Weak Jump Shift vs Bergen Raises

[Flem72]

The sample size is too small unless you include division 2. ;)

 

 

yes, but I meant simulation-type frequencies.

[PhilKing]

yes, but I meant simulation-type frequencies.

 

Frequency is overrated.

[blackshoe]

I think the OP question has been answered, but don't forget, Bergen type raises are in themselves just as pre-emptive as WJOs. As they occur far more often, that is a big plus. Moreover, it must be remembered that Bergen type raises are not just for reaching the right slam or game, they are very useful in enabling the correct action when 4th seat does enter the bidding. As partner has described both his length and his pretty exact strength, opener is well placed to make a penalty X, or knows it is correct to pass or to compete in the expectation of going off one as a sacrifice, or in the expectation of making. The Bergen raise has given him better judgement.

 

Contrary to blackshoe's opinion, I think it is a great asset in the partscore battle.

If by "it" you mean Bergen Raises, you have misunderstood my position.

[fromageGB]

If by "it" you mean Bergen Raises, you have misunderstood my position.

I think you meant your preference is to gear the system to game/slam bidding rather than part-score, and I inferred you thought Bergen was better for the former. I play much more matchpoint than IMPs, so I lean to the partscore/game, and find Bergen is good for that.

[blackshoe]

Yes, Bergen is good for the partscore fight. My point was, I think, that the complete Bergen Raise complex is also good for game/slam bidding, while WJSs are only good for partscore battles (and in some cases for deterring opponents from bidding their game),

[Zelandakh]

The Hackett CC is pretty poor in places and does not mention jump shifts over 1M openings at all. Perhaps it should since one might get the wrong idea from the WJS in the 1m openings section. What I can see is that they play some form of Swiss over the 1M openings instead of Bergen. The Hackett influence is also pretty strong in England and many pairs seem to have copied them. My observations of their system and style has been that they are extremely efficient bunny killers but lose somewhat when playing against the top players. Perhaps Justin or Mike have some experiences of playing against them they can share.

 

On the actual topic, I strongly prefer more immediate raise options over 1M openings than any of the natural jump shift possibilities. If I have to play natural then my preference would be for weak (up to 7 or 8, not the super-weak style being proposed here) or intermediate but it does somewhat depend on the rest of the system in use.

[relknes]

People have mentioned Strong Jump Shifts, Bergen Raises, Fit Showing Jumps (54+), Weak Jump Shifts (0-5), and slightly less Weak Jump Shifts (4-8). I hope it is not off topic if I bring in "Mini-splinters" where a jump shift shows inv+ values, 4+ support, and a singleton in the bid suit. I am a fan of these since it allows opener to re-evaluate based on distribution of values. They seem a lot more useful for evaluating how the hands fit when they come up, though I am not sure exactly what their frequency is.

[MickyB]

The Hackett CC is pretty poor in places and does not mention jump shifts over 1M openings at all. Perhaps it should since one might get the wrong idea from the WJS in the 1m openings section. What I can see is that they play some form of Swiss over the 1M openings instead of Bergen. The Hackett influence is also pretty strong in England and many pairs seem to have copied them. My observations of their system and style has been that they are extremely efficient bunny killers but lose somewhat when playing against the top players. Perhaps Justin or Mike have some experiences of playing against them they can share.

 

On the actual topic, I strongly prefer more immediate raise options over 1M openings than any of the natural jump shift possibilities. If I have to play natural then my preference would be for weak (up to 7 or 8, not the super-weak style being proposed here) or intermediate but it does somewhat depend on the rest of the system in use.

 

The card I've found from 2004 says "Intermediate jump shifts at 3-level, weak at 2-level" under System Summary. It includes a form of Swiss instead of direct splinters, which go through 1M:3M+1, but I think they now play weak splinters directly and stronger splinters through 3M+1.

 

I don't think many pairs have copied the Hackett style, there are a few in Manc who play the whole system but it doesn't lend itself well to copying parts of. It does have a slight bunny-bashing bent, it's certainly felt to be worse than 5cM for slam-bidding.

 

I prefer Bergen-style to INV jumps partly because INV jumps don't actually work that well when they come up - after 1H:2C [GF except rebid] we find 6-2 or 4-4 major fits if present, and if not we rebid 3C invitational.

[Zelandakh]

The card I've found from 2004 says "Intermediate jump shifts at 3-level, weak at 2-level" under System Summary. It includes a form of Swiss instead of direct splinters, which go through 1M:3M+1, but I think they now play weak splinters directly and stronger splinters through 3M+1.

Ah, thank you for this Micky! I have found it now too on the 2010 card. This is the most recent I have and still includes the line that 1♠ - 3NT is any splinter, although the formatting seems to have removed this for a 1♥ opening somehow.

 

On the subject of mini-splinters, it is possible to have your mini-splinters and still keep the Bergen-style raises. Here's a structure I posted many times already...

 

Over 1♥

======

2♠ = mini-splinter or strong splinter (2NT asks)

2NT = GF raise

3♣ = limit raise

3♦ = mixed raise

3♥ = preemptive raise

3♠ = void splinter

3NT = splinter with spade singleton

4m = singleton splinters

4♥ = preemptive

 

Over 1♠

======

2NT = mini-splinter or strong splinter (3♣ asks)

3♣ = GF raise

3♦ = limit raise

3♥ = mixed raise

3♠ = preemptive raise

3NT = void splinter

4m/4♥ = singleton splinters

4♠ = preemptive

[PhilKing]

I don't think many pairs have copied the Hackett style, there are a few in Manc who play the whole system but it doesn't lend itself well to copying parts of.

 

Nor will they.

 

Armstrong/Davies played a fairly similar style. I remember a set of 16 boards where they opened 1M three times where a Hackett passed at the other table ...

 

The London pairs that played strong and four (Townsend/Gold, Price/Simpson) were playing a rather different system influenced by their rubber bridge background, but only Price/Simpson retained the simple approach.

[PhilKing]

3♠ = void splinter

3NT = splinter with spade singleton

4m = singleton splinters

 

 

This is a pretty serious leak - play it the other way round.

 

Singletons are more frequent, so should go through 3♠ for concealment purposes when opener has a unilateral sign-off. Also there is a small extra technical reason for this way - opener can show two voids with the steps between relay and game.

 

When responder's undisclosed feature is a void, opener is less likely to have a unilateral sign-off and ends up asking anyway leaking information by asking anyway.

[Zelandakh]

I have actually thought about this a little and am well aware that expert opinion is to play the singleton hidden and the void direct. That method prevents unnecessary information leakage. On the other hand, it loses one step on singleton hands, which are, as you say, more common. So the decision is whether to sometimes hide Dummy's singleton, or to be one step lower for slam investigations. At the level I play, the most common response to a splinter bid, pretty much any splinter bid, is to lead a trump. That makes, for me, the information leakage less important than the better slam auctions opposite a singleton. If I ever play at a higher level and find this varies then I will change it.

[PhilKing]

I have actually thought about this a little and am well aware that expert opinion is to play the singleton hidden and the void direct. That method prevents unnecessary information leakage. On the other hand, it loses one step on singleton hands, which are, as you say, more common. So the decision is whether to sometimes hide Dummy's singleton, or to be one step lower for slam investigations. At the level I play, the most common response to a splinter bid, pretty much any splinter bid, is to lead a trump. That makes, for me, the information leakage less important than the better slam auctions opposite a singleton. If I ever play at a higher level and find this varies then I will change it.

 

It's not just revealing the splinter - quite a few decent pairs play a double of, say, 1♠-4♣ as asking for a specific red lead at 3 of the 4 vulnerabilities. But I guess that's not common in the big scheme of things.

 

Also, after the direct splinters, the lowest one is the only one where you can easily RKCB below 4M, so the loss is not great. For instance, after 1♥-4♣ I prefer 4♦ as a train, so I just lose the buck-pass. And after 1♥-4♦ you have not really gained a step unless you play split range splinters (which I really don't like).

[blackshoe]

People have mentioned Strong Jump Shifts, Bergen Raises, Fit Showing Jumps (54+), Weak Jump Shifts (0-5), and slightly less Weak Jump Shifts (4-8). I hope it is not off topic if I bring in "Mini-splinters" where a jump shift shows inv+ values, 4+ support, and a singleton in the bid suit. I am a fan of these since it allows opener to re-evaluate based on distribution of values. They seem a lot more useful for evaluating how the hands fit when they come up, though I am not sure exactly what their frequency is.

I don't know the frequency either, but Romex included these for a while. They were removed for two reasons: low frequency, and when they did come up, often they helped the opponents more than the Romex pair.

[Zelandakh]

Doubling of the splinter bid to ask for a lead in a different suit is something I have not come across yet - it is something that might tip the balance. I almost never ask for key cards below 4M, generally preferring to use this space to check for controls. After 1♠ - 4♣, both 4♦ and 4♥ are control-asking. After the middle splinter, I have been experimenting with giving up Kickback for something similar, that is (after 1♥ - 4♣) 4♦ and 4♠ as control-asking and 4NT RKCB. I need a bit of work/time before I decide for/against this. 1♥ - 4♦ is the problem case and I have not got a good solution for this. I do play split-range though as you can see from #34. The strong/in-between splinters are contained in the 2M+1 response along with mini-splinters.

 

On the direct comparison, 1♠ - 3NT; 4♣, now 4♦ = diamond void; 4♥ = heart void; 4♠ = club void. Compared with the direct splinters, diamonds and hearts are the same but clubs loses 3 steps. This is a simpler way of viewing it than 1 step for each. Those 3 steps are pretty important imho. The other subtle (rare) point is this - if you splinter with a slam drive and a club void, you can get away with rebidding 4NT here and saving a step over the equivalent XRKCB auction. You cannot really take advantage of this playing it the other way round.

 

All-in-all, I agree that there are clear and obvious advantages of playing direct splinters as void-showing. But there are also disadvantages and it is not clear that this is the better approach. At intermediate level my feeling is that direct showing a singleton are better. I cannot say that of expert level and indeed I suspect that the reverse may be true. But I will worry about that another time - it is a very simple change for anyone that prefers it the other way round after all!

[mike777]

There are so many other uses for jumps shifts besides playing them weak.

 

Playing wjs affects your entire bidding system.

 

For me I could not play:

 

Bergen raises

reverse flannery

show splinters at lower level

j/s to show strong minor suit raise.

[woefuwabit]

When choosing what to do with Jump Shifts over a Major opening, I decided that the most important factor to me is:

 

Does this particular system allow me to show hands that cannot be shown in another way, and is it actually useful to be able to show this kind of hand?

 

So let's look at the options.

 

Strong Jump Shift - Make a 2/1 bid

Very Weak Jump Shift - 1M is likely to play better

Weak Jump Shift - Forcing 1NT may even allow you to stop in 2m

Bergen Raises - Doesn't really offer more over normal raises of 2M or 3M, especially when major is ♠

 

So this leaves my favourite choice - Fit Showing Jumps (although a case can be made for mini splinters), showing a hand below limit raise strength, but with 9+ cards in the 2 suits and 8 LTC. This type of hand cannot be shown with any of the other systems, and gives the right type of information for opener to be able to make an informed decision to stop, play in a game or attempt for a slam.

[Zelandakh]

I have played FSJ too. They were ok but imho way below a full raise structure such as Bergen. I would also dispute that such structures do not offer more than normal raises. Quite aside from being able to reach the 3 level immediately with a 9 card fit and thus preempting the opponents, not to mention stopping in 2M with a 3 card limit raise some of the time, there is also the clear advantage of having a game try over the limit (and/or mixed) raise, thus increasing accuracy, plus simply having a mixed raise at all. More than that, as I have already pointed out it is possible to have mini-splinters or FSJ (but not both) in a condensed form and still retain the other advantages of a Bergen-like structure. Yes, the opps can preempt this sometimes. Nonetheless the advantages are considerably greater than FSJ or mini-splinters alone imho.

[woefuwabit]

I played Bergen Raises for a couple of years and from my experience, the preempt value is overrated.

 

The problem is especially bad with the mixed raise. It has given me many bad results when 2M makes while 3M goes down (which is very likely with a standard 9 LTC mixed raise opposite a 7 LTC minimum opener). Yes the opponents do have a makeable 3m partscore, but more likely than not if the opponents are unable to make a 2nd hand overcall, they will not be able to find the fit after a simple 1M-P-2M raise. AND even if 4th hand has a 6 card minor suit and bids it at the 3rd level after 2M, you can simply compete to 3M and you are no worse off than the pairs playing Bergen Raises. The mixed raise is a huge leak, no doubt about that.

 

Also, standard 1M-2M raises can make more accurate game tries than after a Bergen mixed raise.

 

The 1M-3M weak raise does win occasionally, and wins big if opponents have a game in the other major. This doesn't happen very often, and is balanced out by one problem I've encountered several times with the weak raise - occasionally (unless you play a strong club opening) opener will have a huge 1M holding that would go to game (or even slam) opposite the maximum of the 0-6 weak raise. How on earth is opener to make an informed decision opposite 0-6?

 

Being able to make a game try over a limit raise... somehow I don't think anyone is going to lose sleep over not having this bid.

 

3 card LRs are bid 1M-1NT-2x-3M, how do you stop in 2M?

 

Opportunities for Fit Jump Shifts don't come very often, but when they do happen I can be confident that the bid has given me an advantage. I can't say the same after making a Bergen Raise (especially mixed raise) where I will wonder if I'm already looking at a bad score.

 

If you like you can check out http://www.amazon.com/Problems-With-Major-Suit-Raises/dp/B002RXTVNU where Max Hardy goes into a lot more details ripping into the mixed Bergen Raise. He does like the weak raise though, and it works well with the rest of his Hardy Raises structure that he advocates in his book.

[Zelandakh]

The problem is especially bad with the mixed raise. It has given me many bad results when 2M makes while 3M goes down

You need to stop playing against beginners. This is potentially similar to the discussion above about which way round to play splinters. Beginners let you play 2M here a lot; good intermediates do not, and Advanced+ will push you out of your comfort 2M nearly all of the time when it is right.

 

 

The 1M-3M weak raise does win occasionally, and wins big if opponents have a game in the other major. This doesn't happen very often, and is balanced out by one problem I've encountered several times with the weak raise - occasionally (unless you play a strong club opening) opener will have a huge 1M holding that would go to game (or even slam) opposite the maximum of the 0-6 weak raise. How on earth is opener to make an informed decision opposite 0-6?

It is true that I do prefer to play a strong club and actually designed this raise structure specifically for it. However, it also works for standard and a nice rule would be that the preemptive raise wants partner to pass with 18-19 balanced. With a big unbalanced hand you probably belong in 4 even opposite shrott.

 

 

Being able to make a game try over a limit raise... somehow I don't think anyone is going to lose sleep over not having this bid.

This is a little like Drury. If you call a limit raise 11-12 then a game try is unnecessary but if you have a game try available then you want to increase the range by a point or so. Now not having the game try would be awkward.

 

 

3 card LRs are bid 1M-1NT-2x-3M, how do you stop in 2M?

There are a number of methods around. The most popular is to put it within the 2♣ response. My solution is to play 1M+1 as a relay and other bids weak and non-forcing. Thus 1♠ - 1NT; 2♣(min) - 2♠ and 1♥ - 1♠; 1NT(min) - 2♥ are 3 card limit raises. Any bid that takes Responder above the 2M rebid would be game forcing.

 

 

Opportunities for Fit Jump Shifts don't come very often, but when they do happen I can be confident that the bid has given me an advantage. I can't say the same after making a Bergen Raise (especially mixed raise) where I will wonder if I'm already looking at a bad score.

One of the things I have against them is precisely that they often are a disadvantage. It is not uncommon that Opener knows whether to bid game or not without knowing the side suit. Now that knowledge is simply helping the opening lead. Where FSJ are very good is in competition because judging the secondary fit there is a key factor in success. If opps bid over the FSJ then we are extremely well placed. Occasionally one can find a low hcp slam using them too. Overall I preferred to have them than not; but that is true of every serious option. If you were to play, say, that 1♥ - 2♠ was a FSJ with any side suit or a strong splinter, would that work for you or is the loss of the immediate side suit too important? It is easy to unwind if they do not bid (2NT asks):

3m = FSJ

3♥ = INV FSJ with spades

3♠ = GF FSJ with spades

3NT = strong spade splinter

4m = strong splinter

 

Obviously you are worse off than an immediate FSJ if they bid though.

 

 

If you like you can check out http://www.amazon.com/Problems-With-Major-Suit-Raises/dp/B002RXTVNU where Max Hardy goes into a lot more details ripping into the mixed Bergen Raise. He does like the weak raise though, and it works well with the rest of his Hardy Raises structure that he advocates in his book.

I am familiar with Hardy Raises even without having read any of his books. Quite a lot of research into the various methods being played at high levels went into constructing the raise structure I suggest. One of the other BBFers came up with an almost identical structure independently. The biggest advocate of Hardy here is probably TWO4BRIDGE but I am not sure if even he plays his raises. Can you think of any current world class pair that does?

[jogs]

 

 

So this leaves my favourite choice - Fit Showing Jumps (although a case can be made for mini splinters), showing a hand below limit raise strength, but with 9+ cards in the 2 suits and 8 LTC. This type of hand cannot be shown with any of the other systems, and gives the right type of information for opener to be able to make an informed decision to stop, play in a game or attempt for a slam.

 

I'm convinced fit showing is the most effective way of playing jump shifts. At least for 5-card major openings systems.

1M - 3m. Any 5+m hand with 4+M support worth forcing to game. Axxx x xxx AKxxx. Partner opens 1♠. Bid 3♣. This sequence occurs with relatively high frequency.

[blackshoe]

Robson and Segal seemed to favor fit-jumps in their book on competitive auctions. They suggested that they would publish a book on uncontested auctions if there is enough interest, and I got the impression that fit-jumps would feature in that book as well.

[fromageGB]

Robson and Segal seemed to favor fit-jumps in their book on competitive auctions. They suggested that they would publish a book on uncontested auctions if there is enough interest, and I got the impression that fit-jumps would feature in that book as well.

This was many years ago. I think I bought the book in 1993, and looked forward to the sequel, but it never happened. Is the partnership dead and buried now?

 

I agree with an earlier comment that while fit jumps are useful in competition (I play them in my methods) they are - as it theoretically seems to me, not having tried - much less useful without.

[PhilKing]

This was many years ago. I think I bought the book in 1993, and looked forward to the sequel, but it never happened. Is the partnership dead and buried now?

 

I agree with an earlier comment that while fit jumps are useful in competition (I play them in my methods) they are - as it theoretically seems to me, not having tried - much less useful without.

 

Oliver Segal is now a barrister and judge specialising in employment. No idea what happened to that Robson chap though. Robson doesn't play them (he plays a Bergen variant), but then he didn't write the book.

 

The trouble with fit jumps is that they are not a comprehensive system - you are stuck on scattered hands or end up making the bid when unsuitable. Also, they are a huge information leak when you just end up playing an uncontested game. The Bergen point/trump length oriented style at least has the merit of covering the entire range of hands without premature leakage, though I don't care for them myself.

[jogs]

Axxx x xxx AKxxx facing KQxxx xxx Ax QJx

 

11 opposite 12. Nearly cold for slam. Can only get there by playing fit jumps.

 

Expected tricks is more than just total high card points and total trumps.

It helps to have a double fit and a source of tricks.