PocasAlice

I have one partner where we use 2/1 with Inv Bergen Raises and really like the ability to delineate 3 and 4 card support for a 1 s/h major opening. I have another p who wants to integrate 3c/3d Bergen Raises for 4 card support but continue to use a jump raise (1h-3h) to show a limit raise. In 2/1 system the Bergen Raises are nicely integrated with WJ and WJS and forcing 1NT responses. Should we even try to add Bergen Raises to the structure defined in the SAYC Booklet? How should responder show a 3-card limit raise if we adopt WJ and WJS.

How would you interpret the double here: 1D-(P)-1N-(X)? I have had two EXPERTS tell me that it means "p, please bid", but I cannot find a written reference for this. I have had others say that any X of NT is for penalty, but my research confirms this only for a NT opening, not response. Seagram's "25 Ways to Compete in Bidding" says that a requirement for a TO double is "the opponent's last bid was a suit, not notrump". Would your answer change for based on vulnerability?

Hi...I like ot play online..and am US EST also...I am a long-time bridge lover who returned to bridge 3 years ago after a 20 year "vacation" to work/raise kids. I am an avid bridge student and love duplicat. I feel very confident with SAYC and some extensions. I am in the process of migrating to 2/1 and would love to have an on-line p to join me in this migration. I am retired, so am available most evenings and weekends.

I am an intermediate player...experienced in SAYC...just learning 2/1. Am looking for a bridge-passionate person who wants to learn and play with me on line.

Last week at our local club game, my P opened 1♣. RHO passed. And I passed because I had only 4 points. P told me to never pass a 1 club opening if RHO passes. She justifies this direction, say "I could have 18 points and only 3 clubs" I'm an ole Goren rubber bridge player who is working hard learn SAYC and duplicate. My P is a long term duplicate player with many more master points than me. But I'm uncomforable with her direction. It contradicts the many bridge books that I have read recently. It also seems that this will bring lots of ambiguity and risk to the bidding since she is essenally saying that the point count range for a 1 level response would be zero-to-10 points. If opponents both pass and she has 18 points, is this situation so bad that we should introduce such ambiguity into our response to 1C openers? Can anyone give me or point to a discussion of the pros and cons of treating 1♣ opening as forcing in the absence of an intervening bid?