bergen or not bergen

[blackshoe]

"Bergen Raises", being the 3♣ and 3♦ responses to 1M, are only part of a system, as someone upthread has already pointed out. The full Bergen Raise structure (from Better Bidding With Bergen, Vol. I) includes a lot more than just these two bids. There's also Hardy Raises (Hardy didn't like Bergen's "Constructive" 3♣ bid, so he just bids 2M with that) which splits splinters into two ranges, and uses "Trump Swiss" (4m) to differentiate between two types of balanced game raises (with/without good trumps). There's also a couple of different raise structures in the various Romex books. And I found an interesting reference to "Inverted Major Raises" in that four volume encyclopedia of conventions written by Nicu Kantar and somebody else whose name escapes me. However, the description was pretty sparse, and I haven't tried to come up with a way to fit it into 2/1 or SA.

 

My biggest problem with those of my partners who insist on playing "Bergen Raises" is convincing them to use the rest of the structure as well. :)

[Siegmund]

If my only two choices are to play Bergen, and to play simple standard with no artificial raises, I will pick Bergen.

 

As already said in this thread - Bergen is better seen as a starting point, to a major raise structure that feels right to your partnership, than as a perfectly optimal finished product.

 

My preferences include using 1H-2S and 1H-3C to show 7-10ish hands with and without a singleton, and to use 1H-3D as an artificial "very weak or very strong raise" (twice as many raises since I get a rebid!) with 1H-3H limit. That doesn't bear any resemblence to Bergen, but it's something I would never have thought of playing if I hadn't tried Bergen for a while and then pondered how I could make it better.

[Free]

Over here most club players play Jacoby 2NT and Bergen raises and do better than they'd do without. I prefer my custom structure where we can show way more hand types, investigate 3NT,... without giving too much information away to opps if it's not necessary. I still use every bid from 2M and up for all sorts of raises so opponents have the chance to Dbl for the lead, which is the biggest disadvantage.

[Vampyr]

On the other hand, you'll be sad if you hold a semi-solid 6-7 card minor with invitational values (or alternatively a slam invitational hand with a strong minor suit if you play strong jumps). 

Is there any reason not to start both hands with 2/1?

 

[As a caveat I have never used Bergen raises. IMO the argument against them is the amount of information they generate combined with the possible exchange of opponent information by doubling or not doubling the Bergen call. Compared to a more ambiguous forcing or semiforcing 1NT call followed by 2M or 3M which leaves the opponents more in the dark as to whether balancing makes sense.

 

But then there is the disadvantage of playing a forcing or semiforcing 1NT...

[aguahombre]

I'm not a huge fan in general, but do like them over 1M X where the weights of advantages and disadvantages changes.  It is now much less likely we have a SJS and somewhat less likely we have an invitational minor and much more valuable to eat up space quickly and communicate our strength and amount of support to help evaluate the part score battle.

This is about right, IMO. Even though maybe there is a better structure after 1MX, such as L.R. splinters, the philosophy of only using LAW gadgets in competition has a whole lot of merit.

 

Others will contend that getting the LAW bids in before competition is an excellent plan. But, for every gadget which shows a variation of trump support, u give up another use for that same bid.

[whereagles]

1. do people really need bergen raises?

 

2. i can see the value of premption but not with evry hand given

 

3. the issue of a bergen raise should be dependent on shap as well so as sometimes one doe not need to preempt.

 

4. nothing worng wil limit raoses actually

1. no.

 

2. what preemption? self-preemption, you mean?

 

3. the whole issue is that the bergen/jacoby/splinter standard raise scheme is not very adequate for a number of reasons, the main one being emphasis is put on responder when it should be on opener. You usually get away with it because 4 is very often the limit and for that you're ok.

 

4. yes there is. It sucks up valuable bidding space without giving back any real gain.

[blackshoe]

How would you put the emphasis on opener instead of responder?

[andy_h]

Bergen is fine for just something to play. If I am were to play it, I wouldn't like the whole lot. I love 1M-3M as mixed raises but I know some people love to have that raise as 0-6 raises. Playing some form of Jacoby 2NT as GF rather than invitational plus has its advantages of setting ownership of the hand for forcing passes in case 4th seat interferes.

[bluecalm]

I don't like them.

My favorite argument that no elite pairs play them is there as well !

 

I think there are too many things to take away from forcing 1NT or 2/1 to give away 3level bids for bergen raises.

Some things you can use 3 level jumps for :

 

1)natural invites (then 2/1 is truly forcing and 1NT doesn't contain those which is very useful, because you can bid weak hands with 6-7carder using it)

 

2)some stronger hands with support (for example BZ structure which is :

1step (2NT/3♣) = invite with stiff somewhere

2step = game forcing balanced hand without shortness (12-15hcp)

3step = limit raise with 4card support without shortness

4step = limit raise with 3card support

 

This allows you to have more natural and well defined 2/1 auctions and non forcing/semiforcing 1NT (as it doesn't contain hands with support)

 

3)some combination of the above.

 

My personal preference is 1) with 1M - 3M being mixed raise but I am MR precision fan.

[rbforster]

On the other hand, you'll be sad if you hold a semi-solid 6-7 card minor with invitational values (or alternatively a slam invitational hand with a strong minor suit if you play strong jumps). 

Is there any reason not to start both hands with 2/1?

Sure, maybe you like the simplicity of 2/1 game forcing, since that's what lots of people play (possibly including your partner). If you downgrade to 2/1 GF-except-suit-rebid so you can show an invitiational long minor hand with 1M-2m-...-3m, now you have no good way to show a strong hand with that long minor (since your natural suit rebid is NF).

 

Similarly, if you've got a 1-suited strong jump shift hand with slam going values, you're not going to be nearly as happy starting the auction with a 2/1 bid. You'll never be able to show your length, suit quality, and values below game on some auctions. With a strong heart hand, for example, 1♠-2♥-something-3♥-3N-? your 4♥ bid is minimal and NF and new suit bids seem ambiguous without very detailed agreements. Getting all that off your chest with a single 1♠-3♥ strong jump shift is very useful.

[whereagles]

How would you put the emphasis on opener instead of responder?

By giving opener tools to find out more about responder's hand (instead of the opposite). I claim it is better to do so because opener usually has a more wide-ranging hand than responder.

[blackshoe]

Where might one find such tools?

[whereagles]

That's where the trouble begins... there is no standard tool here. You'd have to cook-up your own major suit support scheme, and that's pretty much at least an honest weeks work.

 

I actually have that work done for my regular partnership. If you want I can pm you my ideas.

[blackshoe]

Sure, I'm always up for learning new things about bidding. :-)

 

Hm. Maybe if responder starts with an inverted raise (even in the majors) a relay structure would be good? But then how to deal with part score hands (simple raise, mixed raise, invitational raise, no raise...)

 

<wanders off mumbling to himself>

[JoAnneM]

Coming out of a club playing nothing but standard american, and into the online bridge atmosphere, bergen was the first thing I learned, and it absolutely turned me onto bridge again. I think it was learning that there was more to the game. This was many years ago (online bridge has been around twenty years now) and online bridge is still keeping me interested and learning.

[Winstonm]

My memory is not as sharp as it once was, but I seem to remember Bergen raises being a response in The Bridge World to a statement by Al Roth that "what we need are more ways to raise" or something along those lines.

 

In other words, I'm not so sure how really in-depth and serious were the considerations for the structure - more like, O.K., it works, that's enough of that.

 

IMO, the most significant aspects Bergen introduced were 9-card-fit value and 3C/3D as artificial raises. The actual structure itself is immaterial.

[P_Marlowe]

My memory is not as sharp as it once was, but I seem to remember Bergen raises being a response in The Bridge World to a statement by Al Roth that "what we need are more ways to raise" or something along those lines.

 

In other words, I'm not so sure how really in-depth and serious were the considerations for the structure - more like, O.K., it works, that's enough of that.

 

IMO, the most significant aspects Bergen introduced were 9-card-fit value and  3C/3D as artificial raises.  The actual structure itself is immaterial.

Ed Manfield - I looked it up to get the spelling right, Bergen mentioneds him in "Better Bidding

with Bergen".

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

My memory is not as sharp as it once was, but I seem to remember Bergen raises being a response in The Bridge World to a statement by Al Roth that "what we need are more ways to raise" or something along those lines.

 

In other words, I'm not so sure how really in-depth and serious were the considerations for the structure - more like, O.K., it works, that's enough of that.

 

IMO, the most significant aspects Bergen introduced were 9-card-fit value and  3C/3D as artificial raises.  The actual structure itself is immaterial.

Ed Manfield - I looked it up to get the spelling right, Bergen mentioneds him in "Better Bidding

with Bergen".

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Thanks. Well done.

[junyi_zhu]

do people really need bergen raises?

 

i can see the value of premption but not with evry hand given

 

the issue of a bergen raise should be dependent on shap as well so as sometimes one doe not need to preempt.

 

nothing worng wil limit raoses actually

If some bids can show your length of trumps and strength, those bids are usually useful, no matter what they are called. It's especially useful when opener holds weak trumps and some extra, like this: xxxxx AKxx AKx x, if your partner shows a constructive raise with 4 trumps, games often have a play, partner may hold at little as

Axxx Qx xxx xxxx to give 4S an excellent play. However, it's unsafe to bid on over partner's 2S because the trump is too weak and 2S is often based on a three card support.

[Vampyr]

Sure, maybe you like the simplicity of 2/1 game forcing, since that's what lots of people play (possibly including your partner).

It's a shame, really, that the simplicity of 2/1 GF has led to its becoming very popular in some parts of the world, as it is a pretty awful system.

[gwnn]

um why? and what systems are clearly better than it?

[blackshoe]

Compared to what?

[peachy]

It's a shame, really, that the simplicity of 2/1 GF has led to its becoming very popular in some parts of the world, as it is a pretty awful system.

Wow, What is so awful about it?

[the hog]

um why? and what systems are clearly better than it?

It is not a bad system, but Polish Club is certainly superior.

[rogerclee]

It's a shame, really, that the simplicity of 2/1 GF has led to its becoming very popular in some parts of the world, as it is a pretty awful system.

It probably never occurred to you, but perhaps having a simple, widely played system available is good for the bridge world, even if it does not keep up with your standards of what a "good system" entails.