[Balrog49]

At matchpoints, I opened 1♠ and LHO doubled. Partner bid 2♠ with this hand:

AJ62 JT KJ83 T86

2♠ was a weak raise. We play inverted Bergen raises but not in comp. 2NT would have promised a four-card limit raise or better and 3♠ would have been preemptive. We were the only pair in the room to miss game in spades. I would have bid 2NT with his hand.

Is there a way to distinguish three-card from four-card support and weak, constructive, limit, and forcing raises?

And are there Bergen-like methods that apply to an overcall sequence, e.g., 1♠-(2♣)-2♠?

[Stephen Tu]

After a major double, lots of better players like to play transfers starting with 1nt and ending one below the major. The min for the transfer into a new suit is what you would have bid an old-fashioned non-forcing constructive call with, so 1s-x-1nt! is at minimum what the old 1s-x-2c was. Bidding proceeds naturally, opener does not have to accept the transfer, though he normally does if he would have passed the old-fashioned constructive call. This allows one to distinguish between direct raise of the major (somewhat weak, ~4-7 or so), and the "transfer raise", 1s-x-2h or 1h-x-2d, stronger. Some still put 3 cd raise 10-12 in the redouble, others don't. This scheme only really gives up the ability to play in 1nt, the argument is that in most of these cases you do OK defending.

Another option is "BROMAD", Bergen raises over a major doubled, which retains Bergen raises and uses drury-like calls at the 2 level. But this gives up the ability to show other suits, which I think is too much.

After an overcall, there are significantly fewer options available, so you can't be as precise.

[nigel_k]

Your partner's hand is a limit raise.

But you still have the problem of hands with four card support that are in between a pre-emptive raise and a limit raise. I wouldn't feel comfortable just raising to 2♠ on a slightly weaker variation of your partner's hand such as Axxx xx KJxx Tx. But you could play this way. Or play Bergen on after a double. What I prefer is just to put more hands into the 2NT bid so the above example would qualify for 2NT and opener can make a game try if they need full limit raise values.

[ggwhiz]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-15, 13:23, said:

Your partner's hand is a limit raise.

But you still have the problem of hands with four card support that are in between a pre-emptive raise and a limit raise. I wouldn't feel comfortable just raising to 2♠ on a slightly weaker variation of your partner's hand such as Axxx xx KJxx Tx. But you could play this way. Or play Bergen on after a double. What I prefer is just to put more hands into the 2NT bid so the above example would qualify for 2NT and opener can make a game try if they need full limit raise values.

This structure is very workable but I would add a redouble (IMPLIES no fit) followed by a raise to be the 3-card limit. Some 4 card hands look like a 3-card limit and some 3-card raises look like notrump. Max flexibility here can = max confusion but we'll work it out at the post mortem in the bar.

[PhilKing]

Play a jump in the unbid major as 7-9 with four trumps.

This is the suit you are least likely to need for a pure fit jump, or whatever you use jumps for.

[Fluffy]

2♠ is not weak, it is a constructive raise normally from 3 cards. Partner's hand might be worth a limit raise, but it is close, try posting your own hand and see if you could also have done more.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I prefer the following structure over 1♠ - (X)

3♠ = preemptive
3♥ = fit showing jump (5 hearts, 4 Spades, game invitational values
3♦ = fit showing jump
3♣ = fit showing jump
2NT = mixed raise
2♠ = preemptive
2♥ = good raise to 2♠
2♦ = transfer
2♣ = transfer
1N = Clubs

A hand like the following is perfect for 2♠

♠ = KT9
♥ = xx
♦ = Q972
♣ = xxxx

A hand like the following is representative example of a 2♥ bid

♠ = KQ9
♥ = xx
♦ = K972
♣ = xxxx

I'd bid 2NT with the hand you posted

[fromageGB]

I like my normal Bergenesque structure as it describes support sufficiently accurately, so I use it just the same over a double. What has the double done to interfere with your methods? As I respond 3♦ as 4 card support 7-10 hcp that would be my bid here, and if opener wants to ask if upper range he bids 3♥. Presumably your methods are similar, so I suggest using them over a double. Not seeing your hand, I assume that would enable the game to be bid.

When the overcall is a suit such as 2♣ it cuts out the forcing NT we use for some 3 card support, so our style is to show both the length and the strength. (Strength shown below as typical hcp, but obviously modify to account for good shape, predominant quacks etc). With a partner happy with transfers :

1♠ (2♣) ...
X = transfer to diamonds, weak or strong
2♦ = hearts ditto
2♥ = full strength raise to 2♠, ie 3 card 7-10
2♠ = preemptive raise, ie 3 card <7
2NT = 3 card support 11+ (ie game invitational or better)
3♣ (cue) = 4 card support, 9+ (ie game invitational or better)
3♦ = fit jump, 5 card with 4 card support, values for playing is spades at this level and no higher
3♥ = hearts ditto
3♠ = preemptive raise, 4 card <9
3NT natural
4♣ (jump cue) = splinter, 4 card support
4 other = fit jump, values for playing in 4♠
We give up the normal takeout double in favour of the transfer : responder is more likely to have a 5+ card suit weak or strong than the combination of responder having a 4 card major and opener with a 5 card major also having 4 of the other major.

When the overcall leaves a suit gap, ie 1♠ (2♦) ...
3♣ by an unpassed hand = natural, forcing, but by a passed hand = fit non-jump
Otherwise the same.

With a partner who does not like transfers here, after 1♠ (2♣) ...
X = full strength raise to 2♠, ie 3 card 7-10
2♠ = preemptive raise, ie 3 card <7
2NT = 3 card support 11/12
3♣ (cue) = 4 card support, 9+ (ie game invitational or better)
3♠ = preemptive raise, 4 card <9
We give up the normal takeout double in favour of showing support.

Knowing the length of support, as well as overall strength, is useful in competitive situations. As you said.

[fromageGB]

Incidentally, many people after an overcall play 2NT as 4 card support and cue opposition suit with 3 card support. I prefer it the other way round because after 2NT=3 card 11+, if they come in at the 3 level opener is well placed to decide on a penalty double. After 2NT=4 and weaker, opener will always have to bid on. You have in effect given advancer a free opportunity to show support - just what overcaller needed.

[hrothgar]

fromageGB, on 2012-October-16, 06:22, said:

I like my normal Bergenesque structure as it describes support sufficiently accurately, so I use it just the same over a double. What has the double done to interfere with your methods? As I respond 3♦ as 4 card 7-10 hcp that would be my bid here, and if opener wants to ask if upper range he bids 3♥. Presumably your methods are similar, so I suggest using them over a double. Not seeing your hand, I assume that would enable the game to be bid.

The original poster is from New Hampshire which presumably means that ACBL rules are in effect.

The ACBL allows a considerably broader set of methods over takeout doubles than they do directly over 1M opening.
(For example, you can't play transfer responses directly over 1M openings)

In my experience, I often have very different goals in a competitive auction than a non-competitive auction.

First and foremost, if the openings are making a legitimate takeout double they chances that we are going to make slam are considerably reduced. Bids like Jacoby 2NT and splinters really don't have the same utility. I also find that information about playing strength is much less useful than information about shape. I'm happy playing a Bergen type structure in a non-competitive auction. However, in a competitive auction I think its critical to identify whether we have a double fit as quickly as possible (hence the recommendations regarding fit showing jumps)

[Zelandakh]

fromageGB, on 2012-October-16, 06:33, said:

Incidentally, many people after an overcall play 2NT as 4 card support and cue opposition suit with 3 card support. I prefer it the other way round because after 2NT=3 card 11+, if they come in at the 3 level opener is well placed to decide on a penalty double. After 2NT=4 and weaker, opener will always have to bid on. You have in effect given advancer a free opportunity to show support - just what overcaller needed.

If you are choosing this method for this reason then surely it would be better to play the lower of cue and 2NT as the 3 card raise and the higher as the 4 card raise. So 1♥ - (1♠) - 2NT = 4 card raise but 1♥ - (2m) - 2NT = 3 card raise.

The problem with BROMAD and other ITD raising structures is the loss of fit jumps, which are more valuable the more likely the opps are to bid again. After a double is one of the most likely times for 4th hand to be bidding. Hrothgar's structure has the advantage of removing this disadvantage and replacing it with 2 smaller disadvantages, loss of either a natural XX or 1NT and extra memory load. The assessment of the last of these factors is probably the key one in deciding what is "optimal" here.

[fromageGB]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-16, 06:41, said:

... However, in a competitive auction I think its critical to identify whether we have a double fit as quickly as possible (hence the recommendations regarding fit showing jumps)

There's certainly something to be said for this. But Bergen gives us 3 strength ranges each for both 3 and 4 card support, while if I adapt my overcall handling methods to the double, by adding 1NT = transfer to clubs, and somehow incorporate a XX into it to compensate for the lack of an available cue bid, I have only 2 strength ranges for each length. So I would gain when I have a fit jump hand but lose out when I have no other decent suit. Swings and roundabouts, perhaps.

If the method adopted after a X does not show the number of spades in support, I think it is a big loss.

[Zelandakh]

Not sure what you mean here. In hrothgar's scheme there are 2 strengths of raise to 2♠ (one more than you) and at least 3 ranges to 3♠ (preemptive, mixed, good). More than this, the ranges within the good raise could potentially be split up further if this was not good enough by using the space after 1♠ - (X) - 2♥ - (P); 2♠ - (P). So for example you could play as a 3 card raise responses of 2♠ (weak); 2♥ followed by pass (constr); 2♥ followed by 2NT (inv); 2♥ followed by 3NT (gf) and for 4 card raises 3♠ (weak); 2NT (mixed); 2♥ followed by 3♥ (inv); 2♥ followed by 4♥ (gf). Then you still have 2♥ followed by 3 or 4 of a new suit available for whatever you feel like. In other words you have more ranges in hrothgar's scheme than in BROMAD.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-October-16, 07:30, said:

Not sure what you mean here. In hrothgar's scheme there are 2 strengths of raise to 2♠ (one more than you) and at least 3 ranges to 3♠ (preemptive, mixed, good). More than this, the ranges within the good raise could potentially be split up further if this was not good enough by using the space after 1♠ - (X) - 2♥ - (P); 2♠ - (P). So for example you could play as a 3 card raise responses of 2♠ (weak); 2♥ followed by pass (constr); 2♥ followed by 2NT (inv); 2♥ followed by 3NT (gf) and for 4 card raises 3♠ (weak); 2NT (mixed); 2♥ followed by 3♥ (inv); 2♥ followed by 4♥ (gf). Then you still have 2♥ followed by 3 or 4 of a new suit available for whatever you feel like. In other words you have more ranges in hrothgar's scheme than in BROMAD.

You also have the option of transferring to show a suit and then showing Spades spade support at the two level or three level.

[Zelandakh]

hrothgar, on 2012-October-16, 07:54, said:

You also have the option of transferring to show a suit and then showing Spades spade support at the two level or three level.

Quite true, although this can be a little risky as the opps may not be so polite as to let you carry out the plan...

[fromageGB]

Yes, many options, when you consider further bidding beyond the transfer to 2♠. However, if you load all those meanings into the 2♥ transfer, it doesn't help opener when advancer bids (say) 3♦. Opener needs to know immediately how many spades you have, and how strong you are. You could be 3 card just constructive, so he passes. Doubler ups the ante to 4♦ and now when you are 4 card invitational you cannot safely unilaterally bid game. Any of pass, X and 4♠ could be correct. And you can't use X to show the hand now, as that would be the penalty call when responder was 3 card invitational. At least playing Bergen your initial 3♦/♥ or whatever you do to show that 4 card hand makes it much easier for opener. As well as making it more difficult for advancer to show a suit.

I accept that 3 card support 11-12 loses out if you bid 1♠ X 1(forcing)NT. However, your method now would be to incorporate the 3 card invitation into the 2♣ response, as I do anyway when I do not have 4 hearts.

No, I do think that showing length and strength of support on responder's first call is important.

[lowerline]

Balrog49, on 2012-October-15, 10:38, said:

At matchpoints, I opened 1♠ and LHO doubled. Partner bid 2♠ with this hand:

AJ62 JT KJ83 T86

2♠ was a weak raise. We play inverted Bergen raises but not in comp. 2NT would have promised a four-card limit raise or better and 3♠ would have been preemptive. We were the only pair in the room to miss game in spades. I would have bid 2NT with his hand.

Is there a way to distinguish three-card from four-card support and weak, constructive, limit, and forcing raises?

And are there Bergen-like methods that apply to an overcall sequence, e.g., 1♠-(2♣)-2♠?

Your partners hand is clearly a four-card limit raise, so he should have bid 2nt...

After 1M-(dbl) I have 2nt, 3M or 4M available as 4+crd raises. With 3crd support I can only bid 2M or rdbl (and raise later).
After 1M-(overcall) I have 2nt, 3M or 4M as 4+crd raises and 2M or cuebid as 3crd raises.

Steven

[Vampyr]

fromageGB, on 2012-October-16, 08:25, said:

I accept that 3 card support 11-12 loses out if you bid 1♠ X 1(forcing)NT.

Do people who play forcing 1NT normally play it in competition?

[fromageGB]

Vampyr, on 2012-October-16, 10:16, said:

Do people who play forcing 1NT normally play it in competition?

I speak only for myself but over a bid, no. That is 1♥ (1♠) then 1NT = transfer to ♣ while X = transfer to NT. But after a double, yes. 1♥/♠ (X) and system on, basically, including Bergen. 2new will be natural GF (except 2♣ has a couple of other options), and 1NT is forcing that can be less than GF in any variety without support, or even a balanced GF. I think it may not be optimal, but it is easy to remember

Some people like to overcall or double on a shoestring, so it does no harm to have a normal GF bidding sequence.

[neilkaz]

I agree that PD had a routine limit raise here. You can stretch a bit to bid the Jordon 2NT since there's often room for opener to bid a suit below ♠ as a game try. However, your partner's hand is not a stretch at all, but a routine limit raise.