[pclayton]

Something came to me last night and I wanted to see how everyone felt about it.

Say you are playing 2/1 and Reverse Bergen (3C = limit).

If you aren't playing some kind of 2C gadget response to show clubs / limit or just an invitiational hand, you are going through a forcing 1N and jumping to show a 3 card limit raise.

Why not load the 3 card limit raise onto 3C? 3D by Opener can ask which (3H = 3, 3S = 4).

This shuts out the 2 level for interference by RHO. It does allow RHO to make one or even two lead directing doubles however.

So what becomes of the slow jump to 3S? Well, one possibility is that 1N now becomes semi-forcing. A semi-forcing 1N response can work very well, especially if you play a strong NT, as the 12-14 5332 really just wants to play exactly 1N. I recognize that there are certain types of responding hands that want to play in a suit that are forced to bid a semi-forcing NT, but thats not argument against this structure - just against semi-forcing 1N.

If you still want to play 1N as forcing, then perhaps a delayed jump to 3S can promise (or deny) a stiff, or show xxx of trump, or show three - 9's or whatever.

Thoughts?

[mike777]

If I understand your post then you are forced to 3 level in 5-3 invite fits.
If you play 1nt semi-forcing per Bergen then with many minimum hands you can pass and play in 1nt with 5-3 invite fits and 2s with 5-3 and most 7-10 hcp responses. With 1nt 14-16 you get to pass many 1nt semi-forcing nt hands with junky 10-12 opening bids with no rebids.

[awm]

I've come to believe that the forcing notrump which may conceal three-card support is a poor treatment. The problems are:

(1) Opponents have a cheap two-level bid to direct a lead. If they compete (especially if to the four level or in spades over hearts) responder can be left with some difficult decisions.

(2) If opener's rebid is at the three level (i.e. 1♠-1NT-3♥) then you have an excellent chance for slam. But if 3♠ might just be a false preference, you have to bid at the four level (eliminating all cuebidding space) just to show a real spade raise. If 3♠ is always the limit raise, there are any number of hands where you want a "punt" below 3NT. Perhaps a four-level bid is a cue here, but partner will probably assume it's a cue for the SECOND suit.

(3) If the auction ends in 3M or 4M as it often will, you have given the opponents some extra information about opener's hand (via opener's semi-natural rebid after 1NT) which will help them with opening lead and with counting out declarer's shape.

The only advantage to bidding 1NT with support, is that you can distinguish between two levels of limit raise. But it seems quite reasonable to me, to either play as Phil suggests, or use some jump bid as specifically "three card limit raise." In my partnerships I've played the following treatments (with various different partners):

(1) 3♦ as 3-card limit, 3M is 4-card limit. Over 1♥ opening, 3♣ is a bergen-style constructive raise and 2♠ is the game-forcing 4-card raise (2NT natural forcing). Over 1♠ opening, 3♣ is the GF 4-card raise (2NT natural forcing). The argument is that the bergen constructive raise is more valuable over hearts (to prevent opponents from competing in spades) than it is over spades (when 2♠ more often buys the contract). 1NT is forcing but denies support.

(2) 3M-1 as a "bad" limit raise (typically three cards). 3M is the good (usually four-card) limit raise. 1NT is semi-forcing, with all supporting hands and all game-invitational hands except in 3M-1 suit offloaded into other bids.

(3) 2M+1 as a GF raise OR a limit raise with side shortness (shortness can be shown and still stop in 3M). 2M+2 as a flat limit raise, with a checkback somewhat like Phil suggests (which we use to distinguish between good/bad limit raise rather than 3/4 card however). 3M is preemptive at NV and a mixed raise at vulnerable.

I've been pretty happy with each of these approaches, and have been frustrated on many occasions by the follow-ups after a 1NT bid with a limit raise. The forcing notrump followed by interference by opponents is also a frequent topic in bidding contests -- it may not come up often (although I personally have found that aggressive bidding over opponents forcing NT is a BIG win) but when it does come up it's enough to make one wish to be playing standard american.

[david_c]

Just wondering - if you do have a bid which shows a limit raise with 3 trumps, will you use it on both

♠QJx ♥QTxx ♦xx ♣AQxx

and

♠QJx ♥x ♦AQxxxx ♣Jxx

in response to a 1♠ opening? Or do you have some other way to bid the second hand?

[mike777]

david_c, on May 7 2005, 03:15 PM, said:

Just wondering - if you do have a bid which shows a limit raise with 3 trumps, will you use it on both

♠QJx ♥QTxx ♦xx ♣AQxx

and

♠QJx ♥x ♦AQxxxx ♣Jxx

in response to a 1♠ opening? Or do you have some other way to bid the second hand?

Must admit with both hands at imps and playing junky, light openings I am close to rebidding 4s with both hands after old fashion Bergen semi-forcing nt. If p is not passing me out I am thinking 4. P rebidding 2d or 2s on hand one may slow me down. If p rebids 2 clubs I may use BART to find out more.

Otherwise I am just bidding the D*mn game.

If playing more standard sound openings all the more so.

[awm]

david_c, on May 7 2005, 03:15 PM, said:

Just wondering - if you do have a bid which shows a limit raise with 3 trumps, will you use it on both

♠QJx ♥QTxx ♦xx ♣AQxx

and

♠QJx ♥x ♦AQxxxx ♣Jxx

in response to a 1♠ opening? Or do you have some other way to bid the second hand?

The first hand is a clear 3-card limit raise. In my various partnerships this goes:

(1) Bid 3♦ to show 3-card limit raise. Partner can now bid 3♥ (natural F1) to find a possibly superior 4-4 heart fit game and I will raise to 4♥. If partner bids 3♠ (signoff) I will pass.

(2) Bid 3♥ to show a 3-card limit raise (or the "bad" limit raise). If partner bids 3♠ we will play there. If partner tries 4♥ (choice of games) I pass.

(3) Bid 3♣ (balanced limit raise) over 1♠. If partner bids 3♦ (checkback with four card hearts) I will try 3♥ (natural, double fit). If partner bids 3♥ (punting back to me) I will sign off in 3♠ with only three trumps. Otherwise I will respect partner's 3♠ signoff or game bid/slam try.

The second hand is worth a game force if playing reasonably sound openings. Another possibliity is to make a mini-splinter bid or a fit-showing jump if playing either of those treatments. With the agreements I described before:

(1) 2♦ followed by a spade raise (either picture jump 4♠ or a splinter 4♥ if partner rebids spades, which could just be waiting).

(2) 2♦ followed by a spade raise, much as above. Also possible to make the 3♠ "good limit raise" which does not necessarily guarantee four trumps.

(3) 2NT showing a distributional limit raise. If partner bids 3♣ (non-game force ask) then I bid 3♥ to show heart shortage.

I should note that with the first two partners we play a fairly sound opening style, whereas the third partnership we play precision 1♣ and open pretty light.

[Echognome]

One space saver is to play 2NT as limit plus. Then you can play 3♣ as limit with 3 card support. I personally don't see this as any disadvantage, since it's forcing.

[mike777]

Echognome, on May 7 2005, 05:12 PM, said:

One space saver is to play 2NT as limit plus.  Then you can play 3♣ as limit with 3 card support.  I personally don't see this as any disadvantage, since it's forcing.

Hmm, I seem to be missing the point of these posts. Do we not want to avoid the 3 level in an 8 card fit if at all possible?

Even a 50-1 shot can win the Kentucky Derby.

Do we not want to give partner a chance to pass semi-forcing nt and play at one level? Do we not want to give partner a chance to describe her hand with a rebid where we may upgrade our limit raise and just bid game? As for the opp. coming in over our semi-forcing nt, do we not have an opportunity to listen to partner's rebid, evaluate our hand in light of overcall, double opp. or still bid 3s?

[awm]

Most of the time you will not be able to stop in 2M anyway. The auction will go 1♠-1NT-some bid-3♠. Unless of course you advocate passing 1NT on "any minimum" which will frequently get you to the wrong partial.

If you play semi-forcing notrump, you will win when you play 1NT instead of 3♠ and 1NT makes but 3♠ goes down. However, look at the losses:

(1) Any time you have a distributional hand without a fit (i.e. 6 good hearts), bid 1NT, and partner passes.

(2) Any time you have three spades and 1NT plays worse than 3♠. Usually just lose 1 at imps, but it's a zero at MPs more often than not. Even at IMPs, I think the frequent lose one (1NT make two instead of 3♠ make 3) will tend to outweight the infrequent win 4-5 (1NT make one instead of 3♠ one off).

(3) Any time opponents bid over the semi-forcing 1NT when you have the limit raise. If you'd made a limit raise right off you'd have shut them out, but now they know what to lead, and may find a good sacrifice.

(4) Any time partner's rebid helps opponents to pinpoint the right defense and save a trick.

[Echognome]

mike777, on May 7 2005, 05:39 PM, said:

Hmm, I seem to be missing the point of these posts. Do we not want to avoid the 3 level in an 8 card fit if at all possible?

First off, I'm only suggesting an improvement on using TWO three level bids to show limit raises (3♣ and 3♦).

Second, you have to tell me how you are going to get across all of your raises in at the 2-level. I would suggest you would have a hard time to do this without giving up a natural bid like 2♣ or 2♦.

I play

1M - 2M as 7-9 with 3 card support
1M - 1NT (F)- any - 2M (as either 6-9 with a doubleton or 3-6 with 3 card support)

So I need a limit raise with 3 card support.

Right now I play that as 1M - 1NT - Any - 3M, but I can understand the problems with that. Sometimes you get too high.

Perhaps with light openings the ranges should be moved up by a point or two.

[mike777]

I do not mean to imply I am getting all of my 3 card raises in at 2 level, only trying to avoid 8 card fit at 3 level as much as possible, not 100%. Also play 2S constructive as often 7-10 so that eliminates more hands. (junky openers)

Eliminate problem in third and fourth seat almost 100% since rare p will pass with most LR type hands in 1st or 2nd but possible. Reduce in first and second by not rebidding most balanced 11 hcp openers and many 12 hcp. First and second seat balanced 13 hcp and few 12 hcp, I am at 3 level with you. Hopefully with unbalanced hands I can just jump to 4, otherwise back at 3 level with you. Need 3 conditions to miss the 8 or 9 card weak heart fit, responder long and weak, opener is very weak balanced and opp do not balance. It is a risk.

I do think you, Awm and others have laid out your case well. Just want to show other older (over 20 years) methods to compare and contrast.

[luke warm]

of all the suggestions i've seen so far, i like justin's best (the way hamman plays it)... 1M/2M can be the balanced limit raise with 3... it seems to me that if opener has a hand he'd jump to 4M with over a limit raise, he'd at least make a game try after 1M/2M.. if he has a minimum opening, he just passes 2M

if you keep 1nt forcing, you can play (taking david's example hand)

♠QJx ♥x ♦AQxxxx ♣Jxx

1S/1NT/2m/3H as a limit with a stiff heart... if the stiff is in opener's 2nd suit, just 3M over 2m (remember, you'd have bid 2M with a balanced 3 card limit)... reverse the reds and over 1S/1nt/2C/3D... i know the point is to unload 1nt (or make it semi-forcing) and/or not play 3M with 8, but you might lose more than you gain

with a 4 card limit and a stiff/void, you can use the old fashioned under j/s... imagine

♠QJxx ♥x ♦AQxxx ♣Jxx

now 1S/3H shows this hand.. if opener cares where the stiff is, 3nt... 3C by responder (over 1M) is bergen limit, 3D is bergen constructive... if the majors are reversed and opener bids 1H

♠x ♥QJxx ♦AQxxx ♣Jxx

now 1h/3d shows 4 card limit with stiff... opener bids 3s if he needs to know where it is (3nt would show spades).. on this sequence, 3c by responder shows bergen limit *or* constructive... 3d by opener asks which (if he cares), 3h is a signoff... if 1h/3c/3d, opener says he's going to game over the limit hand, so responder cues or signs off