[onoway]

Is this a 2/1 auction? We play that Bergen bids are on over a X, also transfers.

---

If it isn't then why isn't it? People keep saying that it's not because the X shows a hand with opening values but that doesn't mean that partner can't also have opening values and who should you trust anyway, an opp or your partner? Also, if the consensus is that it isn't a GF auction then what should the bidding be? 2♥over the X and then 3♦from south over p's 2♠? Would that force to game?

[quiddity]

It is common to play that new suit responses over a takeout double are non-forcing at the two level. Bidding 2♦ over the double would show something like a weak-2♦ bid. The reason for playing this way is that the takeout double provides an extra bid (redouble) which can be used to show strength without a fit. When both opener and responder have near opening strength without a known fit the opponents might be in big trouble. Redoubling leaves open the possibility of defending a doubled contract while a standard 2/1 response would take them off the hook.

[BillHiggin]

Of course, the meaning of bids is what your partnership has agreed to, so I assume you are asking if the common agreement for a 2 level bid over an intervening double is that it is game forcing. That would be an uncommon agreement. It isn't game forcing because responder would redouble with any strong non-fitting hand.
In a 2/1 partnership without specific discussions of these auctions (i.e. with random partners within the Intermediate / Advanced Club) I would redouble with the South hand and be ready to saw off anything other than 2♣ that the opponents try.
In other competitive auctions it is common to reduce the requirements for a 2 level free bid to essentially SA levels (some, such as jec, refer to this as "Q-lite" meaning a queen less than non-competitive values).
If you are interested in newer expert methods, try looking up "transfer advances".

[TylerE]

It's non-forcing because you have XX to show a hand like this.

[kenberg]

I upvoted quiddity here. Perhaps there is a little room for doubt, but not much, I think.

1♠-X-2♦ is pretty much always played as constructive but not forcing. I don't mean not game forcing, I mean not forcing. The reason is that you will often have a hand suitable for a constructive but not forcing bid. A ten count and a decent five card suit for example. Your side may well have the values and the fit to compete over their 2♥ contract, but then again you may not.; Bidding 2♦ is apt to be safe, partner can compete or not compete 3♦, but coming in on your own later is riskier..

Now the auction did not end there, which is why, perhaps, there is room for doubt. I bid 2♦ and lho bids 2♥. Now partner rebids his spades. Who asked him to? A decent six card suit I trust, but I don't see that it shows more. On many of my ten count 2♦ bids I imagine I will be letting partner play 2♠. So I am not sure what to make of 2NT. But I still doubt that it is forcing.

[ggwhiz]

I would just add the importance and high frequency of being able to bid these weak 2 type hands over a double.

Otherwise you risk selling out or misjudging how high to compete when responder has say, 6-4 shape and your side has 1/2 the deck and on this auction (with different cards of course) a diamond over followed by a spade through could set up your best defence.

Using redouble to show this hand will bring up other issues on the continuations, ie. after redouble, 2♥ we play an immediate 2♠ bid by opener as a minimum with shape since I would usually pass to let you tell me what the nature of your redouble is. It could be invitational (somewhere), game forcing or the opponents just bid something I want to hammer.

You will probably win 4 hands for every one you lose by adding this to your toolbox.

[onoway]

XX is another bid I have troubles with as some people I have run into at the tables play that it shows both fit and values (the way I was taught actually) and others, like most people here apparently, play that it doesn't. So what do you bid if you have a fit and values,just jump to game? I hate that sort of leaping about as it doesn't allow p to show an unbalanced hand which actually might make slam even if opps have points. Also, people often X on trash so getting derailed by a X doesn't sit well, though I take the point about punishing opps who do that.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea of the suit at 2 level, not a jump, being weak, as that simply never crossed my mind. I don't understand the logic as p could well have in MY suit what I have in hers so it seems to me that nt is a much more accurate bid in that case. But then I was also taught that bidding nt (at less than 3 level) over a p's suit was generally asking for p's second suit, which is not exactly standard either it seems. The hand is also way too strong for 1nt and 2nt is unclear to say the least..and can be passed. P suggested I should just have jumped to 3nt but where are the ♣?What if p has a single suited hand and I can't get to it (which turned out to be close to the case, had only one logical entry)

Thanks for the replies. I will try to update my bidding, in spite of my discomfort with this auction meaning what apparently it does mean to most people.

ggwhiz..posts crossed..how do you get back into a game force with this hand after a XX? I cannot bid the opp's suit, whatever it might be even if p has shown 6 when I have only the singleton, even if it is an honor, as I think that promises somewhat more? What's forcing and what's not is a minefield, and obviously changes according to context, so how do you get there after a XX?

[ggwhiz]

The easiest way to start is that after a redouble (bid by them) back to the redoubler whether opener passed or not, a new suit is forcing (since a direct new suit bid is not). cue bid of their suit is game forcing with spade support and you will often find that a 2nt (invitational) or 3nt bid stands out. And of course double by either partner shows a desire to hurt them but it's a strong suggestion not a demand.

On the actual hand, after redouble, 2♣ back to me I'll bid 2♦ and with any luck get 2nt from partner. On a really good day it goes 2♥ back to me and I'll express my doubts.

Practice and partnership tendencies need a lengthy test drive cause these auctions don't happen every day, the ones with the 2♦ type bid over the opponents double are much more common and why they are so useful.

ps. I just noticed your point about notrump when both partners have a stiff in the others (hoped for) source of tricks, notrump is the WORST place to play. And a most common trap to fall into.

[BillHiggin]

onoway, on 2013-September-05, 09:58, said:

So what do you bid if you have a fit and values,just jump to game? I hate that sort of leaping about as it doesn't allow p to show an unbalanced hand which actually might make slam even if opps have points. Also, people often X on trash so getting derailed by a X doesn't sit well, though I take the point about punishing opps who do that.

Most common is to use "Jordan 2N" where a jump to 2N shows invitational or better raise of partner's major (mixed raise is the problem that is not handled well in standard methods (your use of Bergan raises over double is not so favored)

Quote

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea of the suit at 2 level, not a jump, being weak, as that simply never crossed my mind. I don't understand the logic as p could well have in MY suit what I have in hers so it seems to me that nt is a much more accurate bid in that case. But then I was also taught that bidding nt over a p's suit was generally asking for p's second suit,and/or showing some controls in whatever the opps might have bid, which is not exactly standard either it seems. The hand is also too strong for 1nt and too weak for 2nt so that leads to other problems. P suggested I should just have jumped to 3nt but where are the ♣?

In general, if you are thinking of playing Nt but not sure of game, the most likely road to riches is by collecting the doubled penalties the opps are offering. Poor fit and values just short of game are what produce such nice results as +300/+500 when all you were dealt was a partscore or a sketchy gmae.

Quote

ggwhiz..posts crossed..how do you get back into a game force with this hand after a XX? I cannot bid the opp's suit, whatever it might be even if p has shown 6 when I have only the singleton, even if it is an honor, as I think that promises somewhat more? What's forcing and what's not is a minefield, and obviously changes according to context, so how do you get there after a XX?

Since new suit after double is non-forcing (but is invitational), redouble and then new suit IS forcing to game.

[kenberg]

About XX and fits (in the major)
With anyone I have discussed it with we play
1M-X-Xx-something
P-something-3M
as showing an invitational raise with exactly three trump.
This assumes that you have some way of inviting with four trump. I prefer an immediate 2NT over teh X as a four card invit raise but if you like Bergen, I imagine that works. As long as your pard knows Bergen is on over doubles. I think I looked that up in Better Bidding with Bergen and he said it's off over a double, but of course that's just his opinion


Added: BBB, pp 63-64
He gives a list of hands to bid after 1♠-X

AT64 / AJ32 / J75 / 83 2NT (artificial)


A85 / KJ43 / QT65 / 93 xx, support spades later.

As you know, I generally do not choose to play Bergen. The main reason is that there is absolutely no unanimity as to when it is on, when is it off. Everyone knows exactly when, it's just that five different people know five different things.

[onoway]

not only that but some people play reverse Bergen...I would assume it was off with a partner I hadn't discussed it with. Someone asked me to play as off only over a suit bid and it's come in handy a few times so I've sort of adopted it as a choice, if there is one. It absolutely isn't what Bergen says, but it's surprising how many people play it like that anyway. OTOH Bergen plays a much higher class of player than I normally do

[SteveMoe]

A good approach after 1M-X is BROMAD: Bergen Raises After Major and Double...
2♣ = 3-card Limit Raise
2♦ = 3=card constructive raise
2M = 3 card weak raise (preempt)
2 Other Major = 4-card Constructive Raise
2N Jordan - 4-card Limit/GF Raise.
3M = Preemptive Raise (I prefer to make this a balanced constructive raise when vulnerable, so 2 OM implies useful shortness).

Using XX for remaining 10+ HCP hands allows responder to confirm NO FIT.

3♣, 3♦, 3OM can be used as you choose. Some like fit-jumps, some like natural no fit/Invitational. Some want these as natural preemptive.

[Vampyr]

SteveMoe, on 2013-September-05, 20:50, said:

A good approach after 1M-X is BROMAD: Bergen Raises After Major and Double...

Wow - what a lot of ways to raise!

Quote

Using XX for remaining 10+ HCP hands allows responder to confirm NO FIT.

Well, with an unbalanced hand I would like to be able to bid my suit rather than be forced to redouble -- otherwise we will be guessing over low-level penalty doubles (by our side). Not to mention the difficulties if the opponents bounce and the auction comes back to me too high for me to ever bid my suit.

[BillHiggin]

SteveMoe, on 2013-September-05, 20:50, said:

A good approach after 1M-X is BROMAD: Bergen Raises After Major and Double...

See http://bridgewinners...takeout-double/
On the second page, Larry Cohen gives his version of BROMAD. What he describes as BROMAD (I would tend to expect LC to be a reasonable source for Bergen maethods - they did have some history together) looks a whole lot more like transfer advances.
But naming issues aside, at least his suggestion looks a e lot better to me than this version of BROMAD.
(I see that the Wiki article on BROMAD suggests that there are multiple versions)

[onoway]

BillHiggin, on 2013-September-06, 12:05, said:

See http://bridgewinners...takeout-double/
On the second page, Larry Cohen gives his version of BROMAD. What he describes as BROMAD (I would tend to expect LC to be a reasonable source for Bergen maethods - they did have some history together) looks a whole lot more like transfer advances.
But naming issues aside, at least his suggestion looks a e lot better to me than this version of BROMAD.
(I see that the Wiki article on BROMAD suggests that there are multiple versions)

And then it's back to not having a clue which version..if any..p is playing. The problem comes down to not always playing with a regular partner so it's difficult to get into conventions which come in too many flavours.

Ken has a very good point. Unless playing with a reg partner it's probably better to stick with the vanilla approach. Even then, possibly; I've met a few people who have a trillion conventions listed that they play but they don't consistently end up with better scores at the end of it all than some who play only a few basic ones.

The thing is sometimes wading through the lot to find out just what the vanilla approach is.

[BillHiggin]

onoway, on 2013-September-06, 12:49, said:

And then it's back to not having a clue which version..if any..p is playing. The problem comes down to not always playing with a regular partner so it's difficult to get into conventions which come in too many flavours.

Ken has a very good point. Unless playing with a reg partner it's probably better to stick with the vanilla approach. Even then, possibly; I've met a few people who have a trillion conventions listed that they play but they don't consistently end up with better scores at the end of it all than some who play only a few basic ones.

The thing is sometimes wading through the lot to find out just what the vanilla approach is.

I certainly agree that neither version of BROMAD is not for the casual partnership. I will repeat the earlier link http://bridgewinners...takeout-double/ and point out that the first page of that article covers the plain vanilla approach that is more appropriate for casual use. Of course, there is still the possibility that a casual partner may not be aware of those methods (after all, if you yourself were perfectly aware of them then you would not have made the OP), but those methods are fairly common. I may like the ideas in transfer advances, but in practice I have not used them. I stick with the simpler methods and am not too surprised when it turns out that partner has some other ideas that seem "standard" to him.