[TWO4BRIDGE]

If you play it ON, what would you use 2NT after a DBL ?? ( which is normally the Jordan 2NT limit raise with 4 cards )

1S - ( X ) - ??
................ 3C = lower Bergen, 4 card raise
................ 3D = upper Bergen
................2NT = ?? ( no reason to have TWO limit raises w/ 4 cards )

[glen]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-February-17, 07:10, said:

If you play it ON, what would you use 2NT after a DBL ?? ( which is normally the Jordan 2NT limit raise with 4 cards )
1S - ( X ) - ??
...2NT = ?? ( no reason to have TWO limit raises w/ 4 cards )

How do you show a limit raise w/ 3 cards? If it starts with XX, you are better off playing 2NT = limit with w/ 3 cards.

Ideally you have a state of the art major raise package, that includes a better use of 2NT than Jacoby, and use ONX, on after a double.

[trevahound]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-February-17, 07:10, said:

If you play it ON, what would you use 2NT after a DBL ?? ( which is normally the Jordan 2NT limit raise with 4 cards )

1S - ( X ) - ??
................ 3C = lower Bergen, 4 card raise
................ 3D = upper Bergen
................2NT = ?? ( no reason to have TWO limit raises w/ 4 cards )

When I played Bergen raises, I played then on over X (off over any other comp.), and because of the same issue you raised, played 2nt as weak with either minor (or both minors). To the extent you're committed to Bergen raises (and I bet you can find a dozen or more different replacements with each having adherents saying theirs is best), re-purposing 2nt makes perfect sense.

Alternately, if you're playing with someone who wants to keep 2nt over X as LR(+), repurpose 3m as fit jumps?

[Free]

Keep it simple, play system on.

[ggwhiz]

 Free, on 2013-February-17, 11:50, said:

Keep it simple, play system on.

That could work but I prefer to play it off.

Something like 3♣ pre-emptive on ♣QJTxxxx and out can cause havoc opposite my 12 to possible big hand opener.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 trevahound, on 2013-February-17, 11:23, said:

Alternately, if you're playing with someone who wants to keep 2nt over X as LR(+), repurpose 3m as fit jumps?

I like the 3C/3D as "fit-jumps" , which leaves 2NT as the Jordan limit raise.

And for the 4 card "mixed raise", Rodwell suggests to use 3M since he says ( paraphrased ) "the 3M-preemptive raise rarely comes up and when it does, is not very effective" .

[Siegmund]

I like the fit-jumps too.

But with several of my partners, we have Bergen on and have defined 2NT as a hand that would have made a fit-jump, i.e., a 3-card limit raise with a side 5-card suit. (The flat 3-card raises either just bid 2M or start with XX.)

[steve2005]

not thrilled with Bergen over X for some of the reasons already mentioned
but when I play it 2N is a 3 card Limit+ raise
Bergen does have one advantage not mentioned, it's high probabilty

[SteveMoe]

BROMAD (Bergen Raises over Major and Double) anyone?
2♣=3-card LR
2♦=3-card CR
2M = 3-card weak raise
2OM= 4-card CR
2N= 4-card LR+ (Jordan)

[TWO4BRIDGE]

 SteveMoe, on 2013-February-17, 14:24, said:

BROMAD (Bergen Raises over Major and Double) anyone?
2♣=3-card LR
2♦=3-card CR ( Constructive Raise )
2M = 3-card weak raise
2OM= 4-card CR
2N= 4-card LR+ (Jordan)

I like it !!

Thus, you can have:
3C/3D = fit-jumps as well as:
3H = fit-jump when ♠ are trump and then you can retain:
3M = 4-card preemptive raise
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
But as Rodwell observed:
" You have no bids for other hands except Redouble or Pass or 1NT [ or 1S after 1H open ]" since every other bid is some sort of raise .

[mike777]

 TWO4BRIDGE, on 2013-February-17, 07:10, said:

If you play it ON, what would you use 2NT after a DBL ?? ( which is normally the Jordan 2NT limit raise with 4 cards )

1S - ( X ) - ??
................ 3C = lower Bergen, 4 card raise
................ 3D = upper Bergen
................2NT = ?? ( no reason to have TWO limit raises w/ 4 cards )

Ya I basically keep system on for all bids above 2h so 2nt is still a Strong Bergen raise, as if no double.

AKxx...xx...AKxx..xxx would be a very typical example.

The main reason is memory, KISS.

I suppose if other methods showed a huge gain in practice compared to loss they would be worth discussing.

[aguahombre]

Somehow, I missed this thread..which coincides with what I have been trying to press locally.

Bergen over a major double is just fine, unless you have adopted a good transfer scheme over 1MX --- some adaptation of the "Cappeletti" over 1MX principle. But, if you have...then use that instead.

After any overcall, or Michaels, or unusual NT...you would do better to abandon Bergen for a whole lot of reasons.

[fromageGB]

Bergen on is more pre-emptive when you have 4 card support, so it makes sense to keep it. If you have your preferred method of responses after a pass, I see no reason to abandon them when the double has not interfered one iota. And why not keep 2♣/♦ as your normal 2 over 1 bids? Maybe the likelihood of having them has dropped a little, but you can bid the hands better with them when you do have strong hands.

[glen]

 fromageGB, on 2013-February-18, 07:01, said:

... why not keep 2♣/♦ as your normal 2 over 1 bids? Maybe the likelihood of having them has dropped a little ...

?

Say opener has 13, X has 13, my normal 2/1 is GF, what's the chance of that? Big drop in likelihood.

We used to like:
1M-X-2♣: signoff with one long minor, everybody guesses (2♦/3♣ P/C, 2♣ is not forcing)
1M-X-2♦: constructive raise with 3M

[fromageGB]

Actually, you are right, Glen. Certainly I would prefer a 1M (X) 2M to be < 7hcp and bid something else with 7+ 3 card support. Maybe I would keep my 2♣ as GF (variety of types) or inv+ 3 card support, and would probably use 2M-1 as the constructive support, but it seems my partnerships have never settled on anything like this.

[aguahombre]

 fromageGB, on 2013-February-18, 07:01, said:

If you have your preferred method of responses after a pass, I see no reason to abandon them when the double has not interfered one iota.

This is a sound general concept. The exception to consider would be: What if that double allowed you to have an even better method of responses? At least in our jurisdiction, the double of 1M allows us a structure which would be GCC illegal after a pass ---in addition to giving us the redouble...an important step in the structure which makes everything work.

[trevahound]

For the simpler raises and the rest of the structure after 1M - (x) - ?, I prefer transfers from 1nt through 2M (1nt = clubs, etc... 2M-1 = good constructive raise, 2M = natural raise but less than const. values), and 2nt as 4+ card LR(+), and all higher bids as fit jumps. Very simple to remember, and close enough to optimal imo.

[glen]

 trevahound, on 2013-February-18, 12:06, said:

... close enough to optimal imo

Our view was not this, having to pass 8-10 balanced/semi-balanced was not good

[aguahombre]

 glen, on 2013-February-18, 12:16, said:

Our view was not this, having to pass 8-10 balanced/semi-balanced was not good

You never have to, whether the 8-10 balanced has 3-card heart support or not...if you make efficient use of XX.

1S (X) XX=6+ NT response or G.F. one-suiter.
1H (X) 1S=6+ NT response or G.F. one-suiter.
1H (X) XX=a 1S response.

[glen]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-18, 12:46, said:

You never have to, whether the 8-10 balanced has 3-card heart support or not...if you make efficient use of XX.

1S (X) XX=6+ NT response or G.F. one-suiter.
1H (X) 1S=6+ NT response or G.F. one-suiter.
1H (X) XX=a 1S response.

So optimal is starting the transfers at XX?