Undiscussed

[kenberg]

I was kibbing an I/A game when this hand came up, so it seems suitable for the I/A forum. It is a particularly strong example of a common problem.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt652hk7d8caj987&n=skj43hq4dkq52ct54&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1sd]266|200[/hv]

 

At this point there are quite a few possible bids for North

 

1. 2♣, Drury, played on over a double, anticipating either traditional response of 2♦ or the reverse response of 2♠ if the opening was light.

 

2. 2♦. reverse Drury with four card support.

 

3. 2NT, often called Jordan over a double, played as on opposite a third hand opening.

 

4. 3♦, Bergen, on after third seat openings and a double.

 

5. 3♣ Reverse Bergen, on after a third seat opening and a double.

 

6. 3♠, played as a limit raise.

 

Of course it's a frequent problem, and perhaps a somewhat unavoidable one, but I am thinking there should be at least a partial solution somewhere.

 

I was playing pick-up recently and partner wanted to play Bergen. I try to avoid this in pick-up games because of problems such as the above. "Let's play Bergen". "OK". Uh huh. On over a third seat opening? On over a double? I attempted toclarify this with partner but the communication wasn't working.

 

This I/A Forum has a pinned topic called "A primer on reverse bidding". This primer does not match my preferences in every detail (nothing ever does, I suppose), but I would happily agree with a pick-up "We do reverses as stated in the primer". It would be good to have more such guides. Convention cards, and certainly profiles, lack room for such detail, FD has room but is not practical for pick-up. Actually FD doesn't fit my way of thinking in general but that might just be me.

 

Anyway, I offer this up for discussion. I am not so much interested in which of 1 through 6 you regard as the best, or even in concentrating on third seat openings and doubles, rather I am interested in how to avoid having so many misunderstandings. I don't really mind, in a casual game, if the opponents explain their own bids to everyone including partner but when it has to happen on hand after hand I feel it fuels bad habits and detracts from the game.

[Vampyr]

1, 2, 4, 5 not normally played over a double. 3 and 6 seem mutually incompatible; if you are playing Jordan why would you also play a limit raise over a double? In any case, play whichever of those two that is your normal method. The third-seat opening is not an issue.

[diana_eva]

I probably play random more than the regular posters around here, so here's what I do in an undiscussed situation:

 

- if pd seems at all likely to not pass out 2nt, I bid that. In most systems it's some sort of a raise and it's not passable.

- if I have zero clues, pd is beginner or doesn't seem to be playing anything fancier than takeout x and stayman, i redouble, then raise spades. That usually works well enough.

[kenberg]

1, 2, 4, 5 not normally played over a double. 3 and 6 seem mutually incompatible; if you are playing Jordan why would you also play a limit raise over a double? In any case, play whichever of those two that is your normal method. The third-seat opening is not an issue.

 

You illustrate my point nicely. Imo, 1 or 2 is very useful over a double. We can all summon our experts, but I am pretty sure Mike Lawrence agrees with me, and in fact prefers 1 to 2. But my point was that when this auction occurred, no one had the slightest idea of what the next call actually would mean. Of course informally we can just explain. I am hoping we can find a way to do better.

 

 

At the table, North bid 3♠. South reasonably ( reasnonbly is my opinion of course0 took this as weak and shapely and opted for 4♠after East, with 2/5/4/2 shape and two side aces, tried 4♥. As near as I can tell, LOTT is off by a trick here. There are 18 total trump in spades and hearts, but as the cards lie there are 9 tricks in hearts, 8 in spades. So true par, meaning the result that would happen of the hands were bid and played face up, is 3♠X, off 1. In the real world, 3♠ (not doubled) off one scores decently and of course 4♥ off 1 scores very well for NS. And 3♠ making (it shouldn't) scores very well.

 

More or less any agreement would work here, as long as everyone is on the same page. That's what I was getting at.

[kenberg]

I probably play random more than the regular posters around here, so here's what I do in an undiscussed situation:

 

- if pd seems at all likely to not pass out 2nt, I bid that. In most systems it's some sort of a raise and it's not passable.

- if I have zero clues, pd is beginner or doesn't seem to be playing anything fancier than takeout x and stayman, i redouble, then raise spades. That usually works well enough.

 

Redoubling and then raising spades is, imo, a fine idea when you are not sure what partner thinks other bids would mean. Suppose for a moment it is not a third hand opening. Redoubling rules out a minimal hand, and then raising spades will assure him that you have some spades. With discussion, I regard that as showing exactly three spades.

With the third hand opening I far prefer Drury, but only if we have agreed. Over a double, I am not fond of Bergen regardless of the seating position.

 

Anyway, redoubling and then supporting spades could be number 7 in my list.

 

What I would like is a way to say: "You want Bergen? Fine. Here is how I understand it, when it is on, when it is off. We can play it this way, or I will play it your way if you tell me what it is." Or, preferably, we skip Bergen until and when we have time to discuss this.

[Vampyr]

You illustrate my point nicely. Imo, 1 or 2 is very useful over a double.

 

Maybe so, but I didn't say what I thouht was useful; I was commenting on what I thought was normal.

 

I am not sure why Jordan was not used if it was in the players' arsenal.

[kenberg]

Maybe so, but I didn't say what I thouht was useful; I was commenting on what I thought was normal.

 

I am not sure why Jordan was not used if it was in the players' arsenal.

 

The useful part was that what one player regards as normal, another player might not. Or, rather, the useful part was the illustration of this disagreement. For many, if they have agreed to play Drury, they understand this to mean on over a double You regard it as normal to play it as off over a double. The end result is frequent confusion at the table.

 

I did not mean that 1 through 6 were in the player's arsenal. Maybe I wasn't clear about that. I meant that 1-6 were all choices that some partnerships make. From what I have seen, Bergen raises are a particularly rich source of mis-communication. I have Bergen's books around somewhere but I have forgotten just what he recommends. My point is not which is best, but rather that there are several ideas, often strongly held ideas, about what is normal.

 

If I were the North hand, I think I would have adopted Diana's suggestion and re-doubled. How bad can it be? It's better than bidding 2♣ and playing it there.

[y66]

When Bob Hamman was In the Well almost 2 years ago, he and Eugene Hung had this exchange:

 

Eugene: Beyond “Hamman's Rule”, what would you say is your most important tip for advancing players to improve their game?

 

Bob: Keep your agreements simple. Review sessions after they are over. Review them dispassionately. Try to avoid emotional evaluations of the outcomes.

In a related comment, Hamman says "the most important thing is to know your agreements".

 

So, why don't more intermediates learn to play LC Standard or a similar, well-documented set of minimal, effective agreements as a baseline (not as their only system)? Good question. And why don't top bridge pros come out and endorse such a system for the good of the game? Maybe it seems too much like work.

[fromageGB]

If it is a pick-up or infrequent partner, then if I was playing Bergen I would assume it applies when passed, and also over a X. Surely you need partnership agreements to do anything else.

[diana_eva]

Funny enough right after posting here I had the exact same sequence with a pickup pd. I opened 1S in 3rd, opps doubled, my pd tanked for a bit then bid 2NT. Back to me, I tanked too, and passed LOL. He had the spade raise obv.

[gszes]

Funny enough right after posting here I had the exact same sequence with a pickup pd. I opened 1S in 3rd, opps doubled, my pd tanked for a bit then bid 2NT. Back to me, I tanked too, and passed LOL. He had the spade raise obv.

It is extremely unlikely 2n can ever be meant as an invite to 3N--p has a xx available and

(in theory) can always bid 2n later if neither you nor your partner wants to x the opps. This

thinking is why Jordan 2n is very popular.

[diana_eva]

It is extremely unlikely 2n can ever be meant as an invite to 3N--p has a xx available and

(in theory) can always bid 2n later if neither you nor your partner wants to x the opps. This

thinking is why Jordan 2n is very popular.

 

Yup, was just (yet another) example of how I seem smarter than I really am :D

[MrAce]

If you are not playing drury over double (i do play drury)

 

1♥-X-2♠

 

1♠-X- 2 or 3 ♥

 

can be used invitation hands with 3 card and 2 NT can be used invitations with 4 card. Or vice versa

[SteveMoe]

I like Bergen Raises Over Major And Double (BROMAD) even after passing...

2♣ = 3 card Limit 10-11

2♦ = 3 card Constructive 7+ to 9

2 M = 3/4 card raise 5-6

2 OM = 4 card Constructive 7+ to 9 (somewhat preemptive, but allow for a suit-showing double)

2N = 4 card Limit 10-11

3M = Preemptive 4+ card raise 0-5 minus

If unpassed, then limit becomes Limit +.

Issue: surrendering NF 2m bids.

[MrAce]

I like Bergen Raises Over Major And Double (BROMAD) even after passing...

2♣ = 4 card Limit 10-11

2♦ = 3 card Constructive 7+ to 9

2 M = 3/4 card raise 5-6

2 OM = 4 card Constructive 7+ to 9 (somewhat preemptive, but allow for a suit-showing double)

2N = 4 card Limit 10-11

3M = Preemptive 4+ card raise 0-5 minus

If unpassed, then limit becomes Limit +.

Issue: surrendering NF 2m bids.

 

What is the difference between 2♣ and 2 NT ?

[dickiegera]

I like Bergen Raises Over Major And Double (BROMAD) even after passing...

2♣ = 4 card Limit 10-11

2♦ = 3 card Constructive 7+ to 9

2 M = 3/4 card raise 5-6

2 OM = 4 card Constructive 7+ to 9 (somewhat preemptive, but allow for a suit-showing double)

2N = 4 card Limit 10-11

3M = Preemptive 4+ card raise 0-5 minus

If unpassed, then limit becomes Limit +.

Issue: surrendering NF 2m bids.

 

 

I play Reverse BROMAD where 2♣ is a 3 card limit

 

and this allows for a 4 card reverse BERGAN raise of 3♣ limit and 3 ♦constructive.

which is hardly ever used because 2NT also shows 4 card limit or better .

[mike777]

For BErgen players only

 

Bergen raises still on (at the 3 level) after x. also BRomad(wk and constructive raises) at the two level. Bergen theory of getting to the 3 level fast to shut out opp with 9 card fit. yes many hate this but that is Bergen.

drury is never played.(having a limit raise as a passed hand is very very rare. with 4 support we still bid 3d with 3 support we would still go through 1nt

 

1M=x=2c is natural.

xx=3 piece limit raise or better.(xx does not promise support, you have to raise later)( again as a passed hand almost never).

2nt=natural. but cannot remember last time it came up but it is there.

[Bbradley62]

I think that if you have agreed to play Jordan (aka Truscott in these parts), it is on after a third seat opening. There is no point at all to using 2NT to show 10-Opening points without support because that hand would redouble.

[aguahombre]

I thought this thread was going to go in a different direction....one where the result might be a set of default agreements about whether (and which) conventions are on or off in various situations, for pick-up partnerships in a pinned thread.

 

It could be printed out for f2f reference or become a BBO handy reference for on-line play.

 

When OP said he wasn't much interested in our evaluation of his #1 through 6, I guess I read it differently.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I like Bergen Raises Over Major And Double (BROMAD) even after passing...

2♣ = 4 card Limit 10-11

2♦ = 3 card Constructive 7+ to 9

2 M = 3/4 card raise 5-6

2 OM = 4 card Constructive 7+ to 9 (somewhat preemptive, but allow for a suit-showing double)

2N = 4 card Limit 10-11

3M = Preemptive 4+ card raise 0-5 minus

If unpassed, then limit becomes Limit +.

Issue: surrendering NF 2m bids.

 

Steve.... I see you have changed your Bromad replies .

The following was your structure back in 2/17/2013 :

 

Here

 

BROMAD (Bergen Raises over Major and Double) anyone?

2♣ = 3-card LR

2♦ = 3-card CR ( Constructive Raise )

2M = 3-card weak raise

2oM = 4-card CR

2NT = 4-card LR+ (Jordan)

3M = 4-card preemptive

3C/3D = fit-jumps

3H = fit-jump ( when Sp are trump )

[SteveMoe]

What is the difference between 2♣ and 2 NT ?

Typo! :rolleyes:

2♣ = 3 card LR.

Corrected above.

[SteveMoe]

Steve.... I see you have changed your Bromad replies .

The following was your structure back in 2/17/2013 :

 

Here

 

BROMAD (Bergen Raises over Major and Double) anyone?

2♣ = 3-card LR

2♦ = 3-card CR ( Constructive Raise )

2M = 3-card weak raise

2oM = 4-card CR

2NT = 4-card LR+ (Jordan)

3M = 4-card preemptive

3C/3D = fit-jumps

3H = fit-jump ( when Sp are trump )

Typo - again...apologies to all..

This list is more complete however...

[Vampyr]

I had thought that it was pretty standard to play jump shifts after a double as fit. I guess I was wrong.

[mike777]

I had thought that it was pretty standard to play jump shifts after a double as fit. I guess I was wrong.

 

 

Fit bidding even in 2014 confusing....less so for forum posters.

[kenberg]

I thought this thread was going to go in a different direction....one where the result might be a set of default agreements about whether (and which) conventions are on or off in various situations, for pick-up partnerships in a pinned thread.

 

It could be printed out for f2f reference or become a BBO handy reference for on-line play.

 

When OP said he wasn't much interested in our evaluation of his #1 through 6, I guess I read it differently.

 

You read it right. The best laid plans...

 

And yes, I contributed to the change of focus.