A better alternative to Bergen

[TylerE]

This was a system I was introduced to by a partner of mine - I am unsure if it's a creation of his, or something he learned from someone else, but I quite like it and have had good results playing it.

Bids are as follows.

 

1♠-1NT: Semi-forcing, never 3♠

1♠-2♠: Normal 3 card raise

1♠-2NT: Jacoby

1♠-3♣: 4 card raise, 6-12

1♠-3♣-3♦: Range ask

1♠-3♣-3♦-3♠: Minimum

1♠-3♣-3♦-Anything else: good 9-12, anything besides 4♠ shows a source of tricks. 3N suggests playing it there.

1♠-3♦: 3 card limit

1♠-3♠: Preemptive

 

 

There are a number of advantages of this system over standard Bergen raises....

 

• It allows you play 1N as only semi-forcing (Or I suppose, even non-forcing), if you wish.
  
• With a 4 card non-preemptive raise it hides responder's strength unless opener actually needs to know
  
• Always an immediate fit-showing bid with 3+ support
  
• Disambiguates the auction 1M-1N(*)-2x-2M (Now shows exactly 2 card support)
  

[Zelandakh]

I will once again give my major suit direct raise structure for you to compare with:

 

1M

==

2M = weak raise

2M+1 = mini-splinter or strong splinter (any shortage)

2M+2 = GF raise

2M+3 = limit raise

2M+4 = mixed raise

3M = preemptive raise

3M+1 = void splinter (any void)

3M+2,+3,+4 = singleton splinter

4M = preemptive

 

There are many many threads around on this topic if you run a search.

[Phil]

I think if you want to horse around here, its better to telescope all of your 4 card, non preemptive raises into 2♠ / 2N. There are some So Cal pairs that do this, and it seems to work OK. Of course, they also use 1M - 3x as a flower or mini-splinter, so I still question their intelligence.

 

In essence:

 

1♠ - 2N - 3♠ (a hand that does not going anywhere unless partner is GF)

1♠ - 2N - 3♣ (a hand that accepts opposite a limit raise but rejects a constructive raise, but I think this can be a club stiff and extras++).

Anything else = normal Jacoby response and extras ++

[TylerE]

I'm not sure how I feel about collapsing it down that far. Seems like that's vulnerable to interface, esp. at Unfav.

[jh51]

I don't know if he invented it, but the method you describe is discussed in Dr. Neil Timm's book 2/1 Game Force A Modern Approach. He calls the 3♣/3♦ bids combined Bergen raises. 3 of the other major is an ambiguous splinter. The next step (3♠ or 3NT) asks for the short suit.

[fromageGB]

1♠-3♣: 4 card raise, 6-12

1♠-3♣-3♦: Range ask

With a 4 card non-preemptive raise it hides responder's strength unless opener actually needs to know

This is a really huge range. Opener will always need to know, and there is no room to stop in 3M, so it is permanently hidden whether he wants to know or not.

[TylerE]

Huh?

 

Over 3♦ if responder has the 6-9 hand they bid 3♠, otherwise they bid something else. You can always stop in 3M over either 3♣ or 3♦.

 

As for opener needing to know - suppose opener is on a 5332 16 count. That probably wants to be in game opposite any hand with 6-12 with 4 card support, but isn't interested in slam (unless perhaps partner has good side suit, which they will show show over 3♦).

[Fluffy]

A better alternative to Bergeno Bergen

 

2♠ 6-10

3♠11-12

4♠13-16

 

 

This is better than bergen already :P

[jallerton]

This was a system I was introduced to by a partner of mine - I am unsure if it's a creation of his, or something he learned from someone else, but I quite like it and have had good results playing it.

Bids are as follows.

 

1♠-1NT: Semi-forcing, never 3♠

1♠-2♠: Normal 3 card raise

1♠-2NT: Jacoby

1♠-3♣: 4 card raise, 6-12

1♠-3♣-3♦: Range ask

1♠-3♣-3♦-3♠: Minimum

1♠-3♣-3♦-Anything else: good 9-12, anything besides 4♠ shows a source of tricks. 3N suggests playing it there.

1♠-3♦: 3 card limit

1♠-3♠: Preemptive

 

The main problem with this structure is that 3♣ covers such a wide range. Yes, opener can make an artificial game try in your structure to distinguish between 6-bad9 and good9-12, but that is all. If 1♠-3♣ shows a traditional limit raise, then Opener can still use 3♦ as an artificial game try, but now to distinguish (say) 9-10 from 11-12.

 

Worse still, if 4th hand makes an overcall above 3M, Opener will have to guess as he does not have the luxury of a game try available as the partnership has not shown enough strength to play pass as forcing.

 

There are a number of advantages of this system over standard Bergen raises....

 

• It allows you play 1N as only semi-forcing (Or I suppose, even non-forcing), if you wish.

 
Why's that an advantage? It's perfectly possible to include hands with 3-card support within the semi-forcing 1NT response. If Opener passes 1NT, that contract is often safer than 3M.
 
It's also perfectly playable for 3-card limit raises to start with a 2-level bid.
 

With a 4 card non-preemptive raise it hides responder's strength unless opener actually needs to know

Not for long, as there is normally a clue fom the sight of dummy! Of more consequence is that your 3♣ bid will make Opener reveal information about his hand strength (from the fact that he bid 3♦, or from he fact that he didn't bid 3♦).
 

Always an immediate fit-showing bid with 3+ support
Disambiguates the auction 1M-1N(*)-2x-2M (Now shows exactly 2 card support)

 

This is not necessarily an advantage either. If the opponents are considering whether to protect, it's much harder for them when they don't know whether you have a fit or not.

[glen]

A better alternative to Bergen would be Berkowitz

[blackshoe]

A better alternative to Bergen would be Berkowitz

What's a Berkowitz?

[glen]

What's a Berkowitz?

One of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz_(bridge)

[Cthulhu D]

I think if you want to horse around here, its better to telescope all of your 4 card, non preemptive raises into 2♠ / 2N. There are some So Cal pairs that do this, and it seems to work OK. Of course, they also use 1M - 3x as a flower or mini-splinter, so I still question their intelligence.

 

In essence:

 

1♠ - 2N - 3♠ (a hand that does not going anywhere unless partner is GF)

1♠ - 2N - 3♣ (a hand that accepts opposite a limit raise but rejects a constructive raise, but I think this can be a club stiff and extras++).

Anything else = normal Jacoby response and extras ++

 

Or even just put the 4 card limit raises and game forces in 2NT, then use the 3C as minimum style response structures you have advocated before. That strips the top end of the 6-12 bid out and makes it much more managable. A straight upgrade on the existing structure.

[Free]

3♣ is a huge range but could be playable. However you'll need more than 1 relay. For example 3♦ relay looking for non-minimum (say 3♠ rebid by responder shows 6-7), 3♥ relay looking for a maximum (3♠ is around 6-10).

[fromageGB]

Huh?

 

Over 3♦ if responder has the 6-9 hand they bid 3♠, otherwise they bid something else. You can always stop in 3M over either 3♣ or 3♦.

 

As for opener needing to know - suppose opener is on a 5332 16 count. That probably wants to be in game opposite any hand with 6-12 with 4 card support, but isn't interested in slam (unless perhaps partner has good side suit, which they will show show over 3♦).

 

3♣ is a huge range but could be playable. However you'll need more than 1 relay. For example 3♦ relay looking for non-minimum (say 3♠ rebid by responder shows 6-7), 3♥ relay looking for a maximum (3♠ is around 6-10).

What you are forgetting is that the red ones with rounded tops are hearts, and if 3♦is an inquiry/relay, there can be only a 2-way split, not 3, or the 4 that I would prefer if the range really is 6-12. And there is only one relay available.

 

Oh, you could of course play Tyler over 1♠ and Bergen over 1♥.

[blackshoe]

One of these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz_(bridge)

Him I know, or at least I know of him. Berkowitz the convention? Never heard of it, until this thread.

[PhilKing]

Him I know, or at least I know of him. Berkowitz the convention? Never heard of it, until this thread.

 

Er, Larry Cohen decided that Dave Berkowitz was a better alternative to Marty Bergen. :ph34r:

[jogs]

This was a system I was introduced to by a partner of mine - I am unsure if it's a creation of his, or something he learned from someone else, but I quite like it and have had good results playing it.

Bids are as follows.

 

1♠-1NT: Semi-forcing, never 3♠

 

Do you mean never 3 spades?

 

1♠-2♠: Normal 3 card raise

 

With 4333, 2♠ is high enough. Oftentimes, even with 4432 2♠ is high enough.

 

Hand from the past. 3424 with 7 HCP. 1♥-3♣, 3♥ all pass.

3♥-1. It was a push. Opponents were also playing bergen.

1♥-2♥ all pass, would have been a winner.

[blackshoe]

Er, Larry Cohen decided that Dave Berkowitz was a better alternative to Marty Bergen. :ph34r:

Ah, I see. I missed the joke. Oh, well. :lol:

[GreenMan]

Kleinman and Straguzzi suggest:

 

3♣: 7-8 or 11-12. 3♦ by opener asks which.

3♦: 9-10.

 

You'll have to add the 3-card LR to the 1NT response, but that's no biggie.

[fromageGB]

Kleinman and Straguzzi suggest:

3♣: 7-8 or 11-12. 3♦ by opener asks which.

3♦: 9-10.

I can't see the point of this. With hearts trumps I play

3♣ = 7-10; 3♦ asks

3♦ = 11-12

and it achieves the same thing, but with the advantages of not having to remember a split range, the ask is bid less often, and a stronger 3♦ reply facilitates a cheap cue from opener when he is very strong. With a possibly strong 3♣ you are higher by the time the strength is confirmed.

 

What is the benefit of splitting range?

[glen]

I can't see the point of this. With hearts trumps I play

3♣ = 7-10; 3♦ asks

3♦ = 11-12

and it achieves the same thing, but with the advantages of not having to remember a split range, the ask is bid less often, and a stronger 3♦ reply facilitates a cheap cue from opener when he is very strong. With a possibly strong 3♣ you are higher by the time the strength is confirmed.

 

What is the benefit of splitting range?

Chthonic found it easier to remember.

 

I think you want to reduce the times you ask with 3♦, and 7-8/11-12 is the worst for that. I like:

3♣ = 9-12; 3♦ asks

3♦ = 7-8

 

With my wife we played 3♦ as split, 7-8 or 15+ with 5+ support.