Bergen raises

[luke warm]

eric, can you post a hand or two by way of example?

[Chamaco]

eric, can you post a hand or two by way of example?

Say pard opens 1S.

Responder holds:

 

Hand 1

Kxxx-Qxx-Jxxx-Jx

 

Hand 2

Txxx-x-QJTx-KJxx

 

Hand 3

Kxxx-xx-AJTxx-x

 

It is obvious the 3 hands are completely different, and an pener may have game/slam cold or even the partscore in jeopardy if the honors/distribution do not fit.

 

With hand 1, there is a "neutral mixed raise"

 

With hand 2, here is a "minisplinter" type (if you play them as mixed raise as I like to do and not invitational)

 

With hand 3 there is a fitshowingjump hand type.

 

Too many Bergen raisers will bid a mixed raise with hand 1.

To be fair, good players will just raise a constructive 2S even playing Bergen, reserving the mixed raise for hands which have a distributional feature rather than just bidding the hcp.

 

Yet, even when they do have a feature and bidding the mixed raise is justified, opener has very little bidding space left to find out which feature it is.

 

Instead, other systems allow for that, e.g.: you can use FJS for mixed raise with sidesuit; 2NT for invitational +; and minisplinter-type of hands may go via a constructive raise and then opener can use Romex 2-way game tries (to ask for help/shortness).

[EricK]

eric, can you post a hand or two by way of example?

[hv=w=skqjxxhjxxdakxxcx&e=saxxxhxdxxxxcqxxx]266|100|[/hv]

 

[hv=w=skqjxxhjxxdakxxcx&e=saxxxhxdxxxxcqxxx]266|100|[/hv]

 

If the bidding starts 1♠ 2♠, then opener can make a trial bid of 3♥ to see if partner can help him with his ♥ losers. In the first hand partner will accept in the second he will reject.

 

If responder bids immediately to the three level, then there will not be enough room for trial bids in each suit.

 

Eric

[Free]

eric, can you post a hand or two by way of example?

[hv=w=skqjxxhjxxdakxxcx&e=saxxxhxdxxxxcqxxx]266|100|[/hv]

 

[hv=w=skqjxxhjxxdakxxcx&e=saxxxhxdxxxxcqxxx]266|100|[/hv]

 

If the bidding starts 1♠ 2♠, then opener can make a trial bid of 3♥ to see if partner can help him with his ♥ losers. In the first hand partner will accept in the second he will reject.

 

If responder bids immediately to the three level, then there will not be enough room for trial bids in each suit.

 

Eric

Bergen raises leaves room open for trial bids (the way I play it). 3♣ shows 6-9 HCP, then you can bid 3♦ or 3♥ (when ♠s is trump).

[luke warm]

[hv=w=skqjxxhjxxdakxxcx&e=saxxxhxdxxxxcqxxx]266|100|[/hv]

 

[hv=w=skqjxxhjxxdakxxcx&e=saxxxhxdxxxxcqxxx]266|100|[/hv]

with the example hands, what do you recommend? 2S?

 

both hands (for me) are a king shy of a game forcing under j/s splinter... but playing bergen i'd bid 3D with each

[luke warm]

Say pard opens 1S.

Responder holds:

 

Hand 1

Kxxx-Qxx-Jxxx-Jx

 

Hand 2

Txxx-x-QJTx-KJxx

 

Hand 3

Kxxx-xx-AJTxx-x

if i held hand 1, i'd respond 2S to 1S but i would compete to 3S if i had to... having bid 2S, opener should know what i have... on hand 2 i'm tempted to show the splinter, but would not...3D would be my bid... hand 3 is a clear under j/s game force for me

[EricK]

[the hog]

My view on Bergen raises is as follows. They work quite well, however I am loth to give up invitational jumps to 3m, whether these be fit showing or just a 9-11 decent 6 carder.

 

To use 3C/D as raises seems a waste to me. I would prefer either that 2M can be a 4 card raise as well, or better still to use transfer raises - eg 1S 2H = raise in S, invit+, (2D here being transfer to H invit+). You lose the ability to show a C suit, granted, as 2C would be a trf to D or in a very sophisticated structure a general gf or relay.

 

The best bid in the Bergen structure is 1M 3M pre emptive.

 

Incidentally Bergen raises don't fit into a 4 card Major system well.

[luke warm]

Incidentally Bergen raises don't fit into a 4 card Major system well.

[tongue in cheek mode on] that's *very* true, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the law of total tricks [/tic mode off]

[david_c]

Perhaps it would make sense to play Bergen raises only after a 1♥ opening, not after 1♠. This is for two reasons:

 

1. When partner opens 1♥ and you have a fit, the pre-emptive aspect of Bergen raises is important because the opponents might have spades.

 

2. If you have an invitational hand without fit, it's easier to bid after a 1♥ opening than after 1♠, because you have the sequence 1♥:1NT,2-any:2♠ available. So invitational jumps not showing a fit are more useful after 1♠.

[awm]

One thing that's not been mentioned much is that there are two very different styles with regard to invites. Which style you play is pretty much determined by hands like this one given earlier.

 

♠Axxx

♥x

♦xxxx

♣Qxxx

 

Style (1): The hand given is a limit raise. Note that the given hand can make game opposite as little as:

 

♠KQxxx

♥xxx

♦xx

♣AKx

 

which is a minimum opener and unlikely to move opposite a simple raise to 2♠. Of course, the downside of this style is that opener might have a hand like:

 

♠KQxxx

♥AKx

♦xx

♣xxx

 

where even 3♠ is unlikely to make. And it's not clear how opener's supposed to know to bid game with the first hand and not with the second.

 

Style (2): The hand given is a single raise. This means opener may have to be more aggressive in trying for game. You'll still probably miss game on the first hand, but you'll get to play a making partial on the second.

 

Some of the other differences in styles:

 

(1) Opener's game tries after 1M-2M are very sound. Responder should generally bid game after such a try with ANY maximum single raise, or with a minimum single raise that has points in the right spots.

 

(2) Opener's game tries after 1M-2M are quite aggressive, potentially a 13-14 point hand with a singleton somewhere is enough. Responder should generally not bid game on a minimum, and should bid game on a good single raise only with points in the right place.

 

An interesting note is that a pair of partners who play opposite styles is likely to get into major trouble, so this is another area where having an agreement is more important than what you agree to.

 

My personal preference leans towards style (2), with some extra gadgets thrown in to distinguish distributional features below the game level. It strikes me that bergen raises work a lot better if you play style (1), since game tries opposite a "single raise" are less frequent when opener expects aggressive limit raises like the hand given (meaning that opener rarely has to make a try after the bergen mixed raise). I've met plenty of good players who play either of the two approaches, so I'd be hesitant to say that one is closer to "expert standard" than the other.

 

-- Adam