2 over 1 and Bergen raises (law of total tricks)

[arepo24]

Is it absolutely necessary to play 2 over 1 when wanting to do a Bergen raise?

Ex: Partner bids a heart and I have 4 hearts but only 6 points. May I simply use the Law of Total Tricks and jump right to 3 hearts, or must I institute the 2 over 1 rule?

[DavidKok]

2/1 and Bergen Raises, although often played together, are not the same thing. Usually if you adopt Bergen raises to show points and 4+ fit it is poor bridge to use the direct jump to 3♥ to mean the same thing. 6 points is the exact edge case, where you could go either way depending on if it's a 'good' 6 points or a 'bad' 6 points, but ultimately this is something you and your partner have to decide. It is not against the rules to have multiple bids with overlapping meanings.

[arepo24]

In Marty Bergen's book "Points Schmoints" he has a chapter where he shows how you could have 0 points and still employ the Law of TT. Even if you go down 2 you still come out a winner by stopping the ops from getting to game. In most cases though your partner will make the hand.

His last quote is: "You like points? I like trumps. En garde!"

[smerriman]

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by the "2 over 1 rule when wanting to do a Bergen raise". As far as I can tell these have no relation to each other (one is bidding 2C/2D over 1H to show a game force, one is bidding at the three level to show a heart raise).

[Stephen Tu]

Bergen raises are a mostly independent selection from 2/1 GF vs. not 2/1. The only prerequisite is 5 cd majors.

 

There is one significant interaction though ... they remove the ability to use the jump shifts in minors as invitational. When combined with 2/1 as an absolute GF (as opposed to older style "Lawrence style 2/1", where rebidding a 2/1 suit by responder in most sequences is inv only, as in Eastern Scientific/Aces Scientific), this leaves a bit of a hole in the system. When you happen to hold the 6 bagger inv minor, you more or less have to do one of:

• overbid and just GF 2/1 anyway
• bid 1nt planning on bidding 2nt, possibly missing better partial in the minor
• on the low end of the invite bid 1nt then 3m and maybe miss game

In my experience being forced to play this combo, this problem hand doesn't come up very often, and alternate paths will reasonably often luck into a good spot anyway, so it's not a huge cost.

[AL78]

Bergen raises are a mostly independent selection from 2/1 GF vs. not 2/1. The only prerequisite is 5 cd majors.

 

There is one significant interaction though ... they remove the ability to use the jump shifts in minors as invitational. When combined with 2/1 as an absolute GF (as opposed to older style "Lawrence style 2/1", where rebidding a 2/1 suit by responder in most sequences is inv only, as in Eastern Scientific/Aces Scientific), this leaves a bit of a hole in the system. When you happen to hold the 6 bagger inv minor, you more or less have to do one of:

• overbid and just GF 2/1 anyway
• bid 1nt planning on bidding 2nt, possibly missing better partial in the minor
• on the low end of the invite bid 1nt then 3m and maybe miss game

In my experience being forced to play this combo, this problem hand doesn't come up very often, and alternate paths will reasonably often luck into a good spot anyway, so it's not a huge cost.

 

One of my bridge partners plays Bergen raises. Her interpretation is as follows:

 

1M - 2M: 4-9 HCP 3 card support

1M - 3♣: 10-12 HCP, 3 card support

1M - 3♦: 8-11 HCP, 4 card support

1M - 3M: 0-7 HCP, 4 card support

 

In this sense the 3m responses are effectively invitational hands, showing different levels of trump support. Is that what you meant by invitational, or did you mean something like a jump fit?

[blackshoe]

One of my bridge partners plays Bergen raises. Her interpretation is as follows:

 

1M - 2M: 4-9 HCP 3 card support

1M - 3♣: 10-12 HCP, 3 card support

1M - 3♦: 8-11 HCP, 4 card support

1M - 3M: 0-7 HCP, 4 card support

 

In this sense the 3m responses are effectively invitational hands, showing different levels of trump support. Is that what you meant by invitational, or did you mean something like a jump fit?

IMO, your partner shouldn't be calling that "Bergen Raises". At least, she's not playing what Bergen named "Bergen Raises".

[Stephen Tu]

In this sense the 3m responses are effectively invitational hands, showing different levels of trump support. Is that what you meant by invitational, or did you mean something like a jump fit?

I meant natural and invitational. So 1S-3c showing *clubs*. Without this treatment, if playing 2/1 as an absolute GF (rather than styles where you can rebid the 2/1 suit as inv only), there is a hole I described, as bidding 1s-1nt-?-3c on like 5-11 is too wide a range for partner to act intelligently over. You have to overbid some hands (2/1 on some 10/11 counts) and/or bid some offshape 1nt-...-2nt on some of them, and hope to land on your feet.

 

[arepo24]

Very enlightening.

To me Bergen raises are only done in the majors by my partner and me, but I found your 1M-3D support with 4D and 8-11 HCP a learning experience and I intend to use it. Normally, with Bergen I would have still bid 3 of the M just like I would with the 0-7 HCP, instead of showing 4D. But I see that with 8-11 HCP and 4D our hands together are more powerful because my hand is better. It may not be a Bergen bid but it is another alternative (if my partner agrees)

Thanks

[smerriman]

I think you're misunderstanding something here - nobody in this thread has suggested 1M - 3m being major support with 4m.

 

For me - and what Stephen Tu is describing - 1M-3m *denies* major support and shows 6+m with an invitational hand. The type of hand that you can't really bid by starting with a forcing 1NT and then bidding the minor the next time, because you would also bid the same way with a long minor and a weak hand where you want partner to pass. This only applies if you're playing 2/1.

 

If your 4D was a typo for 4M, and that was a reply to AL78, then I would suggest sticking with the standard Bergen definitions, where 3D is 10-12 with 4 card support for the major. 8-11 seems an odd range and there's no need to use 3C for 10-12 with three card support since you can do that by bidding 1NT first. (Edit, except if not playing a forcing notrump, in which case I guess it's a new suit followed by a raise).

[AL78]

IMO, your partner shouldn't be calling that "Bergen Raises". At least, she's not playing what Bergen named "Bergen Raises".

 

Having had a quick look on line as to the definition of Bergen raises, I see what you mean. I don't know where she got her current structure from. It appears Bergen was designed with a forcing NT in mind. I don't play forcing NT, so the way to show an invitational raise is to change suit then support partner at the three level. This does seem to negate one of the advantages of the five card major system when holding an invitational hand, the ability to immediately show support with three cards, we end up with the same auction as the four card major Acol players (1M - 2X - 2Y - 3M).

[smerriman]

This does seem to negate one of the advantages of the five card major system when holding an invitational hand, the ability to immediately show support with three cards, we end up with the same auction as the four card major Acol players (1M - 2X - 2Y - 3M).

I would have said the opposite - the ability to go slow and both get an extra descriptive bid in while still showing the 3 card support is a good thing, rather than (in your partner's system) having to go straight to the three level and not be sure where to go from there.

 

I do wonder how that partner plays the delayed raise if 3 card support is shown in another way though.

[Vampyr]

To provide a quick answer to the OP, it seems that Bergen Raises and 2/1 GF are not hugely compatible.

 

For me Bergen raises are all 4-cards, and a 3-card invitational raise is as above, start with a 2/1.

[smerriman]

To provide a quick answer to the OP, it seems that Bergen Raises and 2/1 GF are not hugely compatible.

Not at all. 2/1 and Bergen are completely compatible. It's Bergen and IJS which are (obviously) not compatible.

[AL78]

I would have said the opposite - the ability to go slow and both get an extra descriptive bid in while still showing the 3 card support is a good thing, rather than (in your partner's system) having to go straight to the three level and not be sure where to go from there.

 

I do wonder how that partner plays the delayed raise if 3 card support is shown in another way though.

 

It is a double edged sword. The extra descriptive bid can show how well the hands fit, but it also gives the opponents extra information for the defence, and it allows them to come in more cheaply than directly supporting opener's major at the three level.

[Vampyr]

Not at all. 2/1 and Bergen are completely compatible. It's Bergen and IJS which are (obviously) not compatible.

 

What other ways are there to treat invitational hands though?

 

From what you wrote about IJS it is obvious (and well-known) that 2/1 GF is not too effective when you don’t have a GF hand. Invitational hands are a problem, and you get too high with no known fit if you use these jump shifts, or else you have to immediately categorise a hand as non-constructive or GF. It seem to me that you will often let the opponents in early if you have to wait for a sound opening bid.

[Stephen Tu]

What other ways are there to treat invitational hands though?

 

From what you wrote about IJS it is obvious (and well-known) that 2/1 GF is not too effective when you don't have a GF hand. Invitational hands are a problem, and you get too high with no known fit if you use these jump shifts, or else you have to immediately categorise a hand as non-constructive or GF. It seem to me that you will often let the opponents in early if you have to wait for a sound opening bid.

 

It's a bigger problem in theory than in practice. I ran some sims and I think maybe 3% of the time you have an inv minor hand having heard partner open a major you don't fit? The hand just doesn't come up a lot. Plus RHO bids on some of them and then 2/1 GF is off for most people.

It's probably worth getting slightly worse results on some hands to trade for better game and slam bidding on many others.

 

Like I said you can just choose to GF some of the inv hands anyway, and will survive a decent percent of them when partner has extras and was going to game anyway, or the hands fit well, or the opps misdefend.Or you can bid 1nt then 2nt on some of them, and do OK in 2nt/3nt, or maybe 3M/4M when partner rebids a major. Or sometimes partner even bids your minor for you and you can raise. Or sometimes partner rebids 2c and you can jump to 3d for the same effect as an immediate IJS.

 

And one could always go to old style Lawrence 2/1 where most 2/1 sequences are GF but something like 1s-2c-2h-3c isn't.

I've had a bunch of partners who like both 2/1 GF and Bergen, I dread the problem in theory, but it seems to hardly ever come up and it's not automatic disaster when it does, and sometimes it's even a win.

 

[arepo24]

After reading further, I have decided to go back to what works best for me on my Bergen "Points Schmoints" page. It works like a charm most times -- why mess around.

Thanks all.

Hope y'all have lots of NO TRUMP.

[AL78]

IMO, your partner shouldn't be calling that "Bergen Raises". At least, she's not playing what Bergen named "Bergen Raises".

 

My partner picked up Bergen raises from Sally Brock's Book 'Easy Guide to 5 card majors', in which was written the bidding structure I posted earlier.

[arepo24]

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by the "2 over 1 rule when wanting to do a Bergen raise". As far as I can tell these have no relation to each other (one is bidding 2C/2D over 1H to show a game force, one is bidding at the three level to show a heart raise).

Agree. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

[fromageGB]

2/1 GF (by agreement) does not have to be absolutely GF. I and probably many others play that 2♣ may not be, with multiple meanings. My 2♣ followed by 2M shows 11/12 and 3 card support, 2♣ followed by 3M shows 13+ and 3 card support. The Bergen type 3-level support responses are therefore 4 cards or more, and I am convinced this is the better approach than having 3-card support in there.

[pescetom]

Agree. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

 

The majority of bridge players in the world play some form of 2/1.

A search for "Bergen" in Bridge World Standard 2017 produces no results.

[blackshoe]

Having had a quick look on line as to the definition of Bergen raises, I see what you mean. I don't know where she got her current structure from. It appears Bergen was designed with a forcing NT in mind. I don't play forcing NT, so the way to show an invitational raise is to change suit then support partner at the three level. This does seem to negate one of the advantages of the five card major system when holding an invitational hand, the ability to immediately show support with three cards, we end up with the same auction as the four card major Acol players (1M - 2X - 2Y - 3M).

Alan DeSerpa suggested (The Two Club Marionette) playing 2♣ as an artificial bid, a marionette to 2♦, after which responder can show various raises. This replaces 1NT Forcing, and the 1NT response reverts to natural, about 6 to 10 points. Looks interesting, though I haven't had a chance to try it out yet.