[jillybean]

What was he thinking about?

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2025-January-06, 05:24, said:

What was he thinking about?

Bidding 3♥ he admitted this, his partner more or less admitted he only bid 3♣ because of the hesitation

[mike777]

 Cyberyeti, on 2025-January-06, 05:12, said:

OK, I get the views here, hesitator actually had a 12 count with 4 hearts, 3♣ was bid and corrected to 3♥ and is solid, you can make 4 if you guess well or play really carefully, trumps QJ8xx/A9xx, stiff K onside.

We bid 3♠ over 3♥ and went -1 for a flat board.

Thanks for posting the problem.
It is nice to know that in 2024/2025
Cohen/Bergen are ignored/ dismissed or forgotten...

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2025-January-06, 09:16, said:

Thanks for posting the problem.
It is nice to know that in 2024/2025
Cohen/Bergen are ignored/ dismissed or forgotten...

I suspect that you misunderstand both Cohen and Bergen. Bridge isn’t as simple or simplistic as stating that one must always compete to the 3 level if one finds a 9 card fit.

Bergen raises are based on a 5 card major opening, and a 4 card fit for responder. And these days many top pairs have given up the bergen weak raise to 3Min favour of the mixed raise. Personally, we went to the mixed raise because we don’t like going -200 in 3M undoubled, when neither side can make anything.

Cohen’s LOTT is about more than just ‘how many trump do you have’. It’s an equation that involves the longest combined trump suit for both pairs, not just one. Here, for opener knows EW may have no real spade fit let alone a 9 card fit.

Plus sometimes bidding tells the opps info that helps them. Bid 3H as opener and now west, looking at xxx in hearts, knows his partner has a stiff or void and so he can bid aggressively. Pass and west lacks that inference and may swing low, missing a game.

[jillybean]

Why are they called mixed raise?

Do you play mixed raises showing 4 card support, more than a preemptive raise, less than a limit raise?

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2025-January-07, 10:12, said:

Why are they called mixed raise?

Do you play mixed raises showing 4 card support, more than a preemptive raise, less than a limit raise?

Mixed raise has 4 trump, some shortness and something outside, that might be useful on either defence or offence. There is some overlap with hands that would make a preemptive raise…

A weak mixed raise looks very much like a strong preemptive raise.

[jdiana]

mikeh, on 2025-January-07, 10:42, said:

Mixed raise has 4 trump, some shortness and something outside, that might be useful on either defence or offence. There is some overlap with hands that would make a preemptive raise…

A weak mixed raise looks very much like a strong preemptive raise.

How do you show a 4-card limit raise?

I recently watched one of Gavin Wolpert's webinars in which he also recommends using 1M-3M as a mixed raise. He suggests using 1M-3♦ to show a 4-card LR. Of course, then you lose the ability to use 3♦ to show a 6-card invitational hand, but there are always tradeoffs. Wondering if you have a different approach to that problem.

I think some people incorporate it into Jacoby 2NT, which makes sense but gets a little complicated for me.

[mikeh]

jdiana, on 2025-January-07, 11:12, said:

How do you show a 4-card limit raise?

I recently watched one of Gavin Wolpert's webinars in which he also recommends using 1M-3M as a mixed raise. He suggests using 1M-3♦ to show a 4-card LR. Of course, then you lose the ability to use 3♦ to show a 6-card invitational hand, but there are always tradeoffs. Wondering if you have a different approach to that problem.

I think some people incorporate it into Jacoby 2NT, which makes sense but gets a little complicated for me.

I know a lot of players who lump 4 card LR into their version of a Jacoby 2N (often, 2S in hearts) but I really don’t like it. We play a good, imo, J2N structure but we’d lose some of that…indeed pretty much all of it,if we had to include a step to show a hand that wouldn’t accept a LR or that asked responder to clarify.

Meanwhile, in my main partnership we gave up on 4 card constructive raises. 2S 3C is a distributional LR while 1S 3D is a balanced, thus heavier hcp,LR. 3H is ‘any splinter’ with some stiff and 4C/D/H are void splinters.

In hearts, we have 2S as the balanced LR and 2C as unbalanced, with 3D (for now, I suspect we’ll be changing it) as 3 card LR with Hxx or better in trump (going through 1N with weaker trump)

In my other partnership, we play 1S 3H as the 4 card LR with 1S 3D as 6+ hearts, invitational. 3C is constructive

[mikeh]

jdiana, on 2025-January-07, 11:12, said:

How do you show a 4-card limit raise?

I recently watched one of Gavin Wolpert's webinars in which he also recommends using 1M-3M as a mixed raise. He suggests using 1M-3♦ to show a 4-card LR. Of course, then you lose the ability to use 3♦ to show a 6-card invitational hand, but there are always tradeoffs. Wondering if you have a different approach to that problem.

I think some people incorporate it into Jacoby 2NT, which makes sense but gets a little complicated for me.

I know a lot of players who lump 4 card LR into their version of a Jacoby 2N (often, 2S in hearts) but I really don’t like it. We play a good, imo, J2N structure but we’d lose some of that…indeed pretty much all of it,if we had to include a step to show a hand that wouldn’t accept a LR or that asked responder to clarify.

Meanwhile, in my main partnership we gave up on 4 card constructive raises. 2S 3C is a distributional LR while 1S 3D is a balanced, thus heavier hcp,LR. 3H is ‘any splinter’ with some stiff and 4C/D/H are void splinters.

In hearts, we have 2S as the balanced LR and 2C as unbalanced, with 3D (for now, I suspect we’ll be changing it) as 3 card LR with Hxx or better in trump (going through 1N with weaker trump)

In my other partnership, we play 1S 3H as the 4 card LR with 1S 3D as 6+ hearts, invitational. 3C is constructive

[Cascade]

I do not know what the logical alternatives are. However, if polled, I would be bidding here. The only reasons that I might not bid are:

1. I am not sure of our methods and I think 3♣ might be forcing to game.

2. I think there is a significant chance that the opponents might have missed game (probably based on their competence).

We might have half of the deck and are very likely to have a decent fit. Making a part-score or pushing the opponents too high are what I expect to be frequent outcomes. Against decent opponents the lack of 3♠ raise suggests partner will have spades quite often so I am expecting a plus score from a further spade bid by the opponents considerably more often than writing down -620.

[Cyberyeti]

Cascade, on 2025-January-07, 13:03, said:

I do not know what the logical alternatives are. However, if polled, I would be bidding here. The only reasons that I might not bid are:

1. I am not sure of our methods and I think 3♣ might be forcing to game.

2. I think there is a significant chance that the opponents might have missed game (probably based on their competence).

We might have half of the deck and are very likely to have a decent fit. Making a part-score or pushing the opponents too high are what I expect to be frequent outcomes. Against decent opponents the lack of 3♠ raise suggests partner will have spades quite often so I am expecting a plus score from a further spade bid by the opponents considerably more often than writing down -620.

That depends, if the overcaller has more than 5 of them you may not be getting a raise and partner may not have them

[thepossum]

Cyberyeti, on 2025-January-05, 11:58, said:

---

I think many of us would bid 3♣ here.

Partner hesitates over 2♠.

Are you convinced that 3♣ has no logical alternative that you would even seriously consider ?

I think I would hesitate, or even pass withut thinking

[bluenikki]

jillybean, on 2025-January-07, 10:12, said:

Why are they called mixed raise?

Because that's what Jeff Rubens called them when he introduced them, in the context of advancing a simple overcall.

Some offense, some defense. (He did not give hcp ranges.)