[rbforster]

In Precision with limited openers, how important is it to give responder a way to sign off in his own suit? In standard there is a bigger desire to keep the auction alive by responding on weak non-fitting hands (forcing NT usually), just in case partner has a 20 count - not so in Precision. Consider the two common auctions:

1) 1M-3C
2) 1M-1N(forcing)-2D/2M/2OM-3C

One standard approach is:

#1 = Invitational, with a good club suit
#2 = Signoff, weak with a long club suit

Alternatively, Bergen is nice for raising partner and preempting the opponents quickly, so you might instead play

#1 = Bergen Raise
#2 = Invitational club suit

which leaves you stuck passing 1M with a weak hand and a long suit. This may be a bad contract, but when you have a weak hand opposite a limited opener they may well have game and can't penalize you without you getting a chance to run to your suit (at the two level). Likewise, Bergen hands can be bid with a 2M or 3M raise, less descriptively, or the 1-suited invite can bid 2N as a generic invite instead.

If you could only pick 2 of these 3 hand types to show - weak jump shift, Bergen raise, and 1-suited invite, which would you give up?

[rbforster]

Feel free to comment on your reasoning. Many people seem least excited about the Bergen raise - if you feel that way, could you say a little more about that?

[dake50]

With any system that limits 1M(not just precision,
your exemplar), weak sign-offs have only an obstructive use.
Game-us is off the table. Game-them is likely/sure.
The weak obstruct loses as much in the telling
"I'm weak" as it gains in space used up. IMO.
Leave some ambiguity about how strong responders
pass may be works just as well - let opponents guess.

[mycroft]

Even - perhaps especially - in a limited opener system, I prefer strong jump shifts to weak - especially into the minor. Partner has two ranges, and you get your slam invites off your chest right away. 1♥-3♣ is wonderful when you've caught a misfit, and they might have played it (in 3NT, natch) if you'd just kept your mouth shut. Also, people *will* WJS with moderate support for another suit, and you get the joy of playing the 6-1 club fit instead of the 4-4 diamond fit.

I'm really beginning to like Fit Jumps by UPH in a limited opener context - effectively, if you have a fit for me, or if you have a max and it hasn't downgraded knowing my two suits, or if you can play the crossruff in the auction, go to game.

I love NF bids in limited opener contexts, but I like them a lot more when we know we have a fit. Call me Ishmael chicken.

[sfi]

rbforster, on 2011-October-04, 08:23, said:

Feel free to comment on your reasoning. Many people seem least excited about the Bergen raise - if you feel that way, could you say a little more about that?

I suspect even people who really like Bergen raises (and I'm not one of them, although I'm happy to play them if a partner likes them) would not argue that they are a necessity. Being able to get to clubs and invite seem to be more fundamental needs than being able to distinguish between 3/4 card support.

If you have a 6 count with long clubs, your partnership still has around half the points in the deck. There is no real reason to think that the opponents have game, so why give up our ability to bid sensibly with those hands? Similarly, showing a long suit and an invitational hand is very important to get to 3nt when opener has fitting honours.

My precision partner and I recently switched to something that matches your first approach, giving up strong jump shifts, and have had a couple of small gains with the invitational jump shift. We have yet to really miss a Bergen option, although there has been one hand where the strong jump shift would have been very useful.

[awm]

If you don't play a weak signoff, what is your plan when partner opens 1♠ and you have 1237 shape? If you pass, you're probably in a silly partial and you might even miss a game if partner has some club fit. If you bid 1NT, partner will often (usually?) rebid 2♥ and now you have made matters worse for yourself (presuming 3♣ now would be invite); you get to violate burn's law at the two-level instead of the one level. Really this is pretty atrocious. It might be even worse if your suit is hearts.

One also shouldn't underestimate the pressure effect of weak jumps here. Since you play a limited 1M, you can make a weak jump on a very wide range of hands (say 0-9 hcp); basically anything that won't produce game unless partner has a good fit for your suit.

My preference is to play the direct jump as weak, and the slow bid (via 1NT) as invite for basically this reason. I'm also not a huge fan of bergen raises; I think if the choice was 3♣=bergen or 3♣ is not a legal bid in my system at all, that would be a fairly close decision. Far too often the bergen raise (especially in spades) forces you to play 3♠-1 when opponents were selling to 2♠= all day long. Even if they were to balance over 2♠, you could always bid 3♠ later and usually you break even (unless they can bid at the four-level, which is rare). Plus partner has extra space for game tries over the single raise, which can improve your game bidding accuracy. Plus you let opponents sneak in a really safe lead directional bid (or takeout double) over 3♣ when over 2♠ (that could be a defensive three-card raise on occasion) they would be taking much more of a chance in either of those actions.

[rbforster]

Adam - I agree if you don't play Bergen, having the fast 3♣ be weak seems best. Putting the invite through the forcing NT risks less interference (they are wekaer), and may uncover a side 4-4M fit along the way. I still like Bergen, and would try to accommodate both by having my strong JS bid (of 2N->3♣) be 2-way with the option to pass the 3♣ relay with a weak hand but of course the GCC won't allow that unless you just psych it (not too often).

[straube]

We play...

3C-weak clubs
3D-mixed raise

We aren't compelled to bid either one. For example, we're free to make a simple raise of the major with four trump. With the weak club hand, we can decide to respond a semiforcing 1N or even pass if our suit lacks length or quality.

I think there's too much downside in assigning 3C as an invitational jump shift. We don't want to miss out on a 6-2 major suit fit or throw away a 4-4 heart fit (with say a 1426 pattern) when game may be on. With the invitational hand and clubs, we make a semi-forcing 1N and then judge what to do...a delayed 3C bid meaning we have an invitational hand.

In practice, the mixed raise comes up fairly often. Can't say how successful it is, but again, we only use it when we choose to be at the 3-level.

Using 3D as a weak jump shift has a lot less upside than the 3C bid because we have a much greater shot of signing off in 2D than 2C (when holding clubs).

We play...
1S-1N, 2H-3D as drop dead
1S-1N, 2H-2N as possibly GI diamonds
1H-1N, 2H-3D as invitational

In sum, I think there's more value in using 3C as a suit than is the case for 3D.

[Zelandakh]

I agree with Adam here: if you can only accomodate 2 then dropping Bergen is surely best. But you can also adjust your system to accomodate both; I play:-

1H - 3C as a limit raise, and then

1H - 2C is weak (and can be 4)
and
1H - 1S (relay) - 1N (min without 4 spades) - 3C is inviational

Similarly over 1S:-

1S - 3C is my version of Jacoby, GF raise
1S - 2C is weak, 4+ clubs
1S - 1N (relay) - 2C (min w/o hearts) - 3C is invitational

It is naturally more difficult to accomodate everything in the weak to intermediate range if you play 2/1 - that is precisely the decision you make in using the method.

[akhare]

Zelandakh, on 2011-October-05, 01:12, said:

I agree with Adam here: if you can only accomodate 2 then dropping Bergen is surely best. But you can also adjust your system to accomodate both; I play:-

1H - 3C as a limit raise, and then

1H - 2C is weak (and can be 4)
and
1H - 1S (relay) - 1N (min without 4 spades) - 3C is inviational

Similarly over 1S:-

1S - 3C is my version of Jacoby, GF raise
1S - 2C is weak, 4+ clubs
1S - 1N (relay) - 2C (min w/o hearts) - 3C is invitational

What are your 2♦ / 2♥ responses in this scheme? Also, what are the continuations after 1S - 1N - 2C (min without hearts)? I am guessing that 1S - 1N - 2D and 1S - 1N - 2H are natural.

[Zelandakh]

akhare, on 2011-October-05, 08:41, said:

What are your 2♦ / 2♥ responses in this scheme? Also, what are the continuations after 1S - 1N - 2C (min without hearts)? I am guessing that 1S - 1N - 2D and 1S - 1N - 2H are natural.

1S - 2D is weak and natural and denies 4 clubs unless wanting to bid the hand as a diamond 1-suiter
1S - 2H is weak and natural with 5+ hearts and denies a 4 card minor unless wanting to bid the hand as a heart 1-suiter
1S - 1N - 2D shows hearts (any strength), then 2H is a GF relay and 3C is natural and invitational
1S - 1N - 2H and up are relay responses showing a max, and therefore GF.

The same structure applies over 1H where a 1NT response is weak with spades.

[Free]

I would just drop Bergen raises. There's no real use to them, you can play 1M-3M as mixed raise. Personally I prefer:
1M-3m = INV
1M-1NT-...-3♣ = weak signoff

If you really want to drop the natural invites, I'd play 2/1 GF except rebid. This frees up your 1M-3m bids, keeps your weak signoffs, and allows you to invite. However, you might complicate GF actions because it's not easy to show a GF hand with 6+m (that's why I also prefer artificial responses after 1M-2m).

[sfi]

awm, on 2011-October-04, 19:47, said:

My preference is to play the direct jump as weak, and the slow bid (via 1NT) as invite for basically this reason.

An off the cuff thought why this might not be ideal is that frequently the weak hand in clubs might be willing to pass a second suit at the two level (imagine a 1336 hand), so the 3♣ signoff is not the first option. However, the invitational hand is worth stressing that it's a good suit immediately so that partner can evaluate game chances less ambiguously.

Any merit in that idea?

[awm]

Over 1♥, you can get all the options without really losing anything. Just play 3m=bergen and after 1♥-1NT-2♣/2♦/2♥:

3-new-minor = to play
3-minor-raise = mild invite
2♠ = invitational with a minor (2NT asks which, if responder bids 3-opener's-minor it's a better invite than direct raise)

Over 1♠ you do have to make a choice. Bergen is a lot worse over 1♠ than 1♥, so it may be worth ditching it. If you want a bergen-style raise here, why not use 3♥? Then you can have a structure like:

3m = natural invite
3♥ = mixed spade raise

1♠-1NT-2m:
--- cheapest bid in other minor = weak natural
--- 2♥ = weak natural
--- 3♥ = invite natural

1♠-1NT-2♠
Pass with any weak hand except one with very long hearts (which might produce a game)
--- 3♣ = invitational with 5/5 minors
--- 3♦ = transfer to hearts, 6+♥ less than invite
--- 3♥ = invitational with hearts

[Free]

I forgot 1 more argument against Bergen Raises. In precision, after a mixed raise you'll usually play 3M. Then why wouldn't you bid that immediately to put up the pressure? If you have to bid 3♣, you give opps almost the entire 3-level to intervene, but if you bid 1M-3M they don't have much bidding space. Also, it's very attractive to penalize very weak raises (0-5HCP) when V, so I prefer to avoid disasters and play 1M-3M as the mixed raise.

[JLOGIC]

I think by far the least important of "weak raise, mixed raise, limit raise" is weak raise. If you are too weak for a mixed raise, the opponents will probably not have much trouble finding their game, especially if you tell them you have this hand type...responding 1N seems to work better for me. The weak raise will also be the least common and accomplish the least constructively.

I usually play 1-3 as mixed, and 1M-2N as limit+, which allows you to have both minor suit hand types, and the important major suit raises, losing only a way to show a weak raise directly.

[mycroft]

Justin, how often does the mixed raise do anything besides 3M? Does it give an advantage if they compete over the weak raise?

Because I play 1M-3M as weak-or-mixed - basically 0-bad 9. I agree that it's not hard to compete over the "max 15 and max 6", but the "max 15 and potential 9" feels harder - and we've had our share of nice doubles when it was wrong.

I'm willing to learn - and change - but this really is nice.

[JLOGIC]

mycroft, on 2011-October-10, 10:58, said:

Justin, how often does the mixed raise do anything besides 3M? Does it give an advantage if they compete over the weak raise?

Because I play 1M-3M as weak-or-mixed - basically 0-bad 9. I agree that it's not hard to compete over the "max 15 and max 6", but the "max 15 and potential 9" feels harder - and we've had our share of nice doubles when it was wrong.

I'm willing to learn - and change - but this really is nice.

I'm not sure if I understnd your question.

I do understand that you like to play a very wide range 1M 3M bid. I like to play this over something like a precision 1D opener, since game is very unlikely oppoisite a weak raise or mixed raise and I would like to apply max pressure, but I feel like a mixed raise can often produce a game in a major, and I would want partner to be able to judge to bid it when it's correct. Obviously a very wide range will put more pressure on the opps more often, but the tradeoff is less accuracy in your own auction, over a major my judgement is that this is too big of a tradeoff.

You are definitely right that including the 0-6 hands with stronger hands will make life harder on them, they might bid and go for a number when you have a max, or be conservative and miss a game when you are min. I am not saying that this style is "wrong" I just don't like how hard it will make life on partner, and it is personally seems like too much of a crapshoot for my taste. Of course aggressive wide range opening preempts are similar, and many good pairs have wildly differing views on those too, with no strategy being dominnt. I would like to be able to bid 1H p 3H with x KJxx Qxxx Jxxx in order to jam them but also not miss a game if we have one, and I would be worried about missing one if I showed 0-9.

If this did not answer your questions, please feel free to clarify.

[Foxx]

David Bowie is to the China girl as Bergen Raises are to Precision:

"I'll ruin everything you are . . . . . . I'll give you television . . . . . . I'll give you eyes of blue . . . . . . I'LL GIVE YOU MAN-OF-WARS TO RULE THE WORLD!! . . . . . ."