[Mbodell]

Scoring: IMP

1♣-1♥-X-P
??

---

[Gerardo]

3♦

[jdonn]

2♦ which is a reverse, even after the negative double.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Feb 12 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

2♦ which is a reverse, even after the negative double.

Agree 110%, though I believe many players, even very good ones, don't play it this way.

[jillybean]

Perfect for 2♦

[mike777]

3d

concerned that 2d sounds minimum. Will let others explain why it is not.

[Lobowolf]

In my view, for two reasons. First, the only suit partner promises is spades. If partner has a weak hand lacking diamond tolerance, he has to go to the 3-level to get back to your first suit. So it's a reverse for the same reason
1♣-1♠; 2♦ would be a reverse.

Second, with a minimum unbalanced hand with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs, I'd've opened 1♦.

I don't see that the overcall and negative double substantively changes the auction from opening clubs then introducing diamonds at the 2-level. If I had less than reverse values but opened 1♣ intending to rebid clubs, e.g. with good clubs and bad diamonds, then the overcall and negative double shouldn't change my planned rebid.

I know that there are players who open 1♣ on minimum 4-5's, intending to rebid 1NT then occasionally get dissuaded from the rebid after the overcall (e.g. 1-3-4-5 or even 2-2-4-5 with no heart cards), so they play that 2♦ here is a natural minimum. That sort of accounts for why you'd want it to be a minimum, but it doesn't stop you from being at the 3-level opposite a minimum responder who can't do anything better than steer back to your first suit, so I don't really like it, myself. I'd rather either open 1♦ in the first place, or treat a really good club suit like a 6-card suit and rebid it. I just don't see necessity, or the merit, of 1♣ then 2♦ on a minimum.

[the hog]

Well it depends what the X means - can partner have 4S? In many partnerships the X denies a 4+ S suit.

I would bid 3D. Partner cannot have 4+S else she would have bid 1S. Ergo the 2D bid, like Mike says, shows a minimum hand. In this context this hand is certainly worth 3D. The only rider to this argument is that presented by the above poster. With a weak 4/5 minors I too would open 1D and rebid 2C. Many, particularly on this forum however, dislike that.

[andy_h]

Strong believer in 2D showing reversing values as well. Partner has shown 4S and nothing else. If I don't have a stopper in hearts I can always rebid 2C or even 1NT.
I've always wondered, if 3D shows the reverse type of hand (and 2D minimum) doesn't that render us from playing in 3C as 3D kills so much bidding space.

[HeavyDluxe]

2♦ should be a reverse here, and seems to describe my hand.

[Fluffy]

Not sure what 2♦ is, but I play cue = GF, jump = invitational, 3♦ seems to descrive nicely.

[y66]

2D = reverse for me. I also open weak hands with 4 diamonds and 5 clubs 1D.

[Winstonm]

3C. The same bid I would make over 1S. My partner's negative double says spades but it doesn't really say diamonds, and mine is the hand type that is only really powerful across from aces and is top heavy clubs. If my partner has a more pedestrian hand I think he would be disappointed by a reverse.

[orlam]

Why wouldn't you reverse over a 1♠ response, Winston?

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 13 2009, 01:12 AM, said:

If my partner has a more pedestrian hand I think he would be disappointed by a reverse.

Could you explain the basis of that comment please?

[Phil]

We discussed this auction several months ago and the consensus was that 2♦ was not a reverse.

It looks great when we have a hand like this, but we are stuck when we have Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx (if this is a 1♦ opener for you. tweak the minors accordingly)

3♣ for me.

[jdonn]

Phil, on Feb 13 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

We discussed this auction several months ago and the consensus was that 2♦ was not a reverse.

I don't believe you. Link please?

Quote

It looks great when we have a hand like this, but we are stuck when we have Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx (if this is a 1♦ opener for you. tweak the minors accordingly)

3♣ for me.

You rebid 1NT, same as you would if a diamond was a heart. Wtp?

[Codo]

We had the discussion more then once and the consensus was that there is no consensus.
When the double just shows 4 spades, 2 Diamond is a reverse.
When double shows something different (denying four spades or all unbid suits or spades and the possibility to handle each rebid), then it is no reverse and you have to jump with this hand.

Whatever your agreement for this double is, it is a no brainer what to bid now.
Without an agreement, good luck while guessing.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Feb 13 2009, 02:59 AM, said:

Phil, on Feb 13 2009, 02:38 AM, said:

We discussed this auction several months ago and the consensus was that 2♦ was not a reverse.

I don't believe you. Link please?

Quote

It looks great when we have a hand like this, but we are stuck when we have Qx, xx, AKJx, Kxxxx (if this is a 1♦ opener for you. tweak the minors accordingly)

3♣ for me.

You rebid 1NT, same as you would if a diamond was a heart. Wtp?

I'm digging. Found this:

http://forums.bridge...topic=17160&hl=

Not a consensus by any means, but reason enough for me without a firm agreement not to rebid 2♦.

and this too: http://forums.bridge...opic=15090&st=0

[rogerclee]

It's a reverse, this seems far more useful to me than weak with no rebid, and I am one of those people who almost always opens 1♣ with a 4-5 minimum. You can use it to show two different hands (by the way I just realized the actual auction is doubling hearts, but the below applies to 1♣ - (1♠) - x auctions):

1) 4♦, 5♣, minimum. But it is not clear that with this hand bidding 2♦ is best anyway, I can rebid 1N, 2♣, or 2♥ most of the time without feeling terrible about distorting my hand. I agree that I definitely want to bid 2♦ on a hand like xx Kx KQJx Axxxx, but that's the kind of hand I'm giving up in order to show...

2) a real reverse, which I have no other way of showing. 3♦ is not only a misdescription on most reverse hands, but it is also less effective, since it takes us all the way to the 3-level. Overloading the 2M cuebid with yet another hand seems like a terrible idea to me, and various levels of NT are also a completely unsatisfactory fix.