Take the 2-minute tour ×
Board & Card Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people who like playing board games, designing board games or modifying the rules of existing board games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose partner bids one of a (five card) major. Normally you need three of the suit to raise.

But expert Marty Bergen has opined that if your suit has four honors, you can bid it as if were one card longer. Mr. Bergen also wrote, "When partner promises a six-card suit, you can support him with a singleton honor."

So if I have KJ (or KT or QJ) of my partner's suit, I'a going to play him for a suit with two more honors: AQxxx, ATxxx, or even QTxxx. In that case, partner and I would have four (possibly five) honors between us. And in the worst case (partner has xxxxx, we'd have two honors). So I'd raise to two with the aforementioned trump holding plus a side king, because I've "borrowed" an extra (small) trump for my bid, based on my interpretation of Bergen.

Is this a reasonable interpretation of Marty Bergen's dictums? Is this a reasonable move to make even if you don't always agree with Marty Bergen?

share|improve this question
    
Whichever opponent you have supposedly borrowed this extra trump from is very likely to double you for penalties. If you enjoy going minus 200 and 300 against the opponents part-score be my guest to play this way. BTW - Do you play for money anywhere? I would like to join the game. –  Pieter Geerkens Aug 17 at 17:27
    
@PieterGeerkens: "Money." One tenth of a penny a point. Winner takes home about one dollar. –  Tom Au Aug 17 at 17:29
    
I don't play for less than one cent a point, and prefer 2 or even 5; too bad that you're stakes won't cover my travel costs. –  Pieter Geerkens Aug 17 at 17:31

4 Answers 4

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Certainly it's reasonable, whether or not you are a Bergen acolyte. But it ought to be a rare hand where raising with only two trump is more attractive than the alternatives. These situations come up more often in competition. For instance, if the auction started

(1C) 1S (2C)

I would be happy to raise to 2S with something like

AQ
Kxx
xxxxx
xxx

I agree with Pieter that if you have fewer trump than partner expects you ought to be near a maximum in high cards. This point was made many years ago by Edgar Kaplan.

share|improve this answer

Tere are a myriad problems with this approach when added to a non-Bergen system, particularly if partner is not in on the new agreement.

The missing trump is roughly equivalent to missing over 1.5 points. Thus the bid should not be made with a minimum raise as you suggest, because the missing trump has made it a sub-minimum raise. Thus only with 8-9 HCP should you consider making the bid, and these are exactly the hands where you would like to accept a further action from partner but no longer can due to the missing trump. Bidding this way will in many cases result in you playing a 5-2 major fit instead of 4-4, which traditionally is held to play almost a trick worse on average. In other cases you will be forced to play the 10-trick major suit game instead of a better 9-trick notrump game - remember the missing trump is strengthening either an alternative trump suit or a no-trump stopper, or both.

Bergen specializes in playing a very eccentric style that emphasizes low-point high-fit contracts, especially in the majors. This style of play requires a strong understanding of advanced declarer play concepts by both partners, as well as a very good system agreement to avoid playing inferior contracts. While this approach works well for Bergen, there is a reason that few other top players choose to play the same approach. Either play the whole system, or recognize that Bergen's style is actually not suitable for the game played by you and your partner.

share|improve this answer
    
I find QJ (and likewise KJ and KT) a problematic holding. When "stranded," QJ could be worth as little as 1.0 to 1.5. In the middle of partner's five card suit it should be worth a whole three, and often more, call it an average of 3.5. To compensate for the 1.5 value of the missing trump, I would need four points in side honors (7.5-1.5= an adjusted 6). Likewise, counting KJ as 4.5, I'd need three points (a king or so) in side honors. Wasn't planning a two-trump raise with 6. (In my questions, I have a tendency to "sneak" in a extra jack or other upgrade somewhere, as a result of my "algos.") –  Tom Au Aug 17 at 18:53
    
@TomAu: The absence of a small accompanying trump is a significant flaw in the trump holding, especially in a weak hand, easing the ability of the opponents to pump declarer in their own long suit and hindering communication between the hands. This flaw rates to be about 1 point, negating any added value from having combining honours. Evaluate QJ alone as 2 to 2.5 points. most definitely not 3 or more. QJ alone is likely to be a better holding in partner's side suit than in trumps. –  Pieter Geerkens Aug 17 at 21:15

In general, I prefer not to raise a one-level opening bid without the requisite number of trumps, as one tends to use the law of total tricks to decide how the level to which to compete.

When partner has opened a weak 2 bid or overcalled in a pre-emptive manner, you are in control and raising with fewer trumps but a lower honour is feasible as you know you are filling partner's suit and producing more winners should it be trumps, and that a 4-2 split is not likely to affect partner too much.

Also in game bidding, you will sometimes consider a 5-2 major suit trump fit with honours in partner's suit although you can't guarantee here partner has honours too.

My favourite singleton to hold opposite a pre-empt is the queen. The assumption is that partner has pre-empted with KJ10xxx which could potentially have 3 losers against a 4-2 break but if my singleton is the queen it is probably 1 loser, losing to the ace which you are always going to lose to anyway. Jack is next best (partner has KQ10xxx) and then king (partner has AQxxxx or AQJxxx or AJ10xxx etc.). Having these and quick tricks outside I will certainly be looking for game.

share|improve this answer
    
As I understand it, your big fear opposite a "one" (as opposed to 2 or 3 bid), is that your partner's five cards are xxxxx. Because QJ is quite useful opposite KTxxx, ATxxx, or AKxxx, and to a lesser extent, Txxxx. On the other hand, if you have xxx opposite xxxxx, you're "up the creek" anyway, even if you have eight. It's hard for me to think of holdings opposite which xxx works better than QJ. –  Tom Au Sep 19 at 1:44
    
IF I have 3 small opposite 5 small, if the suit breaks 3-2 I have 3 losers whether they are trumps or not and at NT I have less chance to set up the long cards in the suit than I do if they are trumps. And yes, my fear is that partner does not promise a good quality suit, just length, unlike a pre-empt where it normally promises good cards in the suit too. –  CashCow Sep 19 at 8:23
    
However that is not my only concern. It lies to partner. When partner has pre-empted the decisions are all mine. When partner opened with 1 it's still a joint decision. –  CashCow Sep 19 at 8:24
    
I don't consider this "lying." When raised, I am hoping (in this instance), to see xxx "or better." By my calculations, QJ is "better" than xxx. Likewise, I consider KQJx "better" than xxxxx, and would not be unhappy to see partner open with it, even playing (adjusted) "five card majors." –  Tom Au Sep 20 at 19:18
    
KQJx opposite xxx, normal 4-2 break and having to use those beautiful trumps possibly for ruffing... I'd rather not. AKxx maybe, at least then I can ruff twice with small trumps and guarantee to also make ace/king, and possibly can draw 2 rounds too so only the long hand can ruff with what are winners anyway –  CashCow Sep 22 at 10:59

This is kind of a "restricted choice" question. Because the assumption is that you removed QJ from the trump suit, dealt declarer five trumps at random (plus the values for a one spade bid), and then asked, would declarer rather see that QJ in the dummy or three little ones. (I've eliminated the possibility of declarer seeing either Q or J in his own hand.)

My answer is the QJ. Declarer is likely to have Kxxxx, Axxxx, or even Txxxx, in which case, the QJ will be more valuable as "filler" than the extra low trump would be. It would even be helpful opposite AKxxx or AKTxxx.

To address some objections. Yes, it's possible that if one opponent has four to an honor s/he will double for penalties. But you will get into far more trouble with xxxxx opposite xxx. Because your opponents will have AKQJT between them, and be able to take as many tricks as the length of the longer hand; all five tricks if they're all in one hand; four tricks, if they are split 4-1. With QJ opposite Txxxx, declarer will be able to take one more trick in each case.

And yes, declarer would love to see xxx opposite AKQxx or even AKJxx. But by removing QJ from the deck, I've eliminated these two good possibilities (and AKQJ). In a "forced choice" situation based on what is left, QJ is better than xxx. And most people would raise one spade with xxx.

share|improve this answer
    
Count me amongst those who would rather see xxx than QJ. Partner will assign a value to the fifth trump in his hand which you are lying to him about, and it will affect adversely both play of the hand and correct determination of denomination. –  Pieter Geerkens Sep 20 at 18:52
    
@PieterGeerkens: Fair point. To your earlier comment, [Bergen's style requires]..."a very good system agreement to avoid playing inferior contracts." That's the point of my "mapping algorithms," to determine when Bergen's (or some other expert's) method can be used. I'm afraid to use such algorithms when they are NOT corroroborated by an expert. –  Tom Au Sep 20 at 19:39
    
Also: the eighth trump is extremely important, contributing a total value close to 2 points, and is often decisive in determining whether to play in a suit or notrump contract. When you start the process of lying to partner about the number of trumps jointly held you upset many other calculations occurring in the hand. Bergen can handle the situation because of both the strong system agreements with his partner and his great table presence. –  Pieter Geerkens Sep 20 at 20:14
    
Those of us who are mere mortals tread in this area at our own peril, especially when attempting to cherry-pick portions of his system to play without a thorough understanding of how the entire system works to right the imbalances introduced. –  Pieter Geerkens Sep 20 at 20:15
    
@PieterGeerkens: I haven't (yet) done this in bridge, but in "real life," I once "mapped out" someone else's system, then took it far beyond its original boundaries. –  Tom Au Sep 20 at 22:06

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.