Bergen Raises - Meaning Of 3C And 3D

[pbleighton]

In the notes for BB-Advanced 3C is specified as showing a limit raise, which means presumably that 3D is constuctive (7-10 points). The book I am learning from (Thurston), uses reversed meanings, but makes a reference a modern treatment reversing the meanings. A quick Google tour showed a split of views.

 

My question: what can I assume at BBO - or can I assume nothing and clarify with each partner who agrees to play Bergen?

[inquiry]

First there is sound logic that 3Diamond should be the stronger hand of the two bids (3C and 3D), but it doesn't have to be. Let me show you with a simple example.

 

1H - (P) - 3D - (P)        

?                              

 

and

 

1H - (P) - 3C - (P)

?

 

in the first case, over 3D, opener has no way to ask responder if he on "top" of his 3D bid or not. Opener has no choice but to bid 3H or 4H. On the second auction, however, opener can bid 3D over his partner's 3C bid, to ask partner to bid game if he is on top of his bid.

 

So however you play 3C and 3D, the 3D bid should have the less wide range. I like to have a larger range with weaker hands, so here is how I play it. 2H has 0-6 and 3 card support, 3H has 0-7 hand 4 card support, 3C is 7-10, and 3D is 11-12.  My range varies a point or two from many others.

[pbleighton]

To inquiry - interesting logic!

I think you have a typo in 2H - did you mean 6-10 points?

Also - what can/do you assume about which bid is the 10-12 and which is the 7-10 when an unknown player agrees to play Bergen with you? Do you ask?

[dageaux]

on my cc it says "reverse bergen." this means 3c is 10-12 limit and 3d is 7-9 constructive. if i read 'bergen raises' on someone's card i assume it is the opposite of mine.

 

1h - 2h shows 8-9 with exactly 3. with fewer points i start with 1nt.

[inquiry]

To inquiry - interesting logic!

I think you have a typo in 2H - did you mean 6-10 points?

Also - what can/do you assume about which bid is the 10-12 and which is the 7-10 when an unknown player agrees to play Bergen with you? Do you ask?

 

No, I didn't mean 6-10 points. I meant more or less 0-6. I have to warn you that this is the way I play. I am a tad bit agreesive with support. My regular partner will know that I am very weak for this raise (and I alert it when playing with them). Now, in the BBO, don't go raising to 2H on  

     S-x H-Q93 D-xxxxx C-xxxx

 

unless you have discussed this with your partner (and you alert 2H). Playing with a pick up partner, like 2over1 for instance, I would have to pass with this hand. After I pass, is there any chance your opponents will not find their minimum 8 card spade fit? Will your RHO not reopen everytime, perhaps with 1S limiting his hand or 1NT limiting it even more?  Maybe with a 2S showing significant reopenign and good suit? They are on their way after a pass to sharing their information easily. So while I realize that my choice will not be a popular one for playing the bid, I don't hesitiate to share it with you. Playing without this agreement you have to pass. If you would raise to 2H because of the stiff spade, give yourself one more spade and one less minor card. I would still raise. (Again, when I sit down with out discussing this and only agreed Bergen, I adjust my ranges to the more typical ones). Now to a more typical:

 

 2H = 7+-10 points, 3 card suit

 3C = 8-10 points, 4 card support (or offensive 7 pts)

 3D = 11-12 points, 4 card support

 4H = 0-7 four card suit

 

(I don't make the 3D three point range as recommend by many others, because of the lost of invitation I told you about). The constructive 2H raise (8-10) works well enough on the hands you hold it on, but the forcing notrump with weaker 3 card support leads to problems in compettive auctions, like

 

1H-P-1NT-2S           or    1H-P-1NT-X

P-P-?                       .........                                                 P-2S-?

 

Can you risk raising to 3H on three card support and a poor hand? Of course not. Can partner risk 3H competitively not knowing if you have three card support or are very short in hearts? With a good hand (8-10) you will be more comfortable or at least have reasonable defense.

[bglover]

How did i get involved in this?????  LOL

[inquiry]

Because it is clear from other post that we have no established agreements (exactly the situation I was talking about here), so using this using you as an example partner seemed most expedient. But I should obviously play down the middle (standard) with any partner (essentially the entire world) without such agreements. I wanted to make sure I conveyed this to pbleighton, whose post make it clear that he is struggling with the fact so many people play the same conventions so differently. I certainly didn't want to leave teh impression that my way was anywhere near standard. And using you, "2over1" as a generic partner (becuase of your name and the fact that it is clear we have no specific agreements) was to put it into prespective to illustrate exactly this point.  :)  

[keylime]

Bergen raises...yuckos; it tells me values and fit but nothing about the nature of responder's hand. I don't play Bergen at all, not even with experienced players -- I play Romex Suit Raises, which tells me degree of fit, range, shortage/flat/limit/splinter, and values in ONE bid.

[dageaux]

Bergen raises...yuckos; it tells me values and fit but nothing about the nature of responder's hand. I don't play Bergen at all, not even with experienced players -- I play Romex Suit Raises, which tells me degree of fit, range, shortage/flat/limit/splinter, and values in ONE bid.

 

bergen raises do those things also, eh? 3c shows 10-12 hcp, 4+ card support, no stiff or void

 

i know a lot of people don't like/play them, but i'm fond of the whole bergen structure

[keylime]

I will admit freely that there are some concepts of Bergen that makes sense, but his raise structure...well maybe....

 

His 2NT G/F raise is the say the least, interesting reading. :)

[Mike]

I tend to agree with the unconvenient feelings towards the "Bergen Raises" that leads sometimes ad-hoc partnerships to disaster.

 

(Let us disregard now the lack of proper judgement which is more important than parotting certain gadgets.)

 

Seemingly, Bergen raises are not too much appreciated by the author himself. I found exactly 7 pages that could be associated with the subject convention, among Bergen's countless, much-much more interesting writings. Wish, if those guys using or rather abusing the subject convention, once would read one of his books to get acquanted with the real wit of Marty Bergen.

 

Using the LOW does not mean one shall shoot on the foot by scooping up the bidding space available, lol.

 

Instead of discussing the merits or demerits of the convention, I rather pass some not so bad ideas how to defend against, waiting your comments:

 

"For dealing with an opponent's Bergen raise, which can often make fourth to bid quite uncomfortable I have been using an  "off-the-cuff" agreement:

 

If it's the weak hand, double is cards

 

If it's the stronger hand, double is penalty

 

Does anyone have a more thoughtful approach?

 

The two great weaknesses of Bergen Raises are:

 

1) They can never play at the two level with a nine card fit and moderate values.  Especially for pairs that open in "Rule of 20" Bergen style, this risks them going down in 3M when others in the room are making 2M or going plus by defending.

 

2) The raise says nothing about other possibly mportant shape information in the hand and robs them of the space they need to get such information. Thus a  Bergen pair will have a hard time getting to or staying  out of games that are dependant on how  well the  hands fit in the side suits.

 

In short, the treatment has much of its own punishment built in.

 

However, that doesn't mean you can't do things to put more pressure on them.  The modern variant of Bergen uses 1M-3M preemptive, 1H-2S or 1S-3H as a WJS, 1M-3D to show the weaker 4+ card raise (but not weak enough for 1M-4M if a 5+ card raise) and 1M-3C for a Limit Raise with 4+ cards. So, how to defend:

 

1) vs 1M-3M preemptive.

 

Since they have a 9+ card fit and low to moderate values, we will have at least one 8+ card fit and may very well have more HCP than they do.  Thus 1M-p-3M-X or 1M-p-3M-p-p-X should be for T/O based on very disciplined shape, value location, and vulnerability ratio concerns.  If we are disciplined enough pard will know when to convert to a profitable penalty.  A cuebid of the major should be the kind of hand one associates with Leaping Michaels vs Weak Twos: a (big) two suiter.

 

2) vs 1H-2S or 1S-3H WJS.  

 

Clearly it's safer to compete vs 1H-2S than 1S-3H.  X for T/O with moderately minor suit oriented hands, 2N for definitely minor suit oriented hands, and cuebid either major asking pard to bid 3N with a stop.  Vs 1S-3H X for T/O rarely with a shape hand that really doesn't want to defend unless the hand is a complete misfit, 3N has to be natural, and 3S the Western Cue (asking pard to bid 3N with a S stop).

 

3) vs 1M-3D (or 1M-3C (if they're playing the older variant of Bergen).

 

Game for us is unlikely.  X is T/O of the major.  Cuebid is Michaels (if they have a 9+ card fit, we rate to have a 9+ card fit or two 8 card fits.  We are guaranteed to have at least one 8 card fit).

 

4) vs 1M-3C (or 1M-3D if they're playing the older variant of Bergen).

 

Since this shows a decent fit and Limit Raise values, competing here is tantamount to suggesting a sacrifice and/or how to defend.  X should be lead directing in their artificial minor, and may suggest a sacrifice at Favorable or White All.  A cuebid of the major should show a two suiter with massive shape."

 

Sry not to be short enough!