Bergen Raises or Reverse Bergen Raises?
Bob M
cards and 1M-3D is a limit raise (11-12) with 4+ cards. Is there much
gained (if anything) in reversing the meaning of these raises and
playing Reverse Bergen Raises?
It appears that that on the auction 1S-3C room is gained for slam
bidding investigation when this raise becomes the limit raise. What is
the "usual" meaning of opener's non-jump new suit rebids and 3NT after
1S-3C? Also, what should responder do?
Here are 4 limit raise hands that you hold. After 1S-3C what's your
bid as responder after opener has made a non-jump new suit rebid or
3NT?
From Eddie Kantar (from an early version of RKB)-
(1) T 9 6 3 2, K 5, A J 9, 8 4 3
(2) Q T 5 2, A 3, J 9 5, K T 8 7
(3) Q T 5 2, 9 3, 7 4 2, A K T 8
From Root/Pavlicek "Modern Bridge Conventions" -
(4) K T 8 4, 3, A 9 8 4 2, 5 4 3
That included the note:
"Your excellent high card quality and distribution
make this hand well worth a limit raise".
Bob M
henry...@yahoo.com
There is no advantage (or disadvantage) to playing 3c as weaker than
3d or 3d as weaker than 3c EXCEPT THAT whatever method you choose
should have a wider range for the 3c bid than the 3d bid. This is
because a quantitative ask (3d) is available after 1M 3c but not after
1M 3d.
So, using reverse Bergen, you might play
1M 3c = 9-12
1M 3d = 7-8
Now, Kleinman has suggested (perhaps not seriously) as playing
1M 3c as 7-8 or 11-12
1M 3d = 9-10
which is based on the same principal of having a wider range of hands
in the 3c bid as opposed to the 3d bid.
Henrysun909
TWOferBRIDGE
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
You need to keep 3C! as the "lower" Bergen raise
because you will have at least ONE gametry bid
when Hts are trump... and as Henry says, it will be
some sort of "quantitative" gametry . ( I use LTC ).
Thx Henry for Kleinman's tip.... I think it might work . .
- - Don - -
Eric Leong
Over the auction,
1S 3C?
You have two bids 3D, 3H to investigate game. Over 3D, you have only
one bid to investigate game.
Without Bergen Raises, you had 2NT and 3C to investigate better
things. Now if 3D shows a four card raise you have only one bid to
investigate better things instead of 2NT, 3C, and 3D.
After the auction: 1H - 3D it is even worse.
With the 2H raise you used to have 2S, 2NT, 3C, 3D to investigate
better things. Now you can't even investigate game.
Eric Leong
henry...@yahoo.com
Anyone using Bergen raises believes that knowledge of the 4th trump is
more important than making a fit-based game try. Those who believe
that a fit-based game try is more important than knowing about the 4th
trump don't use Bergen game tries.
Not that hard to understand for most people. (You might refer to
Human Bridge Errors for a more thorough discussion of that point.)
The Bergeners may be right that trump length + quantitative evaluation
is enough. They may be wrong.
But surely it is wrong to criticize the method without even
understanding its most basic point.
Henrysun909
castigamatti
I still prefer...
( 4 ) S KQxx H x D Axxxx C xxx for a limit raise instead of S K1084 H
3 D A9842 C 543. I am probably old fashioned.
( 1 ) S 109632 H K5 D AJ9 C 843 = ??, not weak, not a limit raise
or constructive raise either. To say mixed is more appropriate.
( 2 ) S Q1052 H A3 D J95 C K1087 = in between, constructive or limit
( probably more of a limit raise ).
( 3 ) S Q1052 H 93 D 742 C AK108 = in between, constructive or limit
( probably more of a constructive kind ).
Nuances I suppose.
BR
Will in New Haven
> You play Bergen Raises where 1M-3C is a simple raise (6-10) with 4+
> cards and 1M-3D is a limit raise (11-12) with 4+ cards. Is there much
> gained (if anything) in reversing the meaning of these raises and
> playing Reverse Bergen Raises?
Simply reversing them does not work very well because 6-10 is a very
wide range with no game try available (if Hearts are trumps) Changing
the ranges, making 3C 8-11 and 3D 6-7, has worked out fine for us. The
3D relay ask over 3C works fine over either the weaker or stronger 3C.
Of course, then you have the people who ask "is that your limit
raise?" and you have to answer in a way that tells him the range. You
have to throw out the concept of limit raise.
>
> It appears that that on the auction 1S-3C room is gained for slam
> bidding investigation when this raise becomes the limit raise. What is
> the "usual" meaning of opener's non-jump new suit rebids and 3NT after
> 1S-3C? Also, what should responder do?
I don't know what the usual meaning of the various bids are because
the bid doesn't come up often enough for my opponents to know how they
play it. OUR methods after the relay 3D are:
Three of our Major: 8 or 9 dummy points, rejecting if it was just a
game try.
Four of our Major: 10 or 11 dummy points, accepting the game try but
denying good slam values.
3NT: 10 or 11 dummy points, concentrated in controls and trump honors.
Encourages for slam.
New Suit: Shows a hand with seven or eight HCP and shortness in the
suit bid. This isn't so much to encourage partner to bid a slam but to
caution partner about duplicated values.
> Here are 4 limit raise hands that you hold. After 1S-3C what's your
> bid as responder after opener has made a non-jump new suit rebid or
> 3NT?
>
> From Eddie Kantar (from an early version of RKB)-
> (1) T 9 6 3 2, K 5, A J 9, 8 4 3
If partner bids 3D. the non-descriptive relay, I bid 4S. I treat this
as ten, barely ten, dummy points. Also I think enough of the field
will reach game willy-nilly that the only way we were stopping is if
partner simply bid 3S over 3C. If partner bids 3H, a natural bid,
possibly only interested in game, I bid 4D on the way to 4S. If
partner bids 3NT, in our methods, it is conventional and I bid 4D,
showing three controls (A is two, K is one) If partner bids 4C, I cue
4D.
> (2) Q T 5 2, A 3, J 9 5, K T 8 7
Again, this hand is a bare minimum for accepting but I accept. I don't
get as interested over 3H because the Club King may not cover a
loser.
> (3) Q T 5 2, 9 3, 7 4 2, A K T 8
I probably bid 3S over 3D. Oddly enough, it has good values for slam
but it's a minimum. If I accept game, I have to bid 3NT to show trump
honors and controls.
> From Root/Pavlicek "Modern Bridge Conventions" -
>
> (4) K T 8 4, 3, A 9 8 4 2, 5 4 3
> That included the note:
> "Your excellent high card quality and distribution
> make this hand well worth a limit raise".
Over 3D, I bid 3H, indicating that it is a maximum IF the Heart
shortness helps. If partner is only making a game try, and the Heart
shortness doesn't help, we can actually stop but normally this is just
to make sure partner isn't too encouraged for slam. Switch the Heart
and Club suits and I bid 4C. We don't mind an occasional unlikely game
but slams are another matter.
Since you were treating 3C as a "limit raise" and not 8-11 dummy
points, almost all the hands you present are maximums and the one that
isn't is very attractive in terms of quick tricks and trumps.
--
Will in New Haven
Will in New Haven
So the preemptive jump-raise might be a hand that would make a
standard single raise? Six points is too much for a preemptive raise.
On the other paw, twelve points and four-card support is a game. So
8-11 and 6-7 make sense to me.
--
Will in New Haven
>
Eric Leong
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well to paraphrase Henry Sun, I don't see many top level experts using
Bergen Raises as a raise of choice.
In fact, I know of none.
Eric Leong
sbt
<2dbc7669-deeb-4dd1...@t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Eric Leong <ewleo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Well to paraphrase Henry Sun, I don't see many top level experts using
> Bergen Raises as a raise of choice.
> In fact, I know of none.
>
I guess, then, that the gentleman with whom you recently won an event
at the Reno NABC is not "a top level expert" in your opinion? I have
Freddy's system notes here (I play the card Fred plays when I sit
across from John Jeffrey) and he plays, by preference, a Bergen
variation that he calls "one-under" and "two-under". 1S-3H and 1H-3D
are limit raises with 4 trump, and 1S-3D and 1H-3C are 7-9 with 4 trump
(the intermediate suit asks quality).
Although I am not a strong advocate of Bergen raises, in general, I see
them as a preferable course to weak jump shifts, which is what most of
my partners want to play if not playing Bergen.
BTW, how have you been? It's been a long time since we played around
the Bay Area (particularly in Ron's weekly team game down in Mountain
View). After an 18-year layoff, my wife decided I should start playing
again, if only to get me out of the office and away from the computer,
and back to "interacting with people."
--
Dennis Cohen
henry...@yahoo.com
lowering the point requirements by 1 point all around is a machts
nichts thing for me. 6-7 and 8-11, or 6-7 + 10-11 and 8-9 is
something I could easily agree to.
Henrysun909
henry...@yahoo.com
That may well be. I was not debating the MERITS of bergen versus not
using bergen, but in a context where Bergen raises was already
assumed, I was addressing the OP's question, which was can 3d be used
as a weaker raise and 3c a stronger raise.
Even though you find it nearly impossible to respond to someone else's
question ON ITS OWN TERMS, your failing should not lead you to assume
others are equally incapable of doing so. From my point of view, I
prefer using 3-way jump shifts according to which JSs are (1) strong,
or (2) mini-splinters with 6-8 hcps, or (3) slam oriented splinters
with 16+ hcps, as detailed in another thread. But if my partner wants
to play Bergen raises of any variety, I will usually agree to it even
though it is not my first choice for a response structure.
Henrysun909
Eric Leong
> In article
> <2dbc7669-deeb-4dd1-8dbe-81dad5aa2...@t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Over dinner, I asked Freddy, if we could change anything on our card
what would it be?
There were some suggestions but any sort of Bergen Raises was not even
mentioned.
So Dennis, I was wondering what happened to you. I thought your were
dead. The last time we played was in the early 1990's in the Santa
Clara Regional.
Eric Leong
alvin
Bob:
There are numeous "non-Bergen" uses for jump shifts. Those who play
Bergen, (or its variants, Oslo, or Ismir raises) (for a discussion,
look it up in Human Bridge Errors) prefer to do so because they value
knowledge of the fourth-trump. Bergen-style also has the advantage of
forcing an intervenor to the three4-level. For the rest of us, the
advantages of playing (one of the following) strong jumps, fit jumps,
or invitational/natural jumps, outweigh (in my mind at least) the
desirability of identifying whether you have an eight-card or nine-
card fit (with the extra card in the short-trump hand, remember). .
Beyond that, I have also referred readers here to Kleinman's BW
discussion, labelled as "Did he Jump, or Was He Pushed" - (sorry, I
still haven't identified the issue) that raises the point that the
overall strength of the raise is more important than whether it
contains three cards or four.
Alvin P. Bluthman
apbluthman@aol;com
jogs
Both of the first two link says 1M - 3C is
4 trumps, 7-10 points.
What they don't tell is often you're already
too high. There's no Law protecting bergen
raises. It's a myth.
Will in New Haven
> On Mar 27, 12:05 pm, Bob M <bobridge...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You play Bergen Raises where 1M-3C is a simple raise (6-10) with 4+
> > cards and 1M-3D is a limit raise (11-12) with 4+ cards. Is there much
> > gained (if anything) in reversing the meaning of these raises and
> > playing Reverse Bergen Raises?
>
> > It appears that that on the auction 1S-3C room is gained for slam
> > bidding investigation when this raise becomes the limit raise. What is
> > the "usual" meaning of opener's non-jump new suit rebids and 3NT after
> > 1S-3C? Also, what should responder do?
>
> > Here are 4 limit raise hands that you hold. After 1S-3C what's your
> > bid as responder after opener has made a non-jump new suit rebid or
> > 3NT?
>
> > From Eddie Kantar (from an early version of RKB)-
> > (1) T 9 6 3 2, K 5, A J 9, 8 4 3
>
> > (2) Q T 5 2, A 3, J 9 5, K T 8 7
>
> > (3) Q T 5 2, 9 3, 7 4 2, A K T 8
>
> > From Root/Pavlicek "Modern Bridge Conventions" -
>
> > (4) K T 8 4, 3, A 9 8 4 2, 5 4 3
> > That included the note:
> > "Your excellent high card quality and distribution
> > make this hand well worth a limit raise".
>
> > Bob M
>
>
> Both of the first two link says 1M - 3C is
> 4 trumps, 7-10 points.
>
> What they don't tell is often you're already
> too high. There's no Law protecting bergen
> raises. It's a myth.
No one ever claimed _absolute_ protection. You are forcing the
opponents to guess at the level of three. I'll take it.
No one has suggested that you play it.
TWOferBRIDGE
> In article
> <2dbc7669-deeb-4dd1-8dbe-81dad5aa2...@t32g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
Dennis:
What does Freddy use 1S - 3C as ( 3 under ) ?
when 1S - 3D! ( 2 under ) is the constructive raise .
Tim Hill
> You play Bergen Raises where 1M-3C is a simple raise (6-10) with 4+
> cards and 1M-3D is a limit raise (11-12) with 4+ cards. Is there much
> gained (if anything) in reversing the meaning of these raises and
> playing Reverse Bergen Raises?
FWIW, I read something by Bergen in which, while not objecting to
Reverse Bergen Raises, he expressed a preference for original Bergen
Raises because opener usually knows what to do opposite a limit raise
but often could use more information opposite a constructive raise.
- Tim
sbt
<f135cd77-dae0-4832...@e6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
TWOferBRIDGE <donst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dennis:
> What does Freddy use 1S - 3C as ( 3 under ) ?
> when 1S - 3D! ( 2 under ) is the constructive raise .
>
According to the notes, it is a PJSR. I really hate PJSRs, so for me it
is a bid whose existence I ignore :)
The entire system is really cohesive and consistent. Even in the above,
both 1H and 1S openers have exactly one available PJSR.
--
Dennis
jogs
"To Bid or Not to Bid" Page 76.
Law Protection
Read the quote in the box. Cohen is claiming the
law protects overbidders.
Will in New Haven
The nature of the _game_ protects overbidders. It's a bidder's game.
The scoring system, unlike games like Pinochle, does not make going
down in a contract just as bad as making the contract is good. So it
is possible to take a minus score profitably because it allows you to
choose the trump suit. Even the fact that the opponents can double
does not redress the advantage of bidding, in the long run. Especially
since they sometimes double contracts that make.
It is very easy to overdo it but the principle is correct. Frankly,
the advent of the Law caused us to bid more conservatively in some
situations. Raising ones partner's Weak Two on HonorX is sometimes
right, although the Law doesn't think so, but it is usually wrong.
With no game prospects, never doing it (which is what the Law advises)
is better than always doing it. Competing to the three level when RHO
balances because you have a maximum single raise is usually wrong and
the Law hints that this is so.
Cohen overstates the case but he's, in general, right.
