On Major Suit Raises

Four of a major: the Holy Grail of bridge! Naturally, this has led theoreticians and practitioners alike to improve the common raise structure, namely the limit raises to three and four. Three so called improvements seem to be popular:

Bergen raises

Marty Bergen has come up with a few exotic (my opinion, no pun intended) shapes and/or types of raises by utilizing three of a minor responses as mixed and three-card raises and thereby getting rid of rarely used jump shifts.

Apart from the fact that I have difficulty in understanding which is which, I can not say I like the idea. Making responder bid anything but no-trumps or 2/3 M gives opponents a cheap opportunity for a lead directing double. You reach a theoretically correct game (or stop short) only to go down because the defenders find the right lead (failing to double is also a clue). Oh, and that new pre-emptive 3M raise of 0-5 points with a bunch of trumps. I simply could not find such partners who would raise to three like that.

Jacoby/Stenberg 2NT raises

This seems like a good idea within the confines of 5-card majors and 2/1 game force. Several variants fly by but my favorite is the one showing a GF raise. I am not fond of mixing the so called invitational raises here. I do not want to know if partner has an extra trump or a singleton somewhere if I'm not slammish. By the time you learn it, you are already committed to four, so what's the purpose? Better play it (if you must) as pure game force to investigate a probable slam. One good (and simple) variant is Schmittberg.

Good/bad raise to 2M

Or healthy/poor raise as they say. Now, this one is good. The typical limit of raising to two is wide and it is good to know whether partner has a sound raise or not. Some do it via a 1NT, some disguise it in 2m (and adding really minimum hands with support); your choice, your style. The bottom line is it works and is worth the extra effort.

An unseen plus of differentiating good and bad raises is it keeps the bidding open with a few trumps and a sub-minimum hand. If you can not bid a natural Acol-2, i.e. if you're playing weak-twos, you will benefit from it immensely when partner does not pass with three points and three trumps.

Flat Hands, Flat Choices

♠ AQJ3 ♥ KQ2 ♦ KT9 ♣ 953

Bidding:

West	North	East	South
	p	1NT	p
2♦	p	2♥	p
3NT	p	?

You start with a strong (15-17) notrump, your partner bids 2♦ as a transfer. You complete the transfer with 2&hearts, having nothing extra. Partner raises to game with 3NT. Your turn...

First the full deal:

	♠ T94 ♥ 86 ♦ QJ843 ♣ T84
♠ 652 ♥ T9753 ♦ A75 ♣ AQ		♠ AQJ3 ♥ KQ2 ♦ KT9 ♣ 953
	♠ K87 ♥ AJ4 ♦ 62 ♣ KJ762

Much have been said about sticking to notrumps with flat distributions like this one, a meagre 4-3-3-3. So, your initial reaction could be passing the 3NT bid.

The hand is taken from Cap Volmac 1995 and all pairs choosing the notrump game regretted their actions, down one, losing 12 imps, after the obvious club lead. Others correcting to the heart game had an easy ride.

The only clue, if any, is the three small clubs which should a be deterrant for choosing the notrump game. True, you can come up with a West hand with which 3NT will be the right choice but statistics is not always "damn lies".

An interesting exercise could be how the weak (12-14) notrumpers would fare. The auction would probably start 1♣ - 1♥ -1NT (presumably showing 15-16 points) and deviate considerably depending on each pair's style. Some would resort to check-back Stayman and discover the 8-card heart fit. In those auctions, West will decide on the final contract and almost all Wests are going to choose the superior 4♥ game.

Bridge has always had its subset of shooters and a few would no doubt bid 3NT after 1♣ - 1♥ - 1NT, to lose eventually.