Bergen raises - why not?

[Gerben42]

I've heard many people don't like Bergen raises. My question is: Why not and what do you play instead as raise structure?

 

What if you are playing the "Improving 2/1 GF" so 2NT is not free for a fit-showing bid?

[inquiry]

Well, I think I play a different kind of improving 2/1 (I assume you refer to Fred's article) where I use 2NT as LIMIT RAISE or better.

 

I prefer to use 3C/3D as about good 10 to bad 12 hcp, two or less in partners major and a fair six card suit. Invitational.

 

I use 1M-2C to include, among other hands, a natural 2NT raise (so that 1M-2C-2M-2NT shows the balanced 11-12 hand without 3 card support, although I have been known to pass 2M rebids with that hand, as 2M is the very weak rebid. Opposite other stregnth showing bids, the jump to 3NT shows the balanced 11-12 and 2NT is better hand, forward going (GF).

 

I like moving all the "strong variants" out of 1NT so it is not really forcing. It is always weak, can be balanced or off shape. Opener usually bids again, but not always. And, the "semi-forcing 1NT" denies as many as three card support for partners major. So the various and assundry three card constructive etc raises go through 1M-2C as well.

[jdonn]

1♠ p 3♠ = four trump limit raise

1♠ p 2♠ = three or more trump single raise

 

Bergen raise players may be shocked to hear this, but opponents let you play undisturbed on the 2 level quite often even when you have a 5-4 fit! And if they push you up, you have lost very little if anything by not getting there directly since the opponents are quite unlikely to have game.

[cherdano]

I've heard many people don't like Bergen raises. My question is: Why not and what do you play instead as raise structure?

Why not is easy. If you are playing 2/1 AND artificial jumps 1M-3x, then you have exactly one way to show a one-suited hand below GF strength: 1M-1N-2M(say)-3x. If this covers all one suiters from 5 to 12 hcp you have a problem (and if you can't bid some of them, you have a different problem). So I think 1M-3x should be natural, either constructive (6-9), or invitational.

 

Personally, I like invitational jumps, 1M-2N = Jacoby inv+, and 1M-3M mixed raise.

[pbleighton]

Bergen raise players may be shocked to hear this, but opponents let you play undisturbed on the 2 level quite often even when you have a 5-4 fit!

 

Indeed they do.

 

I play 1M-3M as preemptive, 1M-2NT as limit plus, jump shifts as invitational or weak.

 

Peter

[jtfanclub]

I've heard many people don't like Bergen raises. My question is: Why not and what do you play instead as raise structure?

 

What if you are playing the "Improving 2/1 GF" so 2NT is not free for a fit-showing bid?

No expert here, but I hate them because...

 

Most people don't know continuations for them.

 

When we have a 9 card fit, the main thing I need to know from the shorter hand is shortness. Next comes controls, third comes honor concentration.

 

They give more information to the opponents than to partner.

 

I mean, I understand that you experts don't bid 3♣ over 1♥ with both:

 

Qxx

Qxxx

Qx

Qxxx

 

and

 

x

Txxx

x

AKT9xxx

 

but I'll be damned if my partners don't say 'Oooh, four card support, 7-10 hcp' and bid them the same. And if I bid 3♠, they have no idea how to respond with either.

 

I'm sure Bergen does great with Bergen raises, but at my level, they're counterproductive. If I'm sitting here with:

 

Axx

AK9xx

Ax

xxx

 

One hand, you'll be lucky to make 4, and the other, 6 is excellent.

 

It's just a mess.

 

I play minisplinters. Not perfect, by any means, but easy, and tell me the thing I'm most likely to need to know.

[awm]

Here are the major issues with Bergen raises (some mentioned already):

 

(1) Forces you to play 9-card fits at the three-level. Just because LOTT supports this doesn't mean you will make. Sometimes LOTT is off by one, and sometimes opponents will let you play 2M on a 9 card fit in any case.

 

(2) Designates most jump shifts as raises. There are other potentially useful treatments for jump shifts, such as natural invites, strong jumps, weak jumps, etc. The inability to use the other treatments will cause you to lose on non-fit hands and these losses may be more frequent or significant than the gains from Bergen raises.

 

(3) The raise eliminates space for game tries. After an auction like 1♥-3x showing 7-9 with four card support, you basically have to make a game/no game decision without further help. Certainly there are hands where the fourth trump allows you to improve your game decision, but there are also hands where knowing partner's shortness or location of values will help more, information you could in principle ask for after 1♥-2♥.

 

My preference is to compress some of these bids into the strong raise, using 1♠-2NT (for example) to show limit or better, and letting the single raise be more wide-ranging.

[mike777]

Here are the major issues with Bergen raises (some mentioned already):

 

(1) Forces you to play 9-card fits at the three-level. Just because LOTT supports this doesn't mean you will make. Sometimes LOTT is off by one, and sometimes opponents will let you play 2M on a 9 card fit in any case.

 

(2) Designates most jump shifts as raises. There are other potentially useful treatments for jump shifts, such as natural invites, strong jumps, weak jumps, etc. The inability to use the other treatments will cause you to lose on non-fit hands and these losses may be more frequent or significant than the gains from Bergen raises.

 

(3) The raise eliminates space for game tries. After an auction like 1♥-3x showing 7-9 with four card support, you basically have to make a game/no game decision without further help. Certainly there are hands where the fourth trump allows you to improve your game decision, but there are also hands where knowing partner's shortness or location of values will help more, information you could in principle ask for after 1♥-2♥.

 

My preference is to compress some of these bids into the strong raise, using 1♠-2NT (for example) to show limit or better, and letting the single raise be more wide-ranging.

1) I agree almost all 9 card fits end up at the 3 level.

2) I agree almost all jump shifts are raises of some kind.

3) I agree 1H=3C 7-10 mixed raise or whatever 4 card support limits game tries to vague 3D rebid by partner

 

I mentioned this before if your bidding system is 70% accurate I bet you almost never lose at your level of play. These are not reasons why I lose or my bidding is poorish. If these are among the worst problems you have at the table you are already a big winner. :)

[rbforster]

Does anyone here (among us crazy systems folks) play Bergen only over 1♥? I can see more benefits of a preemptive 3 level raise (whether constructive, limit, or weak) since the opps are more inclined to double or bid over 1♥-2♥ than over 1♠-2♠. After all, with spades and a 4 card constructive raise, you can always bid 3♠ later. It will be quite rare that the opponents will, having found a fit by interfering over 2♠, be able to and correctly judge compete to the 4 level over 3♠. This will save you from going down in 3♠ sometimes when there would not have been interference, as well as allowing for more precise game tries.

[mgoetze]

I've heard many people don't like Bergen raises. My question is: Why not

 

Well, quoting some famous bridge player or other... "Points, schmoints!" I care more about partner's shape than whether he has an extra queen which may or may not be useful...

 

and what do you play instead as raise structure?

 

Besides Jacoby Inv+, I might also play Fit Jumps, Mini Splinters, or some Gadget where 2♣ includes an invitational hand with 3 trumps.

 

What if you are playing the "Improving 2/1 GF" so 2NT is not free for a fit-showing bid?

 

I prefer to include those hands in 2♣, but the treatment certainly has some merit. Of course, with a 1♥ opening you can easily play 2♠ as Jacoby.

[Finch]

In one regular partnership we don't play Bergen raises, but for slightly different reasons than those quoted so far. That partnership doesn't play 2/1 , so we can respond at the 2-level on invitational hands with a minor. The system's author (my husband) thinks that the benefit from playing both a mixed raise and a pre-emptive raise is marginal. The chance of being dealt a pre-emptive raise after 1M (P) is actually very low, and at some vulnerabilities you may not really want to make one anyway. Against that, strong hands with support are more common than very weak hands with support (after 2nd hand has passed) and our raise structure is aimed more at either bidding good slams, or at bidding game without giving too much away. Thus we play:

 

1S - (P) -

 

2NT = FG raise, 16+ HCP (or equivalent strength), 4-card support, complicated relay continuations

3C = FG raise, minimum opening bid strength, 4-card support, complicated relay continuations but only if opener sees the possibility of a slam

3D = (slightly light) limit raise (3H random game try, 3NT long suit slam try somewhere, 4 suit short suit slam try)

3H = opening bid values, 4-card support, singleton or void somewhere (3S asks, 3NT->4D own void)

3S = mixed raise

3NT = less than an opening bid, 4-card support, a void somewhere (4C asks)

4C/4D/4H = less than an opening bid, splinter

 

The same after 1H - (P) - a level lower (i.e. 2S is a forcing raise not a WJS)

[Chamaco]

What I really hate of Bergen raises is the mixed raise.

 

Pard raise ur 1M opening with 4 trumps and 6+/9- hcp but there is no room left for asking pard WHERE he has those points.

When this happens and u have a decent opening hand, with, say, a singleton, u have no choice but flipping a coin to guess whether game is right (because dummy's points are working) or whether it is an overbid.

 

If he had raised only to 2M, we might have tried some sort of game try (short suit, long suit, help suit game try, whatever u like).

 

But when the raise occurs at the three level, we have no room for it....

 

What I REALLY love of Bergen raise is the prremptive 1M-3M.

But this can be played regardless of the rest of the Bergen structure.

 

Finally, playing GF Jacoby 2NT, the frequency of 1M:2NT is VERY low.

 

So, I much prefer to:

 

1- give up 1M:3m as artificial raises (in competition FJS are fine). I prefer to use it as natural invitational bids, "cleaning up" the 1NT forcing bid

2- use 1M:2NT not as strictly GF but limit+ 4 card raise. This increases the frequency of the bid; it loses sometimes because it is less clear whether we are heading towards game or slam, but there are many tricks one can use to minimize these losses

3- 1M:2M is constructive but can be 4 card raise (either 8-10- with 3 card raise or 6+/9- 4 card raise)

 

This structure has the added advantage of "cleaning up" the 1NT foring bid, which is a sort of "trash can" of the standard 2/1 system

[1eyedjack]

What I really hate of Bergen raises is the mixed raise.

I am not keen on the mixed raise either, but it does have the advantage that when you are showing one of the other types of raises you haven't got that type.

[MickyB]

One problem with Bergen is that if you preempt in a suit that isn't your own, it really isn't that preemptive at all. This weekend we had the auction

 

(1♥)-P-(3♣)-X

 

as takeout of hearts. If responder had been able to bid 3♥ directly instead of 3♣ she would have earnt her side a plus score defending 4m one off instead of being in 3♥ one off.

[Poky]

I play:

 

1M:

2M: 3M, 5-9

2NT: 4+M, 10+

3♣: 4M, 6-9 (usually balanced), mixed raise

3♦: 3M, 10-11 (by unpassed hand)

3M: 4+M, 0-5

 

1M-3♣

3♦ is an asking bid, usually game-probe (3M with minimum, other with maximum)

 

This structure I find very good because:

a) You bid most thin games having 5-4 or 6-4 fit;

:blink: You never invite aggressively after 1M-2M (and go down on the 3rd level);

c) You can judge better the game aspects after 1M-(pass)-3♣-(Dbl/3♦).

[ochinko]

From all the treatments I have seen mini splinters seem to me to be the only reason to avoid Bergen raises.

 

1♥ - 3♣/3♦ would allow you now to separate singleton suits from voids (1♥ - 4♣/4♦), and leave more bidding space.

 

I believe I am among a minority that is still keen on Bergen raises. The reason is that they allow for finer grained responses when you have a major fit.

 

And even though I am not as rabid follower of the Law as I was I still like their preemptive value.

[Flame]

We play mini splinters on 1♠.

Our idea is that mix raises hands are more important then weak hands but bidding somethig like 3♠ as a mix raise doesnt help because a mix hand is many times a shapy hand and not knowing the shape opener is just guessing.

We even had to give up our premptive raise for this and we use 1♠-3♠ as a ♣ shortage (3♣ is needed elsewhere)

[mike777]

Bergen raises, as all other conventions, of course have problems and is far from perfect. If you prefer and win with some other style great, no reason to change.

 

To discuss further some of the negative comments:

1) If you do not know the basic convention or the follow ups do not play it.

2) I expect the opp to bid very often, more than 60% in my auctions, I rarely have an unopposed auction where all the opp do is pass.

3) I want to get up to the lawful level as fast as possible in a competitive partscore auction.

4) Yes, playing Bergen takes away many of the delicate game tries that have been discussed here. Of course the opp are bidding often, so that takes away some of the Bergen bids and replacing it with natural bidding for me.

5) At imps just bid the darn game. The rest of the time learn and improve your judgement based on the bidding. I am more than willing to give up most if not all of these delicate game tries that many prefer to keep.

[rbforster]

Although no one seems to have mentioned this now, I will note that Bergen raises, for their preemptive nature, seem a much bigger plus if you're playing a limited opening bid system like precision. This way it's more often the opponents that you're preempting (at least compared to standard). If you play light and limited openings, say 9-15, you can really steal the auction sometimes when the opponent's have game but their points are evenly divided and the first opponent didn't quite have a call over 1M and the second isn't brave enough to double 1M-3M.

[jtfanclub]

If you play light and limited openings, say 9-15, you can really steal the auction sometimes when the opponent's have game but their points are evenly divided and the first opponent didn't quite have a call over 1M and the second isn't brave enough to double 1M-3M.

Pfeh. It takes no courage at all to X 3♣, on the 1♥-3♣ auction. What are you going to do, leave it in?

 

My responses are across a limited opening:

2♥: No game interest, no reason to think somewhere other than hearts is better. This includes hands with 4 hearts and 0-5 hcp. And hands with an honor doubleton in hearts and around 8 hcp.

3♥: 6-9 hcp, 4 card support, no singleton.

4♥: No slam interest, includes all 10+ hcp and 4+ hearts with no slam interest, as well as lots of weaker hands.

 

Other jump bids (like 2NT) are slam interest or shape showing.

 

I don't see how adding Bergen raises is of any benefit across a limited range hand.

[Chamaco]

Although no one seems to have mentioned this now, I will note that Bergen raises, for their preemptive nature, seem a much bigger plus if you're playing a limited opening bid system like precision.  This way it's more often the opponents that you're preempting (at least compared to standard).  If you play light and limited openings, say 9-15, you can really steal the auction sometimes when the opponent's have game but their points are evenly divided and the first opponent didn't quite have a call over 1M and the second isn't brave enough to double 1M-3M.

If you play light limited openings (say 9-15), you can gain and steal much more by preempting 1M:3M more often using a wide-range preempt (say 0-7/8-) rather than resort to the mixed raise.

 

In the limited opening context, the need to differentiate the NON GF raises into 3 ranges (preemptive, mixed, and limit) is much less crucial than in "standard" systems.

 

Most times, the mixed raise in a "regular" 2/1 context is needed to allow opener with a reverse (or equivalent playing strength) to bid game, but in the light opening system you mention, this is seldom an issue.

 

With a mixed raise, one can choose between a constructive single raise and a wide-range preemptive double raise according to the quality of the hand and the state of vulnerability (as well as tactical consideration)

 

This makes you preempt much more often 1M:3M although it is debatable whether this is really an advantage (one might argue that the wide-range of 1M:3M will avoid more oftem the doubling of the partscore, but I am not so sure about this)

[bhall]

I've heard many people don't like Bergen raises. My question is: Why not and what do you play instead as raise structure?

Most of us recognize that the Law of Total Garbage is wrong about as often as it is right. It's a crutch for the cases where you can't get a better idea of the shape and location of high cards in the other hands. So a better question about Bergen is:

 

Why sell your birthright for a mess of pottage?

 

On the other side of this question, S. J. Simon (and mgr777, above) notes that you only want to exchange enough information to select the best practical contract for your side. Anything beyond that only gives aid to the enemy. Relay systems can go some way toward accomplishing this goal, but they run too quickly into the Fibonacci limit.

 

A reasonable compromise would be to tell partner you have a fit at the lowest possible level whenever the degree of fit is critical to the game decision. And to just bid game when it isn't. The standard 1M-2M raise violates this rule, and Bergen raises do so in spades (pardon the pun).

 

The raise to 2M at least leaves room to explore, although the exploration can prove costly. I think a better approach would be to "tighten up" the raise to show 4-card support and use the next-step response (1♥-1♠ or 1♠-1N) as a raise (typically 3-card) that needs room, either to obtain a fuller description of opener's hand or to complete its own description. That usage would, of course, increase the burden on the other cheap responses.

[TylerE]

I've heard many people don't like Bergen raises. My question is: Why not and what do you play instead as raise structure?

 

What if you are playing the "Improving 2/1 GF" so 2NT is not free for a fit-showing bid?

I like to play 3m over 1M (and 2S over 1H) as fit-jumps, showing 4+ support for partner (occasionally something like Axx or KJx) and a good side suit (typically 5+ cards). Usuaully shortness somewhere. 7(++) - 9HCP.

[whereagles]

Although no one seems to have mentioned this now, I will note that Bergen raises, for their preemptive nature, seem a much bigger plus if you're playing a limited opening bid system like precision.

Actually, no. It much more dangerous for 4th seat to overcall a bergen raise if opener is unlimited because his (potential) extra strength may be enough to wield the axe on overcaller.

 

But it is true that bergen raises' preemptive effect is a plus for the convention. It is dangerous to enter the bidding when responder told opener very clearly what he has. Opener has more info than anyone else at table.

[whereagles]

Most of us recognize that the Law of Total Garbage is wrong about as often as it is right.

Vernes was aware of this. His claim was not "total tricks = total trumps", but rather "total tricks = total trumps, ON AVERAGE".

 

The 'on average' is the key. On average means TT=TT more often than anything else, say TT=TT+1 or TT=TT-1, but this doesn't mean TT=TT in 50%+ of the time :blink: