Symmetric Major-Suit Raises A better system of Bergen-style major suit raises by Norman Pestaina Revised: August 15, 2012 References The Useful-Space Principle, III. Jeff Rubens. The Bridge World Vol. 52 No. 4, January 1981. The Useful-Space Principle, IV. Jeff Rubens. The Bridge World Vol. 52 No. 5, February 1981. Bergen Raises. Marty Bergen. Bridge Today. January/February 1994 Background Consider the usual unembellished Bergen-style raises of an opening bid of 1 of ♠, either major. Independent of the particular major opened, 1♥ or 1 1M say, the Bergen method employs identical 4-card raises for both suits: 2N = game-forcing raise, 3♣ = constructive raise, 3♦ = limit raise, 3M = preemptive raise, etc. A consequence of using identical bids for raises of both major suits is asymmetry: there is more room available after the response to a 1♠ opening than there is after a 1♥ opening. As an example, consider a Bergen-style limit raise of either major, 1♠ - 3♦ and 1♥ - 3♦; in the first case, there is room for a trial bid of 3♥ below 3 of the agreed major suit, but in the second case there is no room at all. This lack of symmetry is symptomatic of any convention or system that uses
Symmetric Major-Suit Raises A better system of Bergen-style major suit raises by Norman Pestaina Revised: August 15, 2012 References The Useful-Space Principle, III. Jeff Rubens. The Bridge World Vol. 52 No. 4, January 1981. The Useful-Space Principle, IV. Jeff Rubens. The Bridge World Vol. 52 No. 5, February 1981. Bergen Raises. Marty Bergen. Bridge Today. January/February 1994 Background Consider the usual unembellished Bergen-style raises of an opening bid of 1 of either major. Independent of the particular major opened, 1♥ or 1 ♠, 1M say, the Bergen method employs identical 4-card raises for both suits: 2N = game-forcing raise, 3♣ = constructive raise, 3♦ = limit raise, 3M = preemptive raise, etc. A consequence of using identical bids for raises of both major suits is asymmetry: there is more room available after the response to a 1♠ opening than there is after a 1♥ opening. As an example, consider a Bergen-style limit raise of either major, 1♠ - 3♦ and 1♥ - 3♦; in the first case, there is room for a trial bid of 3♥ below 3 of the agreed major suit, but in the second case there is no room at all. This lack of symmetry is symptomatic of any convention or system that uses
SymmetricMajor.docx