[Lord Molyb]

---

MPs.
If you're playing bergen raises, where a 3m bid promises 4 card support and a certain point range, while a double raise is weak, how would you bid this?
The problem is, this is a 6 card limit raise. If partner has something like
♠ Ax
♥ AKxxx
♦ QJx
♣ xx

Then you want to play in 4♥.

If partner has roughly
♠ Qxx
♥ AJxxx
♦ Qxx
♣ Kx
Then he'll want to pass quickly.

If partner has a bigger hand like
♠ Qxxx
♥ AKxxxx
♦ AQx
♣ -

Then he'll make a slam try. (yes, I gave both sides 12 card fits)
So how do I invite with this support? Do I lie about my trump count?

[Bbradley62]

No invite. 4♥. Or something else that's game-forcing, but no invite.

[SteveMoe]

If you play split range splinters this hand is perfect for the lower range (say, 10-12).

If not, then you have to follow your 4-bid agreements:
1) If extended Bergen, then 1N forcing followed by 4♥ would show 2 pieces outside and long trumps. (4♦ directly would show one defensive trick outside and 4♥ would promise offense only).
2) if not, then you need to manufacture a forcing bid. Your side has 14 losers max and 11 trumps. So choose among 2N or 4♣.

Few will play in a partial.
Even with the 8-loser 12 count that fails the rule of 22 (and not all will open), game is at least 52%.

[ggwhiz]

This is a game force and a normal 4♥ bid here but if I had ♠Axx instead of ♠ KJx I would try jacoby 2nt on the way just in case and wouldn't mind if pard chose that here.

Similarly if I had the ♦A I would bid 2nt in case pard has shortness there and we strike gold.

[Vampyr]

SteveMoe, on 2012-December-30, 21:05, said:

If you play split range splinters this hand is perfect for the lower range (say, 10-12).

Unless you play the weaker splinters as 3 or 4 controls rather than using a specific point count. If so, this hand has only two controls and does not qualify... however, a hand like this is good for Bergen raises, because you can bid one and then raise to game.

[mr1303]

It would take a lot to stop me from splintering with this hand. Trying to cater for a perfect minimum (by which I mean one which has maximum wastage in clubs and soft values) is losing bridge to not bid game, and I'm too good for just a 4H bid.

[jillybean]

Does your splinter demand a cue below game?

[mr1303]

Not at all. It asks partner to look at his/her hand and discount the wasted values in that suit.

Once I've splintered on this hand I don't intend to co-operate further.

[Codo]

This hand seems too strong for a minisplinter (10-12) or 4♥ but perfect for 4 ♣ showing 11-14 and a club shortness.

[kgr]

mr1303, on 2012-December-31, 04:59, said:

It would take a lot to stop me from splintering with this hand. Trying to cater for a perfect minimum (by which I mean one which has maximum wastage in clubs and soft values) is losing bridge to not bid game, and I'm too good for just a 4H bid.

What is your range for the splinter?
For me it is 12-14 and 4c-support and a singleton (no void): 4♣ is what I bid.

[aguahombre]

4♣ is fine for us. Splinters in our world are not slam tries; they show no more than the support points for game. Partner know this, and my hand will not be a disappointment.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-31, 11:04, said:

4♣ is fine for us. Splinters in our world are not slam tries; they show no more than the support points for game. Partner know this, and my hand will not be a disappointment.

Well, you wouldn't bother to splinter unless you hoped to, on occasion, reach a thin slam.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2012-December-31, 11:42, said:

Well, you wouldn't bother to splinter unless you hoped to, on occasion, reach a thin slam.

If opener wants to use the information to try for slam, that doesn't make the response itself a slam try. Responder's hopes are not relevant; the limited nature of his bid is relevant.

[ArtK78]

If I held this hand playing Bergen Raises, I would make a limit raise and, if partner signs off, I bid game. This gets the message across that I am bidding game based on a large fit but not on game-forcing power. So partner should not get too excited.

If partner bids game, I will pass. It might be possible to contruct hands that can make a slam when partner's hand is good enough to bid game but not strong enough to make a slam try opposite a limit raise, but I don't have enough to go past 4♥.

Obviously, if partner makes a slam try, I will cooperate.

[wyman]

I'm never playing below 4H on this hand. I'd mini-splinter if I could, but I don't think I'm good enough for 4C. So if I can't bid 3S systemically, I'll bid 4H.

[petterb]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-31, 12:10, said:

If I held this hand playing Bergen Raises, I would make a limit raise and, if partner signs off, I bid game.

Aren't you in trouble if partner makes a slow signoff over your limit raise?

[mycroft]

I expect a TD call, and I expect to say "I have 2 more trumps than I've shown, clearly this is the 'limit-and-game' hand" (as opposed to the "I've shown 10-11, but it's a *really good* 11"...

I'd also be arguing that I can't gameforce with this hand because it needs more controls, but that I'm not stopping below game. (Note that that, also, isn't what usually is contained in the "was always going to bid game" hands that bid on after a slow signoff).

I'd expect it to be polled, and I'd expect to win. And if I didn't, oh well. Is this the finals of the Blues?

[Vampyr]

petterb, on 2012-December-31, 15:40, said:

Aren't you in trouble if partner makes a slow signoff over your limit raise?

Well, yes. But partner should be aware of this possibility and be careful with his tempo here. You can help him by holding out your stop card for the full ten seconds, preventing RHO from calling prematurely.

But I guess you won't see this, because it seems you have me blocked (I mentioned the possibility of making a Bergen raise followed by a raise to game way above.

[ArtK78]

This is not a unique treatment. There are many hands which have less than game forcing values on which you want to bid game but don't want to overly excite partner. The ability to make a limit raise followed by a game bid handles these cases.

I would not expect a problem, but I would appreciate it if my partner didn't take an overly long period of time before deciding to sign off.

[aguahombre]

This idea about making an invitational bid, intending to accept one's own invite was explored quite fully several months ago ---including the issue of a BIT.

I personally think nothing good can come of the practice. Not only are there rulings to consider where you must convince a TD of your decision to engineer, but also you lose out when partner accepts the invitation but has a hand which would go for slam if you had included her in your operation by showing the real value of your hand.

Someone mentioned using a forcing NT then jumping to 4M, which we do with 5 card support when a bit too strong for an immediate 4M. that plan does not have the same drawbacks.