[Wackojack]

I notice that BBO Advanced names Jacoby, Bergen (3♣ limit) and splinters for major suit raises. Since I have never used Bergen myself, could anyone tell me the advantage of reverse Bergen over normal Bergen?

Most of the more advanced players at the local club play a response of 2NT as a 4-card raise (or more) to the 3 level or better (when a splinter does not apply) This method although probably not the best in locating slams seems reasonably effective and has the advantage of simplicity. Does anybody know what this convention is called? I have read of a convention called Jordan which applies specifically to 1M - dble -2NT, but no mention of it applying to an uninterrupted auction.

Thanks

ps Speaking of Jordan, all those from the UK will be reminded of a lady celebrity of that name who has a skinny body and two eye-bogglingly large trumps.

[Gerben42]

I have no idea - maybe call it Wendy after 1M.

BTW most Americans (and many others) will remember a tall guy from Chicago called Jordan. He seemed to make many points with a ball that is somewhat too large for my hands

Anyway I think this is also a good treatment.

[mike777]

Many play reverse Bergen I do not know why.


I assume Marty Bergen gave this alot of thought and choose his style for a reason.
Here is one of the major ones. Game before Slam. Old Bergen allows more room for game tries before slam tries. Reverse Bergen does not. Over 3C weakish you have more room for game tries, over 3D weakish, you have less room. I assume Marty felt is was more important to have the extra step over weakish than over limit responses.

[kenberg]

I think Marty himself now advocates reverse Bergen. I have always assumed that the thinking is something like this:

A. If you hold 4 card support but only modest values, opponents often want in. Bidding 3C with this hand gives the more room (double 3C, bid 3D to get both minors in, for example).

B. If you hold 4 card and better values you are less worried about intervention, since it is punishable, and further in close decisions it may allow a little extra room. Eg 1H-3C(limit raise) allows 4H (yes), 3H(no), 3D(maybe, if you are at the upper end).



This is guessing on my part.

Ken

[inquiry]

I play a version of leap to 2NT as limit raise plus with four trumps. There are a lot of names for this. I think marty pushed one he coined "modern jacoby 2NT" or the like. Glen Ashton calls the version in his ETM victory "jacoby 2NT plus" (actually since it might be weaker than normal Jacoby, maybe "jacoby 2NT minus" is better.

I am not a fan of Bergen raises, but will play it if you hold a gun to my head (or pay my entry fee)... It makes little difference if 3C or 3D is the stronger of the two raises, especially if hearts is trumps. But which every way you play it, I would make the range of the 3D bid MUCH narrower thant the range on thre 3C bid.. here is why.

Lets assume these bergin bids show 7 to 12 points. If you had 3C being the weaker using this scheme

1H-3C = 7 to 10
1H-3D = 11 to 12

Or

1H-3C = 11 to 12
1H-3D = 7 to 10

Here, over 3C, opener might want to be in game opposite max, and stop short opposite min, so he can bid 3D to investigate. Over 3D, opener has to decide 3H or game, there is no more room to seek "advice". After 1H-3D, one point is not such a bid deal, opener either goes or not

So if you reverse the weak and sting hands without changing the range watch what happens. 1H-3C opener either goes or not, but after 1H-3D, there is no room for opener to separate between the 7-8 point hand and the 9-10 hands.

So if you are going to use Bergen, make the range of the 3D bid narrow (say 7-8 or 11-12) and make the 3C range wider (9-12 or 7-10).

I am also not sure that slam bidding is any worse when hands can be limit raise or better than when normal jacoby. In normal jacoby, opener is busily biddiing out his shape not his stregnth. In these modfied jacoby, he can combine shape and stregnth type bids more effectively imho,

[mike777]

There is something called Bergen 2NT, I play it but many argue it does not come enough to play it but it seems ok for me.
btw it is a bit complicated and open to interpretation.
You should be able to google it.
btw2 I have not seen anywhere in Mary's books where he plays reverse bergen. Perhaps you have a link?

[Badmonster]

kenberg, on Mar 15 2006, 12:57 PM, said:

I think Marty himself now advocates reverse Bergen. I have always assumed that the thinking is something like this:

A. If you hold 4 card support but only modest values, opponents often want in. Bidding 3C with this hand gives the more room (double 3C, bid 3D to get both minors in, for example).

B. If you hold 4 card and better values you are less worried about intervention, since it is punishable, and further in close decisions it may allow a little extra room. Eg 1H-3C(limit raise) allows 4H (yes), 3H(no), 3D(maybe, if you are at the upper end).



This is guessing on my part.

Ken

A few weeks ago he did a session on BBO as a raffled prize for those who bought his software. There as a Q&A after and someone asked him if he preferred Bergen or Rev. He said he prefers the original.

Course he also said he doesn't play bridge any more...

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Mar 15 2006, 09:21 PM, said:

So if you are going to use Bergen, make the range of the 3D bid narrow (say 7-8 or 11-12) and make the 3C range wider (9-12 or 7-10).

Inquiry just raised a very good point:

Assume for the moment that you use the auction 1♠ - 2NT to show a Game forcing raise with 4+ card trump support. Furthermore, you use 1♠ - 3♠ as a preemptive/obstructive bid.

You have the option of assigning conventional meanings to the three in-between bids (3♣ / 3♦ / 3♥) and use these to show some kind of Spade raise. The 3♥ bid uses up enormous amounts of bdding space. Opener can't make any kind of counter trial. Accordingly, this raise needs to show a relatively specific hand type so that opener is positioned to make the right decision.

You have the option to multiplex more hand types into the 3♦ response and even more into 3♣. If you're addicited to HCPs, you could increase the HCP range shown by each bid. Alternatively, you show different hand shapes.

[mike777]

Prefer to play 1s=3h as a stiff or void somewhere, 3s asks. That now opens up
1s=3nt or 4c or 4d or 4h to mean something very specific.

[Cascade]

I am with Ben whatever you play you must have a wider range for 3♣ than 3♦. It is simply less efficient the other way around.

When I play Bergen I use

3♣ = 6-9 then a 3♦ step inquiry
3♦ = 10-11

I also play 1♠ 3♥ as a splinter this gives much more room for slam investigation than having to splinter with 4♥.

Actually I usually prefer to play (mini-)splinters for all new suits above 2Maj and 2NT as a balanced raise. All of these are loosely invitational or better.

[Sigi_BC84]

kenberg, on Mar 15 2006, 06:57 PM, said:

I think Marty himself now advocates reverse Bergen. I have always assumed that the thinking is something like this:

Marty Bergen, when giving a free online lecture recently, was asked which variant he prefers. He only said that it doesn't matter much if you play reverse or normal.

I think normal Bergen has more merit (for the "game before slam" reasons stated above). In my eyes the ability to make another game-try is more important than blocking the opponents.

--Sigi

[Free]

I usually play 3♣ 6-9 and 3♦ 10-11, since you can invite after a 3♣ bid, but not always after a 3♦ bid.

Why is reversed better? I guess for slams. When the stronger hand stays low, opener can already start to cuebid 3♦. It just depends on how you continue after these bids, since using 3♦ as a general trial bid (no 2-way invite/cue) and partner responding 4M with a good hand (also not cuebidding) won't help much...

[luke warm]

actually deb is right, bergen said he thinks 'normal' bergen, ie 3c=constructive and 3d=limit, is better for the reasons mike gave.. game before slam, more room to explore, etc

i also prefer the under j/s being an unspecified splinter with 4 card support in the 9-11/12 range... i play it as a game force

[rbforster]

I agree the responses on the merits of a wider range for 3♣ vs 3♦s if you play them both as Bergen. I don't follow this method myself, using this scheme "compressed Bergen" instead. It lacks a little of the invitational aspects of the 3♣ (constructive bergen) - 3♦ (asking) auctions, but it allows more bids for other things.

Over 1♥, I play

2♠ compressed strong jump shift (any solloway jump shift with or without support, 2NT asks)
2NT Jacoby
3♣ compressed bergen (either constructive or invitational with 4♥s, or various slam invitational+ hands)
    3♦ would accept opposite an invite
    3♥ would decline opposite an invite
3♦ marginal game force, based on shortness, invitational strength, and 4 trump (3♥ asks for shortness)
3♥ weak 4 trump

Higher bids are limited splinters, and slam invitational splinters can also bid 3♣ Bergen and cue their shortness after partner's response. The compressed bid can lose in competition or if your partner can't make a precise game try, but you do get to keep your strong jump shifts which are normally lost playing both 3♣ and 3♦ as raises. I read a bunch of stuff on major suit raises on Jeff Goldsmith's webpage.

For what it's worth, some experts disagree with the merits of the constructive Bergen raise (3♣) over 1♠. Bidding only 2♠ on these hands gives partner lots of room for different game tries, and you can always compete to the 3 level later if you need to with the 4th trump. It will be rare indeed that opponents bid to the 4 level over your competitive 3♠ AND are right to do so - that's the only circumstance where 1♠-3♣ might have gained. Over 1♥ there's obviously more merit to the preemptive value of Bergen since opponents might want to bid 2♠ but not 3♠.