There is a clear right answer to this one

[jdeegan]

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=s9862hqj10d1053ca107]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♠-P-???[/hv]

:D From a team game against expert opponents. Your bid? Any analysis you care to offer?

Careful, though, the correct answer to this question is known. It is found in the back of the instructors' edition of the text book. I have the only copy of it on campus.

[hrothgar]

Interesting hand...

 

The hand has 4 card support, 7 HCP (including an Ace), three 10s, and a 9 with a supporting Ace.

 

Despite all this, I still can't convince myself to bid at the three level, even though my system specifies Bergen raises. The 4=3=3=3 shape is too sterile and the ODR is too low for me to want to push past two Spades.

 

Regretfully, you don't mention what a 2♠ raise shows. If 2♠ is constructive, I'm going to start with a forcing NT, intending to rebid 2♠. If 2♠ could be bid on soft three card support, than I'll raise to the two level immediately.

[helene_t]

Agree with Richard. 1NT for me.

[pbleighton]

Careful, though, the correct answer to this question is known. It is found in the back of the instructors' edition of the text book. I have the only copy of it on campus.

 

LOL, that settles it then.

 

The answer, of course, depends on whether you play 1S-2S as constructive, and if so how constructive. There's no consensus on this, I've played it both ways. I happen to dislike delaying support.

 

So either 2S or 1NT, depending on your agreements. In my current 2/1 partnership, 2S.

 

As Richard says, this is not the hand for Bergen, if you play it.

 

Peter

[gwnn]

it's ugly but it still has 4 trumps. we'll smoke the queen out or something. 1NT never ever. 2♠, even if it's constructive. 1♠-1NT; 2x-2♠ can be ~8-9 on a singleton, 6-9 on a doubleton, 5-7 on 3 cards and what? 3-5 on 4 cards? no way. It should never be made on 4 cards I think.

[hrothgar]

it's ugly but it still has 4 trumps. we'll smoke the queen out or something. 1NT never ever. 2♠, even if it's constructive. 1♠-1NT; 2x-2♠ can be ~8-9 on a singleton, 6-9 on a doubleton, 5-7 on 3 cards and what? 3-5 on 4 cards? no way. It should never be made on 4 cards I think.

A constructive raise promises a fair amount of playing strength. Typically 8.5 <-> 9 losers.

 

If I were playing constructive raises (I don't mind them) and I was some how barred from bidding 1NT, I'd pass before I bid 2♠

[pclayton]

In spite of 4 trumps; I think this is a clear 2♠ call.

 

If your are thinking about 1N as a semi-psyche, thats fine, but if you are trying to perpetrate some prepared sequence I think thats poor strategy.

 

The OP said nothing about constructive raises. Where did this come from?

[cherdano]

it's ugly but it still has 4 trumps. we'll smoke the queen out or something. 1NT never ever. 2♠, even if it's constructive. 1♠-1NT; 2x-2♠ can be ~8-9 on a singleton, 6-9 on a doubleton, 5-7 on 3 cards and what? 3-5 on 4 cards? no way. It should never be made on 4 cards I think.

A constructive raise promises a fair amount of playing strength. Typically 8.5 <-> 9 losers.

 

If I were playing constructive raises (I don't mind them) and I was some how barred from bidding 1NT, I'd pass before I bid 2♠

I think you are not giving this hand enough value. With the 4th trump, and very nice honor combinations (QJT and ATx), this hand is well worth a constructive raise IMO.

[sceptic]

ok here goes,

 

you have 4 spades so you bid bergen, 3 hearts is less than 7 hcp so if you are going to down grade it to 2 spades( down grade may be the wrong phrase, maybe evaluatte it is better), should you not down grade it to a 3 heart bid instead?

 

also I would bd 3 clubs with this

[hrothgar]

The OP said nothing about constructive raises. Where did this come from?

I introduced the question of constructive raises for two reasons:

 

1. In my experience, there is a significant correlation between the use of Bergen raises and the use of constructive raises. This (probably) dates back to the old "Better Bidding with Bergen" books which discussed both topics.

 

2. I think that being able to make a direct raise to 2♠ is MUCH more attractive than a forcing NT with 4 card trump support. (If you start with a forcing NT, you need to worry about a two level overcall from LHO). Some people might consider this significant enough that they would favor a direct two spades bid if they were playing constructive raises, but prefer 3♠ or even pass if they were playing constructive raises.

[pbleighton]

The OP said nothing about constructive raises. Where did this come from?

 

From 2/1. Since many 2/1 players play them, it's the key issue (do you play them, and what's the bottom end).

 

Peter

[hatchett]

I agree with Cherdano this is a clear constructive raise for the reasons he outlines.

[han]

I'd bid 2♠ no matter what I was playing.

 

I generally object to a bid being clearly right because someone says so in a book.

[blackshoe]

If a particular call is "clearly right" no doubt the original poster can produce a database of say ten thousand deals where this hand is held, partner opens one spade, and the particular call turns out to lead to the par score. :)

[jdonn]

Obvious 2♠, bergen raises or not, constructive raises or not. The suggestions of 1NT or even pass are way out of left field. It shows why counting losers on hands like this is sort of silly. How is 98xx QJT Txx ATx worth the same as xxx QJx xxxx Axx?

[ralph23]

If a particular call is "clearly right" no doubt the original poster can produce a database of say ten thousand deals where this hand is held, partner opens one spade, and the particular call turns out to lead to the par score. :)

Wait, you mean you don't believe it? Hey, it's in a BOOK for heaven's sake!!

 

You don't think the publisher would have allowed it to be circulated if it were WRONG, do you ?? Geesh, such a skeptic !!! :lol: :P

 

Well, but maybe it was only a paperback book ......

[han]

It shows why counting losers on hands like this is sort of silly. How is 98xx QJT Txx ATx worth the same as xxx QJx xxxx Axx?

I'm with Josh on this.

[jdeegan]

:) :lol: Judging from the forum's responses, they have not only read the book (actually books), but have learned its lessons. The point is that this is not a bridge hand to push the auction beyond the two level with this bid.

 

At this point in the auction we should assume 17+ total trumps - our nine plus 8+ for them. Prof. Cohen advises negative adjustments for 4-3-3-3 shape and picture cards in the opponents' suits. We have the first, and with no spade honors, the odds strongly favor the second. My arithmetic arrives at an estimate of 15+ total tricks. 2♠ looks plenty high at this point.

 

Profs. Lawrence and Wirgren advocate estimating 'working points' plus 'short suit length' for our side. Assuming pard is on a balanced min. of 13 HCP with the most common 5-3-3-2 shape, our 'short suit length' is five. Our combined point count is 20, but some of them may not be working. Suspect are our heart holding plus maybe two of partner's points. According to their methods, our trick taking expectancy in spades is 7 or 8. 2♠ looks plenty high.

 

The actual hand itself proves very little, but it does conform to the analysis above:

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=skj1052hk5daj6cj43&w=saq7h9432dq982cq6&e=s4ha876dk74ck9852&s=s9863hqj10d1053ca107]399|300|Scoring: IMP

1♠-P-2♠-P

P-P[/hv]

 

Two ♠ made exactly two, and 3♥ is down one. The play was:

club to queen

diamond return ducked to king

club continuation won by ten

spade 9 wins

spade 8 won by ace

heart to ace

club ruff

 

Note that South's tens proved useful.

[EricK]

Not to detract from your lesson (I agree that 2♠ is the "correct" bid here), but 3♥ might very well make on these hands. It needs the ♥K lead to beat it double dummy.

[CSGibson]

2♠, as a constructive raise or not. I define a constructive raise as showing two cover cards. An ace is one, and the combination of four trump and the QJT sequence is the other.

 

2nd point: Bergan raises are based on the law of total tricks, but your shape is a negative adjustment factor in the law, so even if you play Bergan, you should still be wary about going to the three level with this hand.

[hatchett]

Not to detract from your lesson (I agree that 2♠ is the "correct" bid here), but 3♥ might very well make on these hands. It needs the ♥K lead to beat it double dummy.

 

And east has a fairly comfortable reopening double after 2♠ p p

[jdeegan]

:P Gary Hayden didn't reopen. Maybe he was considering that my partner, who declared 2♠, was on tilt. On the previous hand she down five in a 4♠ game made at the other table.

[skjaeran]

It shows why counting losers on hands like this is sort of silly. How is 98xx QJT Txx ATx worth the same as xxx QJx xxxx Axx?

I'm with Josh on this.

Me too.