Bidding

[mike777]

You do not just count hcp and trump support to play Bergen. You count support points in whatever style you prefer. If you are only counting some number of hcp, as you wrote, then you are not playing it correctly. As for off topic you are the one who first mentioned ratings not me :lol: As for my final point if the opp never get to bid before you transfer all that information then it does sound like a strange game but ok.

[whereagles]

if the opp never get to bid before you transfer all that information then it does sound like a strange game but ok.

I prefer to call it "advanced bidding methods".

[TheoKole]

I use both Reverse Drury* and Jordon 2NT** bids after opening of a major by partner and double by opponent.

 

Reverse Drury changes slightly in these situations,

 

1 ♥ - (X) - 2 ♣* = 3 or 4 card fit with 7-9 HCP's and balanced hand

1 ♥ - (X) - 2 ♥ = 3 or 4 card fit with 4-6 HCP's (3? better if in trump suit) :lol:

1 ♥ - (X) - 2 NT** = 4+ card raise with invitational hand or better (balanced hand)

1 ♥ - (X) - 3 ♥ = weak shapely raise

1 ♥ - (X) - 4 ♥ = weak shapely raise (the more trumps the better)

 

 

Cheers, Theo

[mikeh]

Bear in mind that partner was 3rd seat: many players (me included) open 4 card majors freely in 3rd seat.

 

This is important in case you were considering Bergen: a method predicated on 5 card major opening bids. Thus it is an error to use bergen raises of a 3rd seat opening bid unless you insist upon 5 cards there... and that is a very unpopular view for most standard or 2/1 players.... do you really have to open 1♣ in 3rd with say xx AKQx KJx xxxx?

 

So count out Bergen.

 

I am a big user of drury, with lots of gadgets, but NOT in competition.

 

I like transfers, starting with redouble. Most who get exposed to this method begin by expressing concern about the loss of the strength-showing redouble: a concern that usually evaporates after a few sessions.

 

xx = next bid (1♠ (x) xx = transfer to 1N)

and so on, up to a transfer into opener's suit which shows a solid raise.

 

A simple raise of opener denies a decent hand... it could be very weak indeed.

 

On the given hand, I have a very nice hand indeed... but I would simply bid 2♦: solid raise to 2♥.

 

If my methods included drury and Jordan (Jordan I can live with, drury is in my view inferior here), I'd drury... but note that it is possible to use 2-way drury, thus I could show 4 card support.

[SoTired]

Without interference, I play 2-way Drury with 2C=3-card support and 2D=4-card support.

After intervening X, 2N(jordan)=4-card support, XX=3-card support (or 10+ and <3-card support).

[Chamaco]

I like transfers, starting with redouble. Most who get exposed to this method begin by expressing concern about the loss of the strength-showing redouble: a concern that usually evaporates after a few sessions.

 

xx = next bid (1♠ (x) xx = transfer to 1N)

and so on, up to a transfer into opener's suit which shows a solid raise.

 

A simple raise of opener denies a decent hand... it could be very weak indeed.

My concerns are not related to the chances to "go for blood", but mostly because even after a takeout double, I want to maintain ALL of the following options, with 3 card support:

 

- showing a preemptive (bad) 3 card raise

- showing a constructive 3/4 card raise (9-losers)

- showing a limit+ 3 card raise.

 

The way I am doing this is the following:

 

- bad raise = raise directly

- constructive 3 card raise (or featureless 4 card raise unsuitable for 2NT nor for a FJS): transfer raise

- limit+ 3 card raise: start with a XX.

- limit+ 4 card raise = 2NT

- other raises = FJS a la Robson Segal

 

This 3-card raise approach means that the xfer advances are on only starting from 1NT.

 

================

 

I have been toying with the idea of starting the transfer at the XX level, but it is not clear to me whether (and how) this maintains the option (that I absolutely don't want to give up) to separate: a. preemptive ; b.constructive ; c. limit+ 3 card raises ?

[mikeh]

================

 

I have been toying with the idea of starting the transfer at the XX level, but it is not clear to me whether (and how) this maintains the option (that I absolutely don't want to give up) to separate: a. preemptive ; b.constructive ; c. limit+ 3 card raises ?

bear in mind that starting the transfers with xx rather than with 1N actually gives you an extra bid, so you will have NO trouble preserving your various raises B)

 

Indeed, we have:

 

weak 3 card raises: single raise

constructive raise: transfer raise

limit raise+ 2N

preemptive raise: 3M

Fit-raise: jump shift (in one partnership: transfer jump shifts apply: the transfers begin with 2N, which is a transfer into ♣, and end with a transfer into 3M, but I am not sure that there is any real gain....)

 

The problem with using the xx for 3 card support is that you may be uncomfortably high by the time you get to bid again, especially as a passd hand where partner may hold only 4 cards.

[whereagles]

I susbcribe to the theory that, when using transfers over 1M (dbl),

 

1♥ (dbl) rdbl = spades

1♥ (dbl) 1♠ = bal, unlimited

 

is more useful than

 

1♥ (dbl) rdbl = pen

1♥ (dbl) pass = usually weak, but could be 7-9 balanced, doubleton M

 

The main disadvantage of the method is the unnatural meaning of rdbl (and 1♥-(dbl)-1♠) as next step. I don't consider penalizing opps a priority here, though I agree sometimes it's your possible result.

[Chamaco]

Indeed, we have:

 

weak 3 card raises: single raise

constructive raise: transfer raise

limit raise+ 2N

preemptive raise: 3M

Fit-raise: jump shift (in one partnership: transfer jump shifts apply: the transfers begin with 2N, which is a transfer into ♣, and end with a transfer into 3M, but I am not sure that there is any real gain....)

 

The problem with using the xx for 3 card support is that you may be uncomfortably high by the time you get to bid again, especially as a passd hand where partner may hold only 4 cards.

Yes but I meant to keep 2NT for 4+ card raises, not including the 3 card raise.

 

Q1:

Do you think it's wortwhile to include 3 card raise into 2NT ?

 

Q2:

Instead, I had toyed with the following, switching the meanings of direct and xfer raises.

- direct raise: constructive 3 card raise

- xfer raise: EITHER a preemptive OR a limit raise

- 2NT = limit+ 4 card raise.

 

Do you think that the slight loss of preemption when we do have a preemptive raise is worth the added advantage in discriminating the hand types ?

 

Thanks a lot for your suggestions B)

[cnszsun]

bear in mind that starting the transfers with xx rather than with 1N actually gives you an extra bid, so you will have NO trouble preserving your various raises )

Hi, Mike, I'm a bit curious about this method.

Transferring from xx did give us one extra space to show balanced hand, penalty is not my concern. But, i suppose in the bidding:

1H-(X)-1S* and 1S-(X)-XX* here shows a limited balanced hand , like 7-10hcp if i'm right. How will you treat the stronger balanced hand if you are unpassed hand(2nt is 4 cards limit or better raise)? Thx.

[mikeh]

Strong balanced hands start with pass.... and then double.... this will show 3+ in their suit, and a defensively oriented hand, with no 3+ fit for partner: typically 4432 or 4441. With more shape and a good hand, we transfer immediately and then make a natural rebid.

 

With 10+ and 3 card support, we have a choice: we can transfer to notrump and then raise opener's suit (as if we had not have the double: a forcing notrump followed by a jump raise = 3 card limit in many methods) or we can limit raise immediately... depending on the hand.

[rbforster]

I'm very interested in these ideas of transfers after a double. Since this seems like a much bigger topic than the specific question than the one that started this discussion, I've started this new discussion of transfers after 1M-X. I'll be posting some of my new(?) ideas there shortly and I invite those who play these transfer methods to offer their suggestions there.

[dwunn1]

redouble

[garys27]

No one is wanting to claim the boss suit? What's wrong with 1♠ knowing that if pard has opened light you're not going to hang them....

1♠ is totally off my radar here. I want the opps to stumble into ♠ if possible and almost certainly we have at least 9♥.

 

The question is whether the hand is good enough for a limit raise or not. I prefer, by a slight bit, to just bid 2H unless playing some gadget.

 

.. neilkaz ..

1♠ is totally off my radar here. I want the opps to stumble into ♠ if possible and almost certainly we have at least 9♥.

 

The opponents are not going to stumble into a spade fit here if partner opened light. If p opened light, he could handle a 1s bid by me here so he must have 3s in a light opener.

I am going to support hearts because I suspect we have a nine card fit (although we might have only 8).

I will do this with my regular partners by bidding 2C over the double, showing a constuctive raise.

2H would show 3- a bad 7.

If partner has a full opener, I suspect the hands won't fit well, even though I am close to a limit raise. (and he may be light to boot), so I will go slow.

Gary :D