses 2NT as a balanced GF hand instead of Jacoby and 3C as his big raise. He also says he won't discuss developments after 3C in that article but maybe in a future write up.

Does anyone know if ever did a write up about the 3C raise, and where it is?

Thanks.

[luis]

No, but I do like to play 2N as a balanced GF and 3c as INV+ with 4+ card support for the major. The really good advantage of this treatment is to purify all the 2/1 auctions where any 2/1 suit is now surely a 5+ card suit.
My structure after 1M-3c is:

3d: Any Game forcing hand opposite an invitation+
3h: Slam interest
3s: Minimum or sub-minimum opening bid
3n: Balanced hand 16-18 HCP.
4m: Two suiter.

[inquiry]

Quote

In Fred Gitelman's first article on improving 2/1 GF, he says that he uses 2NT as a balanced GF hand instead of Jacoby and 3C as his big raise. He also says he won't discuss developments after 3C in that article but maybe in a future write up.

Does anyone know if ever did a write up about the 3C raise, and where it is?

Thanks.

In Stephen Levy's write up on "What pro's play" he talks about the use of 1S-3C as game forcing raise in spades. However, unlike Fred's suggestion, Levy then recoommends 1H-2S as the game forcing spade raise.

In both cases, he uses jacoby type responses.... so for instance...

1H-2S-3N = would show no singleton or void, and better than minimum (he says 15-17) balanced.

1S-3C-3D would be a singleton or void in diamonds.

You can read about this at;
http://www.bridgeguy...ephenLevy1.html

There is a second page at same address but name ....Levy2.html

Ben

[Gerardo]

Fred says exactly that, cheapest jump is GF raise, so 1H:2S and 1S:3C, also suggests 3D and 3H as replacements for Bergen jumps over 1S.

The mentioned article has 3 parts, I think the 3rd has a set of responses after this.

[inquiry]

Quote

Fred says exactly that, cheapest jump is GF raise, so 1H:2S and 1S:3C, also suggests 3D and 3H as replacements for Bergen jumps over 1S.

The mentioned article has 3 parts, I think the 3rd has a set of responses after this.

Gerardo is right. I had forgotten that the info was in the Improving the 2/1 article. You can find the reply's in Fred's article located at:

http://www.bridgebas...fg/2over13.html

[keylime]

I really don't like standard/modern Jacoby 2NT anymore...you lose so much room for further description, and it's frankly ripe with abuse and overuse on hands that have no chance of slam. I only use J2NT when I have at least mild slam interest, and when I have no other bid that is better describing my hand type.

However I like using Romex Major Suit Raises with Martel-Stansby 2NT -- these two treatments I feel are superior than the norm.

Enjoying some fresh Georgia peaches and pecans,
D.

[hrothgar]

Quote

No, but I do like to play 2N as a balanced GF and 3c as INV+ with 4+ card support for the major. The really good advantage of this treatment is to purify all the 2/1 auctions where any 2/1 suit is now surely a 5+ card suit.
My structure after 1M-3c is:

3d: Any Game forcing hand opposite an invitation+
3h: Slam interest
3s: Minimum or sub-minimum opening bid
3n: Balanced hand 16-18 HCP.
4m: Two suiter.

Silly question

Doesn't this structure present a problem when opener has a minimum hand with Hearts?

After

1H - 2N
3S

You are already past 3H. Given that your 2NT response only promises game invitational values ...

[Free]

Just make it:

1M - 3C
?

3M = Minimum or sub-minimum opening bid
3OM = Slam interest

No?

[mishovnbg]

I think general mistake is to bid high without fit like 2NT over 1 major opening - why to waste bidding space? And do you afraid of opps overcalls with missfit?
Another big mistake are popular Bergen raises - true 4 major is statisticaly best contract, but if you have enough HCP ( limit raise ) you must have a way to investigate 3NT too - it is second possible contract after 4 major. Also with good suit for 3NT, inv hand you DONT like opps to bid suit for lead, so is better to bid it at 3 level.
Top science pairs ( like Bocchi-Duboin ) play 3CL/3DI over 1 major opening as inv hand with 6 good suit. 2CL bid include all strong hands without another nat bid or with CL.
Misho

[Free]

Hmmm, when I play 4-card majors, I never use Bergen raises, but when playing 5-card majors, then it has a big advantage! And since you'll almost never play 3NT with a 5-4 Major fit, these biddings can be replaced by 2m followed by 3m.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

I think general mistake is to bid high without fit like 2NT over 1 major opening - why to waste bidding space? And do you afraid of opps overcalls with missfit?

It's got nothing to do with the opponents. It's OK to take up bidding space when you are still relatively low compared to your safety level (in this case, still a full level of bidding room), and your bid is highly descriptive. 2nt bal 13-15 or 18-19, narrows the types of hands you can have considerably. I don't think you are likely to bid this hand type significantly more accurately with another method, unless you go to an artificial 2c relay (which is banned in many competitions in the U.S., unfortunately).

When you make 2/1 instead, your partner can count on better suits, 5 cds or concentrated 4, which helps hand evaluation considerably.

Quote

Another big mistake are popular Bergen raises - true 4 too - it is second possible contract after 4 major. Also with good suit for 3NT, inv hand you DONT like opps to bid suit for lead, so is better to bid it at 3 level.

The theory behind Bergen raises is what you lose on the hands where opponents being able to throw in a lead director on the inv raise hands is compensated by gains when they misguess after 1M-3M, which wouldn't be available as a preempt without some alternative bid for the limit raise. (Plus there are gains after 1h-3c, possibly shutting out opp's spades, and also gains after 1M-2M when partner *doesn't* make a borderline game try leading to 3M -1, knowing he is likely facing an 8 cd fit only).

[mishovnbg]

Quote

1. It's got nothing to do with the opponents. It's OK to take up bidding space when you are still relatively low compared to your safety level (in this case, still a full level of bidding room), and your bid is highly descriptive. 2nt bal 13-15 or 18-19, narrows the types of hands you can have considerably. I don't think you are likely to bid this hand type significantly more accurately with another method, unless you go to an artificial 2c relay (which is banned in many competitions in the U.S., unfortunately).

When you make 2/1 instead, your partner can count on better suits, 5 cds or concentrated 4, which helps hand evaluation considerably.

2. The theory behind Bergen raises is what you lose on the hands where opponents being able to throw in a lead director on the inv raise hands is compensated by gains when they misguess after 1M-3M, which wouldn't be available as a preempt without some alternative bid for the limit raise. (Plus there are gains after 1h-3c, possibly shutting out opp's spades, and also gains after 1M-2M when partner *doesn't* make a borderline game try leading to 3M -1, knowing he is likely facing an 8 cd fit only).

1. You must remeber about opps all time - Bridge is not solitaire ;D. It is any time mistake to lose bidding space, even with enough strength, need to say esp in this case! The "full" level is not enough for distribution (4-4 in minor) and for placement of honours. I can nothing to do with ACBL restrictions, may be is time to be a part of world and follow WBF rules?
2. You dont need to lose anything! Even mr Bergen like to lose it . One of ways is polish, where 2NT is limit raise or better. Gains after 1M-3M are same, but opps receive less information and possibilities for lead direction doubles over 3CL/3DI. You cant differentiate between mixed and pre-empt raise, but many of experts ( like Marshal Miles ) refuse it already, as rare and useless.
Misho