[PocasAlice]

I have one partner where we use 2/1 with Inv Bergen Raises and really like the ability to delineate 3 and 4 card support for a 1 s/h major opening.

I have another p who wants to integrate 3c/3d Bergen Raises for 4 card support but continue to use a jump raise (1h-3h) to show a limit raise. In 2/1 system the Bergen Raises are nicely integrated with WJ and WJS and forcing 1NT responses.

Should we even try to add Bergen Raises to the structure defined in the SAYC Booklet? How should responder show a 3-card limit raise if we adopt WJ and WJS.

[Mbodell]

You can show a 3 card limit raise by bidding something else forcing (1♠/1♥ or 2/1) and then bidding 3M on your second turn. You can do this if you don't play Bergen (and leave 1M-3M as 4 card limit raise) or you can do this and play (reverse or standard) Bergen raises. If you do play Bergen raises I wouldn't still have 1M-3M as a limit raise, I'd stick the 4 card limit raise into 3♣ and the 4 card 6-9 into 3♦ (or reverse) and have the 1M-3M raise be preemptive.

Alternatively, in SA you can just have 1M-3M be an ambiguous limit raise (likely with slightly more HCP if only 3 card and possibly slightly weaker if 4 card).

Alternatively, you can try making 1M-2M your limit raise (inverted majors!) and then develop a good game try system over it (Kokish or something like it), including, if you want, a way to question 3 or 4 card support.

[neilkaz]

♠I have played Bergen raises with quite a few PD's. I find that the ability to jump directly to 3 with a preemptive raise is quite useful. Sometimes you steal the hand and keep the opps out of game. Other times, you raise to 3 with 4 trumps and junk and a hand that would have passed in SAYC and PD has a moose and bids game, wheres as 1M may be passed out at other tables. But it is the quick preemptive value that I like most and sometimes you have 5 trumps and a flat hand and are vul and just wimp out in 3M buying the hand and not getting set as much as in 4M.

Jumping to 3m with 4 card support and a single raise is less useful, IMHO and especially when ♠ are trump you may have been able to buy the hand at the 2 level and only 8 tricks are made at the 3 level. Other times the 3m bid deprives opener of a game try he'd like to make. Anyhow, I play Bergen with anyone who wants to.

I don't understand why you want to have two kinds of 4 card simple raises and also use 3M as a limit raise. This seems to be overkill for the simple raises unless you break them into two strengths and have the limit raise be GF unless opener has a really sick dog that he's embarrassed that he opened.

In 2/1 the 3 card limit raise is shown by using the forcing NT and then bidding 3M. In S/A if you want to differentiate from a 4 carder, you can make a 2/1 and then bid 3M but that can lead to ambiguity. If not playing FNT, perhaps use one of your 3m's for the 3 card limit raise or make a 2/1 first.

Anyhow, my preferred method for Bergen is that 3♣ is a 4 card limit raise and that you can stretch a bit to make this bid since at least one 3 Red bid is available for opener with a tad extra to make a game try. Now any hand that is even a dead min simple raise with 4 cards can be bid 3♦ and preemptive generally means preemptive. .. ie.. ♠ J8xx♥ Kx ♦AJxx ♣xxx could now be a limit raise since opener is making a game try with a tad more than a min. ♠ J8xx♥xx♦Axxx ♣Jxx can be a 4 card simple Bergen raise. This slight stretch may not be everyones' cup of tea but I like the slightly wider range limit raise when there's four card support since there's always a quantitative game try available.

[skjaeran]

There are several ways of accomplishing this.

I'm playing 2/1 without a forcing 1NT. Since I really prefer to be able to stop in 1NT also after a 1M opening.

With my previous partner we solved this by having two ways to raise on a 3-card fit.

1♠-2♥ and 1♥-2♦ where 2-way bids; either a normal 2/1 or a weak 3-card raise (3-8 bad). And a direct raise a good 8 to a very bad 12. You can of course alter these intervals as you prefer.

With one of my regular partners now, we've changed the above slightly, making 2♦ response the 2-way bid over both 1M openings.

Over here minisplinters are more common than Bergen raises. I play Bergen in some partnerships. I've also tried out a blend of minisplinters and Bergen raises. , like this:

Over 1♥,
2♠ shows any minisplinter, 2NT relays for the short suit. 3m=Bergen

Over 1♠,
3♣ is a minisplinter in either minor, 3♦ relays for short suit
3♦ is Bergen, 3♥ relays for range
3♥ is a minisplinter in hearts

[helene_t]

Mbodell, on Feb 1 2009, 05:21 AM, said:

You can show a 3 card limit raise by bidding something else forcing (1♠/1♥ or 2/1) and then bidding 3M on your second turn.

If it starts
1♠-2♣
2♥-?

3♠ is now forcing while 2♠ doesn't promise 3-card support. Nevertheless I think it's the best solution if you don't play a forcing 1NT.

[Winstonm]

PocasAlice, on Jan 31 2009, 10:19 PM, said:

I have one partner where we use 2/1 with Inv Bergen Raises and really like the ability to delineate 3 and 4 card support for a 1 s/h major opening.

I have another p who wants to integrate 3c/3d Bergen Raises for 4 card support but continue to use a jump raise (1h-3h) to show a limit raise. In 2/1 system the Bergen Raises are nicely integrated with WJ and WJS and forcing 1NT responses. 

Should we even try to add Bergen Raises to the structure defined in the SAYC Booklet? How should responder show a 3-card limit raise if we adopt WJ and WJS.

The essence of Bergen Raises is the utilization of 3C and 3D as major suit raises.
It follows that as long as his basis is held intact, the Bergen Concept is being followed.

Part of Bergen raise structure was built around the Law of Total Tricks and hence the 9-card-fit concept; keep in mind, that was due to keeping weaker Bergen bids - the mixed raise and preemptive raise - Lawful in terms of level of play. It was not about limit raises, per se.

Compensating high-card strength can replace the need for 4-card support.
In other words, when comparing these hands in support of hearts:
1) Axx, 109xx, x, Axxx
2) xx, Qxx, AJxx, Axxx

These can both be expressed as a limit raise - it is the 4th trump in hand 1 that raises the value of that hand enough to make it worth limit raise status, not the lack of a 4th trump in hand 2 that reduces its value. If #2 had the same shape and a 4th trump, it would be too good to be a limit raise in most systems.

The point of this being that a Bergen Limit Raise does not have to show 4-card support as long as the 3-card support has sufficient extra high-card values. It is the Bergen Mixed Raise that needs the 9-card fit to be Lawful with less than adequate high-card strength.

As for the immediate 3M bid - it can be anything you want. Bergen utilized it as a blocking bid - this makes sense to me in competition but does not make sense in a constructive auction.

So, yes, you could use in SAYC the entire Bergen structure by using 3M as a 3-card limit raise. I think this is a poor choice, though, as it leaves your only forcing raise 2N.

You might find the article titled "Better Bergen Bidding" from the November 2007 issue of Bridge World magazine to be of interest on how Bergen can be modified.

[blackshoe]

If the auction goes 1♥-(P)-? you are not in a non-competitive auction, because you do not yet know what fourth seat might do. Robson & Segal call this a "potentially competitive auction" and if I remember correctly, they treat it pretty much as if it were competitive already.

"The entire Bergen structure", from Better Bidding With Bergen, volume I, covers much more than the 3♣ and 3♦ bids, whatever you call the "essence" of Bergen Raises. 1NT Forcing is an integral part of the full method. Sure, you can modify things, but you have to be careful how you do it.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Feb 1 2009, 03:40 PM, said:

If the auction goes 1♥-(P)-? you are not in a non-competitive auction, because you do not yet know what fourth seat might do. Robson & Segal call this a "potentially competitive auction" and if I remember correctly, they treat it pretty much as if it were competitive already.

"The entire Bergen structure", from Better Bidding With Bergen, volume I, covers much more than the 3♣ and 3♦ bids, whatever you call the "essence" of Bergen Raises. 1NT Forcing is an integral part of the full method. Sure, you can modify things, but you have to be careful how you do it.

The Bergen methods were created for MP play. Regardless of what we might think, not every situation becomes competitive.

When the auction begins 1M-P-? we certainly have two choices. We can treat this as a non-competitive auction or as a potentially competitive auction. I would venture that form of scoring has a lot to do with the better choice.

Where game and slam bidding yields a greater premium than interfering with opponents, then constructive bidding should apply.