[dickiegera]

South as dealer holds: QJ1098,AJxx,void,Axxx
North holds: Kxxx,xx,x,KQxxxx

Bidding goes 1♠- Pass -3♣ [Bergen]- 3♦
3♠- 4♦- 4♠ -5♦
all pass

5♦ makes as would 5♠
Thank you

[pooltuna]

dickiegera, on Mar 8 2010, 09:36 AM, said:

South as dealer holds: QJ1098,AJxx,void,Axxx
North holds: Kxxx,xx,x,KQxxxx

Bidding goes 1♠- Pass -3♣ [Bergen]- 3♦
3♠- 4♦- 4♠ -5♦
all pass

5♦ makes as would 5♠
Thank you

you couldn't get away with saying "bergen" at the table so why try here? Just tell us what it shows altho I can't imagine not bidding 4♠ ASAP with the opening 1♠ hand.

[Codo]

Tuna, you see what it shows: 8-9 HCPS with 4 spades.

I would bid 4 ♠ too after 3 Diamond.
If this does not silent the opps, partner may or may not raise to 5, I am not sure what is best in the long run.

[jdonn]

Maybe if opener had bid 4♠ the round earlier his partner would have done more. I mean I'm no fan of bergen raises but this time it really should have helped to know partner has 4 card support.

[ArtK78]

Looking at the hand that bid Bergen, I can't tell whether the 3♣ bid meant a mixed raise or a 4-card limit raise. Quite frankly, it looks more like a game bid to me. Given opener's rather timid 3♠ bid, I can only surmise that the 3♣ bid was a mixed raise.

As for the opening hand, after RHO bids 3♦ over 3♣ I would be more interested in exploring for slam than I would be in playing in a partial. If the opponents have all of the cards in diamonds, then whatever values my partner has for his Bergen raise are pulling full weight. But for slam to be good partner would have to have underbid his cards with his 3♣ bid (as he has). On the actual hand, it takes a heart lead to beat slam.

Defending 5♦ would never have occurred to me with opener's hand. But responder clearly underbid his cards.

Assess the blame 60% for opener, as he made the final decision (and the wimpy 3♠ call, which might have clued responder in to bid 5♠), and 40% for responder for misleading opener as to the strength of his hand.

[pooltuna]

Codo, on Mar 8 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

Tuna, you see what it shows: 8-9 HCPS with 4 spades.

I would bid 4 ♠ too after 3 Diamond.
If this does not silent the opps, partner may or may not raise to 5, I am not sure what is best in the long run.

guilty of not seeing the Bergen hand in the post which is equivalent to not reading the whole thing

[billw55]

If opener bidding 4♠ directly is clear, how about 4♣ or 4♦ on the way? That would make it easy for responder to bid 5♠ over 5♦. Or would that show too much strength?

[aguahombre]

As (at least) Art has pointed out, we need to look at responder's alleged Bergen raise a little more closely. It certain has 8 or nine HCP, and it certainly has four trumps. I don't think Opener was expecting about 11 dummy points with a nice side trick source.

So, then after showing a constructive 4-trump raise, responder bids again (4S). Is opener supposed to know that means he found a different hand than the one he already showed? And if the answer is yes, then different in what way?

I usually think that the last mistake --as a general rule -- is given more weight in blame assessment, but here the first mistake changed the complexion of the auction. We don't know how it might have gone after a 3D L.R. response (not a fan of bergen raises either), but after a double of 3D or a 4D call, a heart cue might have occurred --and maybe responder could have even gotten in his club suit.

Then, we might be assessing the blame for getting to 6S down one, but at least with a reasonable response to start off. At least the slam down one, would have been a better result.

[Fluffy]

I don't know much of bergen raises, but I can count 10 tricks oposite 2 black aces so I would bid at least 10 tricks, second choice a splinter of GF bid to let partner find slam if he happens to have 3 aces.

If partner gave me a bergen raise and I held void in the overcaller's suit 3♠ would be the second last legal bid I'd pick below the 5 level (first one would be double)

[PhantomSac]

When I learned bergen 1M-4D was a good 1-4? I feel like in standard methods you have to have a good 1-4 or this hand type will always be a problem. Even giving a LR and then bidding again is not great, I mean for starters they were able to bid 3D and catch a raise from pard...

[nigel_k]

If we charitably assume 'reverse' Bergen then 3♣ was a full limit raise. The hand is better than a limit raise and is worth a splinter IMO. But if you don't want to splinter with as few high cards as this, or bid a direct 4♠ with so much playing strength, then it is not unreasonable to show a limit raise then bid one more which is what North did here. A balanced hand would just make one bid and let partner decide so I think North is suggesting some shape, e.g. 5431 and approx 9 HCP which is not far off.

I don't understand South's 3♠ at all - it just seems so wrong opposite any hand with four card support regardless of range. The final pass is wrong as well, especially after North bid one more, but it was really the 3♠ bid that put the partnership on the wrong track.

I am going to give South 95% if it is reverse Bergen. If North really did show 8-9 instead of 10-11 then South 70%.

[dickiegera]

3♣ was regular bergen, 4 Spades and constructive raise. [ 7 to bad 10 pts]

[ggwhiz]

IMO, 3C is a serious underbid and makes it way too easy for the opps to come in with either or both red suits.

I would try 3D and raise a 3S bid or if allowed by system, just blast 4S the first time if it's allowed to be a limit raise that won't let go.

3S by north was a serious underbid as well but as Billy Eisenberg said to Eddy Kantar after he apologized for a mis-bid, "That's OK, we deserve each other". He had mis-bid as well.

[jdonn]

I thought the idea is if you were forcing to game but going through a bergen raise you are supposed to use the weaker one, mostly to avoid a ruling against if partner hesitate-signs off since it's more clear what your intentions were.

[ArtK78]

Interesting. I have on occasion made a Bergen bid with the intention of bidding game in all events. It never occurred to me that one should make the mixed raise rather than the limit raise in those cases.

I did not notice in the original post that the Bergen bidder made the mixed raise and then bid game. If that was the rationale, then I like his bidding - game bid based on shape rather than power.

Now I would assess the blame much more to the opener. It is hard to put much of the fault on responder if his sequence shows a game bid based on shape rather than power and he knows that opener is not willing to bid a game opposite a mixed raise.

[nigel_k]

jdonn, on Mar 9 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

I thought the idea is if you were forcing to game but going through a bergen raise you are supposed to use the weaker one, mostly to avoid a ruling against if partner hesitate-signs off since it's more clear what your intentions were.

I hadn't heard of that but it is very logical. Also, in competition it is clear when you bid one more that you have real values since the weaker Bergen raise with extra shape would be ok to jump straight to game on the first round.

[ggwhiz]

Is the object not to stay out of committees instead of win them?

I don't object to pard bidding 2C over 1S, then 4S but any committee should treat a Bergen followed by game explanation as extremely self-serving and keep your deposit.

Our poster honestly bid 3C with these cards. I disagree with that assesment but aplaud the honesty.

[ArtK78]

ggwhiz, on Mar 8 2010, 04:03 PM, said:

Is the object not to stay out of committees instead of win them?

I don't object to pard bidding 2C over 1S, then 4S but any committee should treat a Bergen followed by game explanation as extremely self-serving and keep your deposit.

Our poster honestly bid 3C with these cards. I disagree with that assesment but aplaud the honesty.

On the contrary, when you want to tell your partner that you have a hand which is not preemptive and does not have the power to force to game but you believe is worth playing in a game, then using a mixed raise followed by a game bid is a good way to do it.

It is not a matter of dealing with a committee. But I do see Josh's point that if you make a Bergen limit raise and partner makes a slow sign off below game, if you then bid game you could wind up before a committee.

[gnasher]

ggwhiz, on Mar 8 2010, 10:03 PM, said:

Is the object not to stay out of committees instead of win them?

No, the objective is to win fairly, within the rules, and without being unnecessarly disdvantaged by the rules. Sometimes that means appearing before an appeals committee in order to persuade them that you haven't broken the rules.

[aguahombre]

posted on wrong string
edited out, due to boo boo/