[rogerclee]

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 12:56 PM, said:

3)  inviting game via a limit raise, which states my values pretty accurately, but understates the playing potential of the hand.

I don't know how you can think you have the values for an invitation but the playing strength of a game force. I thought "playing strength" and "values" meant the same thing.

But I understand what you are saying, you want a way of saying "I have a very bad game force." This is understandable, but I don't think it is a significant loss for standard bridge.

Anyway we are getting away from the point that this hand does not have the values to force to game. Yes game is very good or even cold opposite a good-fitting minimum, that is why we use the magic of probability and consider how often partner has a good fit versus a bad fit.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Mar 5 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 5 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

This is the type of hand where I would make a Bergen limit raise and then bid game.

However, playing 3♥ as a limit raise, I have little choice than to bid 3♥.

If you think it's worth a game bid then why aren't you forcing to game? Alternatively if you think it's not then why would you raise a Bergen limit raise signoff to game?

Disagree with this Josh.

One of the advantages (I see) of playing Bergen Raises is there are some hands that don't fall into a neat basket.

Take something like:

x, JTxxx, AQxx, xxx and pard opens 1♥. Certainly with five trump, a stiff and a side AQ we should be in game, however, in my book:

We are too heavy for 4♥;
We are too lite for a splinter (although that is my second choice), much less 2N;
2♦ is too weird;
You don't want to risk a pass of 3♥.

One solution is to make a Bergen 3♣ raise and raise to game.

Gnome and I play a 3N call this type of hand, and that fills the gap well.

[jdonn]

Phil I really don't see your point, or Art's. If you think game is likely enough to make that it's worth being in it, then you should get to game somehow, even if the way in which you do so is not completely descriptive. Game is so much more likely than slam that to not force to game on such a hand makes no sense at all.

So on your example hand, if not playing the 3NT gadget, you should just raise to 4♥. Who cares if you're too heavy so long as you think game will probably make?

[TimG]

jdonn, on Mar 6 2009, 04:03 AM, said:

Phil I really don't see your point, or Art's. If you think game is likely enough to make that it's worth being in it, then you should get to game somehow, even if the way in which you do so is not completely descriptive. Game is so much more likely than slam that to not force to game on such a hand makes no sense at all.

So on your example hand, if not playing the 3NT gadget, you should just raise to 4♥. Who cares if you're too heavy so long as you think game will probably make?

Isn't a Bergen raise followed by a game bid "getting to game somehow"?

Might there be some advantage to making the limit raise? For instance, opener may be better placed after 1H-(P)-3m-(4S) than after 1H-(P)-4H-(4S), especially if the direct 4H lacks the definition of "no defensive trick" or some such.

Of course, the flip side is that the opponents might be better placed after 1H-(P)-4H if 4H is less well defined.

EDIT: To be clear, if the is no 3N gadget and my only limit raise is 3H, I agree 100% that it is better to bid game mis-descriptively than to stop short of game if you think your hand is worth game.

[ArtK78]

A comment about the "3N gadget."

I am going to assume that what you mean by "3N gadget" is that you differentiate your preemptive raises to 4 of a major - a direct jump to 4 is WEAK, while 3N shows a "good" preemptive raise.

I play that as well. Still, I find it useful to use the Bergen limit raise followed by a game bid for a "real" game bid with less than traditional game forcing values - such as the hand in the OP. In my opinion, the hand in the OP is too good for any sort of preemptive raise to 4♥. So, making a limit raise and then bidding game shows this hand.

[AlternaG]

For those who would bid 4H after making a Bergen raise (that is, those who feel that this is a GF hand, but that Jacoby 2N is not an option due to partner's overexcitement with a better-than-minimal but not omgawesome hand):

If you opted to make a (passable) limit raise in this system, I'll suggest that bidding a forcing NT followed by 4H is better. Obviously your partner will draw likely incorrect inferences about your shape, but this line may better describe your values.

If you think that this is a limit raise, no two ways about it, obviously you should make a limit raise.

[Phil]

ArtK78, on Mar 6 2009, 08:58 AM, said:

A comment about the "3N gadget."

I am going to assume that what you mean by "3N gadget" is that you differentiate your preemptive raises to 4 of a major - a direct jump to 4 is WEAK, while 3N shows a "good" preemptive raise.

You assume correctly .

Quote

I play that as well.  Still, I find it useful to use the Bergen limit raise followed by a game bid for a "real" game bid with less than traditional game forcing values - such as the hand in the OP.  In my opinion, the hand in the OP is too good for any sort of preemptive raise to 4♥.  So, making a limit raise and then bidding game shows this hand.

Having a 3N raise alongside Bergen is too much of a good thing. That gives you six ways to raise a major (not including splinters).

[Phil]

AlternaG, on Mar 6 2009, 09:48 AM, said:

For those who would bid 4H after making a Bergen raise (that is, those who feel that this is a GF hand, but that Jacoby 2N is not an option due to partner's overexcitement with a better-than-minimal but not omgawesome hand):

If you opted to make a (passable) limit raise in this system, I'll suggest that bidding a forcing NT followed by 4H is better. Obviously your partner will draw likely incorrect inferences about your shape, but this line may better describe your values.

If you think that this is a limit raise, no two ways about it, obviously you should make a limit raise.

Don't like this approach.

One of the motivations of a Bergen raise is that we are stealing some bidding space. By bidding 1N, we give license for 4th hand to sneak in a lead director, or they might find the sac or make.

1N then jumps to 4M should be reserved for limit raises that get upgraded after pard's rebid.

I'd rather bid a direct 4M than 1N.

[hrothgar]

One comment about the Bergen raise followed by 4♥ plan:

You could end up VERY badly positioned if partner tanks over the Bergen raise...

[Phil]

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

One comment about the Bergen raise followed by 4♥ plan:

You could end up VERY badly positioned if partner tanks over the Bergen raise...

In which case I will pull out my trusty system notes to show the director that a Bergen Raise may include delayed game raises.

If I alert a Bergen Raise, I would say initially four (or more) trump, 6-9 / 9-12 HCP which includes the HIQ?

With other hands that aren't clear cut 4♥ calls, I would be careful putting myself in an ethical bind and either jam it into game somehow, or respect pard's (slow) signoff.

[hanp]

Phil, on Mar 6 2009, 10:38 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

One comment about the Bergen raise followed by 4♥ plan:

You could end up VERY badly positioned if partner tanks over the Bergen raise...

In which case I will pull out my trusty system notes to show the director that a Bergen Raise may include delayed game raises.

This would be not so relevant, it doesn't show that you were already planning to bid 4 and I doubt it will be clear that that was already your plan. If it was a clear GF you wouldn't have bid a Bergen raise.

But there are many siimilar situations where partner's slow sign off puts you in a difficult situation. For example after 1H-(2D) - 3D, if partner bids a slow 3H then you have a problem if you have a close hand. But I don't think a good partner needs to think very long in these situations.

[TimG]

I think that the limit raise camp (and the drive to game camp) are over valuing the 5th trump in a balanced hand. So, I broke out the double dummy sim.

When opener is 5♥332 with 11-14 HCP, there are 8 or fewer tricks in hearts 32%, 9 tricks 45% and 10+ tricks 23%. When the 11 point hands are eliminated, there are 8 or fewer tricks available 23% of the time.

When opener is 5♥431 with 11-14 HCP, there are 8 or fewer tricks in hearts 11%, 9 tricks 30% and 10+ tricks 59% of the time. Eliminate the 11 point hands and there are 8 or fewer tricks available 7% of the time.

When opener is 5♥332 or 5♥431 with 11-14 HCP, there are 8 or fewer tricks in hearts 23%, 9 tricks 39% and 10+ tricks 38% of the time. Eliminate the 11 point hands and there are 8 or fewer tricks available 16% of the time.

To compare a limit raise to a single raise, suppose opener is 5332 and accepts a limit raise whenever he has 14 HCP (game here is 47% -- with 13 HCP game is only 28%) otherwise declines. Suppose also, that at the other table, responder makes a single raise and opener always passes. We end up -1.1 IMPs per board when opener is 11-14 and -0.5 IMPs per board when opener is 12-14.

Now do the same thing, but assume opener is 5431. This time, we want to accept the limit raise whenever opener has 12 (game is 54%), 13 (game is 71%) or 14 (game is 80%). Now we're +3 IMPs/board when opener is 11-14 and +4.7 IMPs/board when opener is 12-14.

When the 5431 & 5332 hands are combined*, we want to accept game when opener has 13 (game is 46%) or 14 (game is 63%), but not when he has 12 (game is 33%) or 11 (game is 19%). Here we end up +0.25 IMPs/board when opener is 11-14 and +1.1 IMPs/board when opener is 12-14.

So, seems like those who want to treat this as a limit raise are correct.

* This is not 1000 5332 hands plus 1000 5431 hands, but rather 1000 hands that are either 5431 or 5332. It's actually 5332 about 55% and 5431 about 45% of the time. The IMPs/board figures could be improved up by accepting with 5332 14 counts and 5431 12-14 counts, but the way I set up the sim, I could not separate these from the combined group. Since the sim suggests treating this as a limit raise even with this handicap, I'm not going to rewrite the sim to separate them out.

What about just bidding game? In the combined group, always bidding game is -0.1 IMPs/board with 11-14 and +1.2 IMPs/board when opener is 12-14. When opener is 12-14, that's almost identical to the limit raise approach (but remember the limit raise approach is artificially low).

It seems to me that whether blasting game or involving partner is the right approach may depend upon how sound your opening bids are. If you open most 5332 11 counts with five hearts, perhaps the limit raise is correct; if you pass a lot of 5332 11 counts with 5 hearts, then just bidding game may be just as good as (or better than) a limit raise.

[hanp]

Tim, are you assuming for your IMP calculations that we are allowed to play 2H after a single raise? I think that is extremely unlikely, and I don't think anybody here would not compete to 3H when the opponents bid over 2H. so your IMP analysis doesn't make much sense.

Your percentages of how often game makes are more valuable.

[brianshark]

I think the hand is worth a 3♥ limit raise only. I think the fact that it has a 5th heart brainwashes people into thinking they have to bid to the 4 level because the LAW tells them to, or because they would do so with worse hands (pre-emptively). I think this is a rubbish hand with too many jacks, terrible shape, 9 losers, and the only redeeming feature making it worth a limit raise is the fact that it has the 5th heart.

[mtvesuvius]

I did a simulation for when partner has 11-14 HCP and 5-8♥, 0-4♠, 0-5♦ and 0-5♣. Out of 3000 deals, 48% made 10+ tricks, and 84% made 9+ tricks in ♥ played by North. This seems to say that we have 3 level safety, and hopefully with most hands that we can make game on, partner will accept on.

Edit: I was just looking back to the sim. and NO hands took less than 7 tricks, 54 took 12 tricks, and 11 hands took all 13.

[MFA]

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 10:32 AM, said:

One comment about the Bergen raise followed by 4♥ plan:

You could end up VERY badly positioned if partner tanks over the Bergen raise...

My partner doesn't have a license to think me out of a game. Period. If he tanks, he bids. Games are bread and butter, and a slow, delicate feinschmecker evaluation to stay low I can use to nothing, if I'm still there with a possible raise.

If my Bergen could contain a gamegoing, but slamunsuitable, hand (which is OK for me) then this sequence would fall under the above considerations.

Slams are a different question. Some of these evaluations are much more difficult (individual and unusual), so if a tank keeps me out on a rare occasion, I'll live with it.

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Mar 6 2009, 04:03 AM, said:

Phil I really don't see your point, or Art's. If you think game is likely enough to make that it's worth being in it, then you should get to game somehow, even if the way in which you do so is not completely descriptive. Game is so much more likely than slam that to not force to game on such a hand makes no sense at all.

So on your example hand, if not playing the 3NT gadget, you should just raise to 4♥. Who cares if you're too heavy so long as you think game will probably make?

I don't think Art's and Phil's point is illogical. If you think it is extremely close whether to force to game, I don't think it is illogical to use secondary reasons as tie-breakers. (Just like you would, on some hands, bid 3NT over 1NT rather than inviting if your invite has to go through stayman, but bid 2N if that is natural.)

However, I think Art and Phil have it exactly the wrong way round. If I had to make a Bergen bid to show a limit raise, I would be more inclined to bid game directly, since the Bergen raise gives the opponents an easier way into the auction. (I would still make a limit raise, but I would see the disadvantage.)

[ArtK78]

Do the simulations take into account that a bid at the 3 level or higher will tend to shut the opponents out of the auction? Given that we have a 10+ card heart fit, this is not a consideration that should be ignored.

[TimG]

hanp, on Mar 6 2009, 12:03 PM, said:

Tim, are you assuming for your IMP calculations that we are allowed to play 2H after a single raise? I think that is extremely unlikely, and I don't think anybody here would not compete to 3H when the opponents bid over 2H. so your IMP analysis doesn't make much sense.

Your percentages of how often game makes are more valuable.

You are right, my sim does not take into account the possibility that the opponents will compete over 2H. (Or, as Art asks, whether they will be more or less likely to compete over 2H, 3H or 4H.) I was mostly trying to look at how good the hand was -- as I said, my initial reaction was that this is basically a balanced 10 count even with the 5th trump. I think I have convinced myself that I was wrong, whether or not the opponents are considered.

I added the IMP analysis because the normal "bid game when it is X%" analysis generally takes into account only making partscore, making game and game down one and I wanted to know if the down 2 or 3 and failing partscore significantly affected things.

[Echognome]

hrothgar, on Mar 6 2009, 07:32 AM, said:

One comment about the Bergen raise followed by 4♥ plan:

You could end up VERY badly positioned if partner tanks over the Bergen raise...

Even though this may be true, I would never consider not making a bid because partner may hesitate over it and cross my intentions later.

That being said, I've never played Bergen raises, so can't state whether this is a common problem. I would find it hard to believe it was.