Responder's first bid

[wclucas42]

So I found myself responding to this hand with a pick up partner. With our 5 minute discussion before the evening started he requested we play Bergen Raises. We agreed it should include use of intervening 1NT -3M on 10-12 point hands w/ 3 card support, 3NT as a major raise and nebulous splinters and how to ask, all very standard. Seeing no problem with that we started playing. This hand presented itself and it led to a bit of a discussion

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa76hj85dj972caqj&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp]133|200[/hv]

 

 

 

 

 

After the hand completed, I was asked why I didn't bid 3NT, I suggested that Jack 3rd and Jack 4th in the red suits didn't live up to the stoppers in the unbid suit requirement for the Bergen 3NT raise. The contention was the balanced hand should require the 3NT raise and let opener make the call

 

The full auction went

 

1 ♠ - (P) - 2 ♣ - (P)

 

2 ♦ - (P) - 3 ♠* - (P

 

4 ♠ - All Pass

 

* 3 ♠ Fast arrival like bid to limit the hand to a minimum 2 over 1 response and deny interest in slam without significant extras from opener. If opener rebid spades, I would have jumped to game, but was trying to be a good partner and give him a chance to speak

 

 

 

 

 

[mgoetze]

You should feel lucky if you and your partner agreed on 3NT being a spade raise at all. Many people take "Bergen Raises" to apply first and foremost to the 3♣ and 3♦ bids. Furthermore some people play Reverse Bergen Raises (yuck) and think they are playing normal Bergen Raises.

 

Honestly, the most practical bid in a pickup partnership, even if you have managed to squeeze in 5 minutes of discussion, is 4♠.

 

Meanwhile, of your choices I like 2♦ best. While I prefer a style where 2♦ shows 5 and 2♣ can be a doubleton in a regular partnership, I believe that both showing 4 cards is more widespread and easier to deal with in a pickup partnership.

 

Further, I would dispute that 3♠ is a "fast arrival bid", as you haven't arrived.

[Jinksy]

I'd normally just bid my suit, but here it's so disgusting that I'm torn between it and 2♣, which could systemically be three cards if 3433 exactly - which this isn't far from. I voted 2♣, but I think I've already changed my mind to 2♦, to deter a lead against a possible 3N.

 

Not touching 3N with a pickup P. I have no idea how they'll take it, so we could end up playing there when they have 5♥s running against us, or not playing there when it's the only making contract.

[wclucas42]

You should feel lucky if you and your partner agreed on 3NT being a spade raise at all. Many people take "Bergen Raises" to apply first and foremost to the 3♣ and 3♦ bids. Furthermore some people play Reverse Bergen Raises (yuck) and think they are playing normal Bergen Raises.

 

Honestly, the most practical bid in a pickup partnership, even if you have managed to squeeze in 5 minutes of discussion, is 4♠.

 

Meanwhile, of your choices I like 2♦ best. While I prefer a style where 2♦ shows 5 and 2♣ can be a doubleton in a regular partnership, I believe that both showing 4 cards is more widespread and easier to deal with in a pickup partnership.

 

Further, I would dispute that 3♠ is a "fast arrival bid", as you haven't arrived.

 

It was an IRL game (for a change) and my partner was a much more experienced player than I am, not that that is hard. We talked through Bergen raises to make sure we were on the same page including 3NT, nebulous splinters and how to ask.

 

My 2 ♣ was a generic game force, which we didn't discuss. 2 ♦ for me shows 5 as well, and my 2 clubs was bid out of habit, so that's on me. I agree the jump in spades isn't strictly fast arrival by definition, hence the parenthesis. My logic was the 2 ♦ new suit still left his hand unlimited and suggest we had side fit. A jump to 4 ♠ wouldn't allow for cue bidding at the 4 level. Since we were already in a game forcing auction consuming unnecessary space denotes weaker GF hands. He didn't seem to take any issue with the jump raise at the time...

 

Also every partner is a pick up partner it seems, so I just stick to my card and any agreements we make before the game. I'd rather discuss my system's pros and cons rather than those of a safety bid.

[wclucas42]

I'd normally just bid my suit, but here it's so disgusting that I'm torn between it and 2♣, which could systemically be three cards if 3433 exactly - which this isn't far from. I voted 2♣, but I think I've already changed my mind to 2♦, to deter a lead against a possible 3N.

 

Not touching 3N with a pickup P. I have no idea how they'll take it, so we could end up playing there when they have 5♥s running against us, or not playing there when it's the only making contract.

 

I left out from the original poll question that it was known ahead of time that a jump to 3NT would be taken as part of the Bergen treatment... I still didn't like it though for your line of reasoning, and as for the result there was 5 hearts against us and 3NT went down where it was played. That evidence though is ad-hoc, hence the question.

[wclucas42]

I agree the jump in spades isn't strictly fast arrival by definition, hence the parenthesis.

 

Oops, apologies, I seemed to have trampled on the parenthesis somewhere along the line. As it read I completely agree. with the "not fast arrival" comment.

[mike777]

1ntsf

 

 

If pard passes I will be fine

9 loser hand.

 

planning on rebidding 3s.

[mikeh]

delete: miscounted the hand

 

I originally posted 1N then 3♠ but with 13 hcp, no matter how awful, and these are awful, I can't do that. It is not that I think game is favourite. However, I think at mps the entire field will be in game and I always assume that my partner can outplay the field so on this sort of hand I want to be in the field contract. If game makes, and we miss it, we get a zero. If game fails, and we bid it, we rate to get average plus or better (since MY partner is more likely to bring it home than most).

 

As for how to bid it: I bid 1N anyway, but follow it with either 4♠ or 3N.

 

I don't think the natural auction of 1♠ 1N 2x 3N exists, so I think it should show this hand, but since I doubt I have discussed it, I will bid 4♠.

[cherdano]

delete: miscounted the hand

Haha, I did the same first. Really tempting to miscount this one!

[kuhchung]

maybe you guys didn't miscount! :)

[MrAce]

To be honest I am all for 1 NT and then 3♠.

[whereagles]

I'd certainly not nag pard if he were to bid 1NT-3♠ on this hand. Trouble is, in practice this is an anti-field bid which can very well result in an "unlucky expert"-type zero, i.e. pard passes and game is on regardless.

 

Since 3NT is a very possible contract as well, despite the fit, I might start with 2♦. If pard now bids 2NT, I'll raise to 3. Else I'd bid 4♠.

[MrAce]

If the hand looked like worth of 12 hcp, I would agree with those who forces to game for the sake of the field. The reason I choose to invite is that I do not think it is a close call. It is an obvious invite to me. And when I say that note that in my some number of bridge background, I did not do this more than at most 2 times. It is not something I like. But this hand....man it is ugly as Mike said and I will not be field slave when it looks too obvious to me.

 

 

This hand is not even worth of 12 hcp to me. I maybe wrong of course but this is what I see when I look at this hand.

[kgr]

3NT as a major raise

How is this Major raise defined?

I have agreement with my partner that 3NT is 3c-support, 4333 and 12-14. I would bid 3NT with your example hand (but not very happy about it, I would rather prefer Q's instead of J's and K's iso A's).

[the hog]

2C of course, unless you still play 1NT as forcing.

[MrAce]

I just KnR'ed this hand, guess what is it worth? http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif

[helene_t]

1nt followed by 4♠ is not crazy if you want to raise spades anyway.

 

I voted 3NT because I believe this shows this hand and gives partner a choice.

 

If I where to bid a minor I would bid 2♣. This shows only three. It will only sound like four if p is 5404 and infers that I must have four clubs when I don't raise hearts. In that case I will have to correct 6♣ to 6♠ which will play well with my rubbish diamonds opposite partner's void. So I don't see the merit of 2♦.

[Trinidad]

If you have agreed on a bid for this hand type then just use it. So, I would bid 3NT.

 

Rik

[wclucas42]

How is this Major raise defined?

I have agreement with my partner that 3NT is 3c-support, 4333 and 12-14. I would bid 3NT with your example hand (but not very happy about it, I would rather prefer Q's instead of J's and K's iso A's).

 

 

We'll that's pretty much how I understand it. Although I thought it was all balanced shapes, and implicitly promises stoppers... I felt better about 4 hearts than 3 NT. This really gets to the crux though... Is the 3NT bid on shape alone or am I promising more?

 

Thanks,

[wclucas42]

If you have agreed on a bid for this hand type then just use it. So, I would bid 3NT.

 

Rik

 

I thought my 3 NT was an overbid, like I said I didn't see my hand delivering what I thought it promised.

 

 

 

[wclucas42]

Thanks for the comments everyone... As always a fair amount to think through. Hope everyone enjoys their year end holidays and festivities...

 

 

 

 

[whereagles]

This hand is not even worth of 12 hcp to me. I maybe wrong of course but this is what I see when I look at this hand.

 

Well, I agree those red jacks are probably worthless playing spades. But playing NT they might be worth something.

[iandayre]

I thought my 3 NT was an overbid, like I said I didn't see my hand delivering what I thought it promised.

 

 

 

i would bid 3nt. But if you think your hand isn't good enough to force game, make the delayed limit raise. Yes, there is an argument for it with the loose Jacks. But if you miss a makeable game, I don't think partner will be too happy. Any other call is nonsense in my opinion.

[masonbarge]

You have to bid 3NT. It is the correct Bergen bid - there is no requirement of stoppers, just balanced distribution.

 

If you "operate" instead of making the correct system bid, you will have problems in the future.