Bergen Raises

[Antrax]

My partner and I have been playing them for a while (in a strong NT 2/1 GF system), and I feel pretty "meh" about them. I understood their theoretical merit, but it's difficult to gauge their disruptive effect, and I don't feel they really help our decision making when they come up.

a) Is it a typically important / useful tool for partnerships using similar methods? Is our lack of gain due to the low level of competition or our poor hand evaluation, or are is it really not that great of a system?

b) Other than a weak jump shift, what can / do you use 1M-3m for?

[ahydra]

I've never used Bergen raises, but enjoy playing fit jumps, particularly in competition. If you're looking for a disruptive effect, just raise the suit directly, and save your conventions for good raises.

 

Just my 2p

 

ahydra

[Vampyr]

I really like Bergen raises. I actually find that they help our decision making a lot; also I am sure that the opponents sometimes miss sacrifices or even making games when we get to the three level immediately whenever we have a nine-card fit.

 

Otherwise you can play the jump-shifts as strong, weak, intermediate, fit, mini-splinters, some kind of transfer; probably lots of other possibilities exist.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

1M - 3m

 

3m can be played as

 

#1.1 natural, as Soloway Jumps Shift, i.e. gameforcing

#1.2 natural, inv. 1-suiter

#1.3 natural, weak jumpshift 2 fit showing mini splinter

#1.4 a mix of 1.1 and 1.3 in a transfer context

#2 Bergen

#3 Fit Showing Mini Splinter

 

The multiple options prove only one thing - the real thing

was not yet found

 

We play inv. 1-suiter, this cleans up some of our 2/1 seq.,

making them nearly 100% GF

And I do like Sloway Jump Shifts

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

My partner and I have been playing them for a while (in a strong NT 2/1 GF system), and I feel pretty "meh" about them. I understood their theoretical merit, but it's difficult to gauge their disruptive effect, and I don't feel they really help our decision making when they come up.

a) Is it a typically important / useful tool for partnerships using similar methods? Is our lack of gain due to the low level of competition or our poor hand evaluation, or are is it really not that great of a system?

b) Other than a weak jump shift, what can / do you use 1M-3m for?

 

 

I really like them but there are many who dont.

 

btw there are more to Bergen raises than just 1M=3m. There is Bergen 2nt, 3nt, 4c and 4d which then changes your splinter structure as well. Many dont seem to know full Bergen raises. If you only use partial bergen raises you get partial results.

 

Of course Bergen is based on LOTT. If you think LOTT is pretty much a waste then you wont like any of Bergen's style.

 

Besides changing your splinter structure it makes you come up with a way to handle long minors in a weak or invite hand. So it affects your whole bidding system.

 

Bergen also forces B/I players to think and learn various response hands, are they a const. raise, mixed raise, inv raise, gf raise or preemptive.

[S2000magic]

They seem to be very popular at the Charlotte Bridge Association, but I, for one, don't use them.

[aguahombre]

Nobody who has thought about Bergen raises at all will tell you they aren't nice to have.

 

We can show 4-card support preemptively (3M), constructively (3c), or invitationally (3D). But, they come at a cost we are not willing to pay.

 

When 2/1 is G.F., consider the responding hands with a long minor and from 6 to 12 Pts. This is too wide a range to use a forcing NT covering them. It gets more akward if 1NT is not forcing or is semi-forcing. We choose a direct 3m to show the weaker range, and go thru forcing NT with the invitational ones. Others do the opposite, with the direct 3m being invitational.

[blackshoe]

Max Hardy didn't like some things about Bergen Raises, either. He suggested, after 1M:

 

1NT, then 2M: 2 card support and weak (about 5+ to 9-) or 3 card support and 10 losers.

1NT, then 3M: 3 card balanced limit raise, about 9+ to 12-, 8 losers.

1NT, then 4M: similar to 1M-4M, but with an outside Ace.

2M: 3 or 4 trumps, 5+ to 9-, 8 or 9 losers (yes, you lose the 3m "constructive raise" - Hardy argues that you don't really need it, and that sometimes it gets you too high).

2NT: Jacoby, 4+ trumps, 15+ or more, balanced or unbalanced.

3♣: 3 or 4 trumps, 9+ to 12-, 8 losers, if 3 trumps, unbalanced, if 4, balanced. Opener asks which with 3♦.

3Under (the suit under trumps): 4 trumps, 9+ to 12-, unbalanced, the "GF limit raise". Opener asks about the shortage with 3M.

3M: 4 trumps, about 0 to 5- HCP

3Over (the denomination over trumps): 4 trumps 12+ to 15-, unbalanced. Opener bids the next step to ask where the shortage is.

4♣: 4 trumps, at least two of the top three honors, 12+ to 15-, balanced.

4♦: 4 trumps, 12+ to 15-, trumps not good enough for 4♣.

4M: 5+ trumps (or 4 and a void), 0 to about 8, no outside ace.

 

Note that, like the full Bergen Raise structure, this covers a lot more than just jumps to 3m. It does have a couple of holes in it: 2♠ and 3NT over 1♥ and 3♦ and 4♥ over 1♠ have no assigned meanings, which sort of offends my sense of order, but I haven't come up with a good use for them. Maybe somebody here can improve the structure. B-)

 

I haven't had the opportunity to actually try this yet, but several of the better players in the area really like it.

[Mbodell]

I really like them after the opponents make a takeout X. In fact with a number of partners I play reverse bergen on the 3 level (4 cards support) and the 2 level (3 card support) after the opponents double our 1M bid. I find competing quickly after the double to the best fit in the suit that is overwhelmingly most likely to be our best fit (after partner has shown 5+ and one opponent has shown shortness, we figure to have 3+ a lot of the time) works well. There have only been 2 times I've wanted to make an immediate natural bid of some other suit, and one of those times I still got it in at the 2 level after passing and having LHO bid 1nt and it passing back around to me.

 

I only occasionally play them with partners all the time (I.e., not just over X) and then I'm mostly indifferent to them.

[mike777]

Max Hardy didn't like some things about Bergen Raises, either. He suggested, after 1M:

 

1NT, then 2M: 2 card support and weak (about 5+ to 9-) or 3 card support and 10 losers.

1NT, then 3M: 3 card balanced limit raise, about 9+ to 12-, 8 losers.

1NT, then 4M: similar to 1M-4M, but with an outside Ace.

2M: 3 or 4 trumps, 5+ to 9-, 8 or 9 losers (yes, you lose the 3m "constructive raise" - Hardy argues that you don't really need it, and that sometimes it gets you too high).

2NT: Jacoby, 4+ trumps, 15+ or more, balanced or unbalanced.

3♣: 3 or 4 trumps, 9+ to 12-, 8 losers, if 3 trumps, unbalanced, if 4, balanced. Opener asks which with 3♦.

3Under (the suit under trumps): 4 trumps, 9+ to 12-, unbalanced, the "GF limit raise". Opener asks about the shortage with 3M.

3M: 4 trumps, about 0 to 5- HCP

3Over (the denomination over trumps): 4 trumps 12+ to 15-, unbalanced. Opener bids the next step to ask where the shortage is.

4♣: 4 trumps, at least two of the top three honors, 12+ to 15-, balanced.

4♦: 4 trumps, 12+ to 15-, trumps not good enough for 4♣.

4M: 5+ trumps (or 4 and a void), 0 to about 8, no outside ace.

 

Note that, like the full Bergen Raise structure, this covers a lot more than just jumps to 3m. It does have a couple of holes in it: 2♠ and 3NT over 1♥ and 3♦ and 4♥ over 1♠ have no assigned meanings, which sort of offends my sense of order, but I haven't come up with a good use for them. Maybe somebody here can improve the structure. B-)

 

I haven't had the opportunity to actually try this yet, but several of the better players in the area really like it.

 

 

 

 

I am sorry what holes......not sure you know bergen raises.

 

As I noted, full bergen makes you change your splinter structure and many other bids.

[blackshoe]

Mike, you misunderstood me. I was talking about the fact that in the Hardy raise structure, there are 2 bids between 1M and 4M that are not used by that structure. And yes, I know bergen raises.

[mike777]

Mike, you misunderstood me. I was talking about the fact that in the Hardy raise structure, there are 2 bids between 1M and 4M that are not used by that structure. And yes, I know bergen raises.

 

 

But we are not talking Hardy......as far as I understand.

 

 

What does Hardy hate, If LOTT ok but we said that.

[blackshoe]

The thread is generally about Bergen Raises, I agree. I digressed a little. Did you actually read what I wrote? (Hint: look at the first line of my post).

[Vampyr]

I really like them after the opponents make a takeout X.

 

I play Bergen raises but not after a TOX; after double I play transfers and fit-jumps. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[awm]

I'm not a fan of Bergen raises. Some reasons:

 

(1)

It forces you to play 3♠ on a lot of hands where you could've played 2♠. Jumping to the three-level right away only helps you (in spades) when opponents can compete to the four level since otherwise you could bid 2♠, then compete to 3♠ when (if) they balance. The same problem exists in hearts, but you get some compensation because you do prevent opponents from competing to 3♠ as easily.

 

(2)

Jumping to the three-level also can make game bidding harder. Sure, you know responder has four trumps (which definitely helps) but you can't really locate concentration of values any more (as you could over 1M-2M). I don't think Bergen really improves your game bidding, as a whole.

 

(3)

It gives the opponents a safe double of 3m (either for the lead, or to compete) when they might not have been willing to act over 2♠ (where they are easier to double).

 

(4)

You can get what benefits there are to Bergen by compressing calls into other bids. For example, playing 2NT as "limit raise or better" frees up one of your Bergen bids at almost no cost.

 

(5)

You're wasting jump shifts that can be better used for other meanings. In particular I like natural. In standard it is hard to show a strong one suiter (because 2m...3m is NF) so I like to give 3m that meaning (GF one-suiter, looking for slam). In 2/1 it is hard to show an invitational one-suiter (because 1M-1N-2x-3m can be weak) so I like to give 3m that meaning.

 

(6)

The "concealed splinters" are good, but you do not really need 3NT for anything and can easily play 1♠-3NT = concealed splinter and 1♥-3♠ = concealed splinter with 1♥-3NT = stronger spade splinter to get the same benefit.

 

(7)

Hardy's "inverted trump swiss" treatment is just horrendous, a slam killer. Why make the cheap raise (2NT) less frequent? Of course, I know this is not part of "Bergen Raises."

[whereagles]

Bergen raises have been around for WAY more time than they should.

[nigel_k]

Some points:

 

1. Looking at Bergen raises in isolation doesn't work. It depends what you would have done with those bids otherwise, e.g. using them to show invitational strength with a minor.

 

2. I think it's ok to include the invitational minor hands in the 1NT response. After 1♥-1NT-2 any, responder has 2♠ available as an artificial call. After 1♠-1NT-2♣ you can use Bart. Only after 1♠-1NT-2♦/♥ there is a problem. They could interfere or maybe opener will sometimes pass the semi-forcing 1NT when they would have bid and made 3NT over 3 of a minor, but I still tend to think there is more gain from using those bids to show support.

 

3. You need to use judgment instead of relying on LOTT. Some hands with four card support should make a single raise. It depends on shape, honour location, vulnerability, form of scoring, opponents etc. I.e. these bids are not a reason to stop playing bridge.

[Phil]

Bergen raises are fine. I've never crunched the numbers but they seem to come up more than the IJS especially if 3m is limited to 0-1 of partners major. It does make life awkward for 4th seat in spite of law protection especially when we have hearts.

[aguahombre]

My point is they don't come up as often, but when they do they are hard to handle, compared against lumping some raises into other bids.

[Vampyr]

You're wasting jump shifts that can be better used for other meanings. In particular I like natural. In standard it is hard to show a strong one suiter (because 2m...3m is NF) so I like to give 3m that meaning (GF one-suiter, looking for slam). In 2/1 it is hard to show an invitational one-suiter (because 1M-1N-2x-3m can be weak) so I like to give 3m that meaning.

 

 

This and other posts have led me to believe that Bergen raises are not so good for people who play 2/1 GF. I for one would be interested to hear the experiences of those who do not play 2/1 GF, or strong 2/1 (eg forcing to 2NT) in general.

[Siegmund]

In a non-2/1 context, I like Bergen much better than any of the off-the-shelf alternatives.

 

I do think there is room for fine-tuning it: I prefer to have the cheapest jump show the 6-9 4-card raise with a singleton somewhere, and either have another call for the 6-9 4-card raise with no shortness or just allow those flat hands to respond 2M. I also like having two strengths of splinters available.

 

After a double or as a passed hand, I am torn as to whether fit-jumps or Bergen, or some sort of half-and-half arrangement, is better. (And I'd MUCH rather have Bergen on in 3rd and 4th than be forced into giving up two bids for 2-way drury.) Perhaps one can have the best of both worlds as a passed hand: 1S-2NT as an artifical raise, 1S-3new as a fit-jump usually with 3-card support.

 

I gather a lot of 2/1 folk like to use the jump shifts to 3m to take some invitational hands out of the 1NTF response (the hands that once would have responded 2m and rebid a nonforcing 3m.) Playing non-GF 2/1s that is pretty much off the table.

[Vampyr]

After a double or as a passed hand, I am torn as to whether fit-jumps or Bergen, or some sort of half-and-half arrangement, is better. (And I'd MUCH rather have Bergen on in 3rd and 4th than be forced into giving up two bids for 2-way drury.) Perhaps one can have the best of both worlds as a passed hand: 1S-2NT as an artifical raise, 1S-3new as a fit-jump usually with 3-card support.

 

You can use 2NT and 3♣ as any fit jump or any mini-splinter, respectively, for example, and still have 3♦ and 3♥ available. I wouldn't like to force to the 3-level without 4 trumps though.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps this is misplaced in B/I but I think a nice alternative to Bergen is:-

 

Over 1H

=======

2S = mini-splinter or in-between splinter

2N = GF raise

3C = limit raise

3D = mixed raise

3/4H = preemptive

3S = void splinter

3N = spade singleton splinter

4m = singleton splinter

 

and

 

Over 1S

=======

2N = mini-splinter or in-between splinter

3C = GF raise

3D = limit raise

3H = mixed raise

3/4S = preemptive

3N = void splinter

4m/H = singleton splinter

 

How effective Bergen is is to some extent dependent on how advanced your opponents are. Weaker opponents tend not to compete enough against 2M, especially at MPs. I do think Bergen (or an equivalent such as above) is a winner overall though.

[mycroft]

1) I like 1M-3M preemptive. If I can get it without Bergen, so be it. If I need Bergen for it, that's okay, too.

2) I like 1M-3m Bergen, because that way my partners can't play them as WJS. It's not, I think, the best use for those calls, but I know that WJS isn't - especially the way "generic partner" plays WJS into the minor.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Perhaps this is misplaced in B/I but I think a nice alternative to Bergen is:-

 

Over 1H

=======

2S = mini-splinter or in-between splinter

2N = GF raise

3C = limit raise

3D = mixed raise

3/4H = preemptive

3S = void splinter

3N = spade singleton splinter

4m = singleton splinter

@ Zel ... Some questions:

 

-- You seem to be showing the ♠-singleton TWICE ??

....... a ) with the direct 3NT-jump over 1H open and

....... b ) with 2S!( jump) - 2NT! ( asks ) - 3C/3D/ and 3H! = ♠ - singleton

 

EDIT: I see it now. 3NT! and 4m! must be "maxi-splinters" .

 

-- Am I interpreting this correctly:

........ 1H - 3S! = void "somewhere"

........ 3NT!( asks ) - 4C/4D and 4H! = ♠ - void

Edited March 11, 2012 by TWO4BRIDGE