[bluecalm]

Quote

I know that the old version of the Romex system had nonforcing reverses (given that the upper range for a 1 bid was 18 HCP). Since I have not played Romex in about 30 years, I can't vouch for the current version. But I have never heard of any standard system in which a reverse was nonforcing or in which responder's second bid (below game) could be passed.

Wow.
In standard system 1♦ - 2♠ is strong so you have to bid 1♠ with every 6 spades.
Then you promise 16hcp (or 15) by reversing, responder could still have his 4hcp or w/e for 1♠ and you are forced to play at 3level ? I mean seriously ?

The situation is a bit better in OP's system as he can't have 6♠ and weak hand but in "standard" ?

[hanp]

ArtK78, on Sep 2 2010, 09:29 AM, said:

Unless you play that the reverse doesn't promise a rebid, you can't play 2♠ as nonforcing.

And the level of discussion has gone down even further.

[cherdanno]

bluecalm, on Sep 2 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

Quote

KQ10xx Kx xxxx xx

2♠.
Not forcing. Partner passes with minimum, bid 2NT with extras, wtp?

Uh, this is an obvious game force the way most of us play reverses.
If it's not a game force to you, because you reverse extremely light, then it might still have been obvious to you that Han was making the point of what you want to do with a hand with 5 spades that doesn't want to bid a non-forcing 2S, because it is too strong.
But apparently you prefer to divert from that point.

[mohitz]

Perhaps this thread might be helpful. http://forums.bridge...topic=11931&hl=

[bluecalm]

Ok i undertand now that standard suppose to be "strong reverse".
If you play that and you play weak jumps as responder then I can see that forcing 2♠ might be playable.
Thanks for explaining it to me.

I promise to stop posting in any thread where NA standard appears to be main problem.
This system is so complicated and bad that it's just impossible for me to contribute anything constructive anyway.
Every time when I try to apply basic bidding principles like:
-old suit = weakness
-show suits naturally

I am quickly brought down to earth by "standard" telling me to play old suit at the lowest level as forcing relay, jump with 3 cards or other stuff like that.

Ok I am done with this. If you people want to play it and teach this to beginners then I am no part of it

[Phil]

bluecalm, on Sep 2 2010, 10:24 AM, said:

Ok i undertand now that standard suppose to be "strong reverse".
If you play that and you play weak jumps as responder then I can see that forcing 2♠ might be playable.
Thanks for explaining it to me.

I promise to stop posting in any thread where NA standard appears to be main problem.
This system is so complicated and bad that it's just impossible for me to contribute anything constructive anyway.
Every time when I try to apply basic bidding principles like:
-old suit = weakness
-show suits naturally

I am quickly brought down to earth by "standard" telling me to play old suit at the lowest level as forcing relay, jump with 3 cards or other stuff like that.

Ok I am done with this. If you people want to play it and teach this to beginners then I am no part of it

At least he didn't mention George Bush...

[gwnn]

bluecalm, what is in your opinion a system that is super simple to play and very easy to teach to beginners?

[bluecalm]

Quote

At least he didn't mention George Bush...

I forgot. I am pretty sure he would play "standard: though.

Quote

bluecalm, what is in your opinion a system that is super simple to play and very easy to teach to beginners?

I have some opinions but let's stop hijacking this thread.
I think basic precision (without any asking bids, transfers, relays etc.) is one good choice as well as the most natural. For one I am not the only one with this opinion. For example Larry Cohen wrote about it too.

[mgoetze]

gwnn, on Sep 2 2010, 04:37 PM, said:

bluecalm, what is in your opinion a system that is super simple to play and very easy to teach to beginners?

It surely depends on what percentage of hands you want beginners to be able to bid correctly. NA Standard is fine for getting beginners bidding 80% of hands correctly soon enough. I think if you want them to get 95% right, you are better off with something like precision, even though it might (!) take a bit longer than getting 80% right with NA Standard.

[aguahombre]

There is a way, agreed not Standard, and maybe not optimum ---but a way for 2S to be NF.

First, the context:
-Reverse=17+ (a little less allowed if 3-card Major support)
-2S not a strong first response (<6)
-Leben available

1D-1S
2H- ?

2S=willing to play there, 6 spades and (5)6-bad 8 Pts.
3S=What Mike Lawrence says it is.
2N, then 3S=forcing but only five spades (cancels the bad-hand implication of Leb)

This has kept us low with 17 opposite 6 and a 6-2(1) fit a few times, but I am sure it won't be adopted widely. Hasn't caused any problems for us, though.

[bucky]

bluecalm, on Sep 2 2010, 09:51 AM, said:

Quote

I know that the old version of the Romex system had nonforcing reverses (given that the upper range for a 1 bid was 18 HCP). Since I have not played Romex in about 30 years, I can't vouch for the current version. But I have never heard of any standard system in which a reverse was nonforcing or in which responder's second bid (below game) could be passed.

Wow.
In standard system 1♦ - 2♠ is strong so you have to bid 1♠ with every 6 spades.
Then you promise 16hcp (or 15) by reversing, responder could still have his 4hcp or w/e for 1♠ and you are forced to play at 3level ? I mean seriously ?

The situation is a bit better in OP's system as he can't have 6♠ and weak hand but in "standard" ?

I think the issue is the definition of reverse. If a reverse promises another bid, you cannot really do it with fewer than 17 (unless you have extreme shape, or good support of partner's suit). On the other hand, some of the canape systems can have much lower limit on reverse (which is nonforcing in those systems). It is dangerous to assume what is in "standard system", but it is fair to say that in North America the mainstream is to use the stronger version of reverse, and in such a case you will want to concentrate on bidding to the right game/slam. It is a trade-off that you can no longer stop at 2S in the sequence of 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠, but it makes game/slam exploration much easier. Note that occasionally you may still be able to stop at 2-level, such as in 1♣ 1♠ 2♦ 2♥ 2♠...

[bucky]

aguahombre, on Sep 2 2010, 11:07 AM, said:

There is a way, agreed not Standard, and maybe not optimum ---but a way for 2S to be NF.

First, the context:
-Reverse=17+ (a little less allowed if 3-card Major support)
-2S not a strong first response (<6)
-Leben available

1D-1S
2H- ?

2S=willing to play there, 6 spades and (5)6-bad 8 Pts.
3S=What Mike Lawrence says it is.
2N, then 3S=forcing but only five spades (cancels the bad-hand implication of Leb)

This has kept us low with 17 opposite 6 and a 6-2(1) fit a few times, but I am sure it won't be adopted widely. Hasn't caused any problems for us, though.

This is a fair treatment. But you do have a slight problem with 6 spades and not the right type for 3S jump. I suppose that with good spades (and not much elsewhere) you can do 2NT followed by 4S, and with mediocre spade suit (yet general game-forcing value) you can treat it as 5-card suit by bidding 2NT followed by 3S. But there might be some in-between hands that would cause some pain.

[blackshoe]

bluecalm, on Sep 2 2010, 10:51 AM, said:

Quote

I know that the old version of the Romex system had nonforcing reverses (given that the upper range for a 1 bid was 18 HCP). Since I have not played Romex in about 30 years, I can't vouch for the current version. But I have never heard of any standard system in which a reverse was nonforcing or in which responder's second bid (below game) could be passed.

Wow.
In standard system 1♦ - 2♠ is strong so you have to bid 1♠ with every 6 spades.
Then you promise 16hcp (or 15) by reversing, responder could still have his 4hcp or w/e for 1♠ and you are forced to play at 3level ? I mean seriously ?

The situation is a bit better in OP's system as he can't have 6♠ and weak hand but in "standard" ?

A reverse in Romex shows 17-18 HCP and 5 (occasionally 4) losers. Hands that would in Standard or 2/1 reverse or jump shift will open 1NT (artificial). After a reverse, responder can pass or bid 2NT to show a bad hand; all other bids are forcing.

1♦-1♠
2♥-pass -- to play
    2♠ -- forcing
    2NT -- starting a bailout
    3♣ -- GF with ♦, requests relay responses (showing shape)
    3♦ -- agrees ♦, F1
    3♥ -- GF with ♥ requests relay responses

shape showing relay responses:

Step 1 -- balanced (usually 5-4-2-2)
Step 2 -- singleton in the lower ranking side suit
Step 3 -- singleton in the higher ranking side suit
Step 4 -- void in the lower ranking side suit
Step 5 -- void in the higher ranking side suit

After the shape showing, responder's next relay is RKCB.

True, you can't play in 2♠ after a reverse. Can't have everything.

[kenberg]

It is possible to play a reverse is on-forcing. If I recall correctly, Goren played it that way. ROMEX I have never played. It is possible to play that rebidding the major over the reverse is passable. I can see arguments for it.
BUT
As predominantly played, the reverse is forcing and promises another bid even if responder rebids his suit.
I am not so much interested (myself) in swimming against the tide as I am in working through what bids should mean given the agreements that the the reverse is forcing and promises a rebid.

[bluecalm]

Quote

and promises a rebid

The whole concept of promising another bid is foreign to me.
Where I live we play that bids are either forcing one round, forcing to game or not forcing.
That makes sense because how forcing a bid is is direct consequence of how strong it could be.
For example if you forget about all artificial conventions and have to decide how forcing is:

1♦ - 1♠
2♥

You see that you can't pass (because opener could be 21 and you are supposedly 5+) but combined strength doesn't guarantee game yet so it's forcing one round etc.
If you were to construct natural follow ups then naturally 3♦ would be the weakest bid and could not be forcing. Same goes for 2♠.

It's amazing how differently bidding theory and bidding understanding works in different parts of the world.

[kenberg]

I pretty much agree with the general ideas you present about forcing. Let me explain why I think this could be an exceptional case. Grant me, art least for the moment, the supposition that if opener has only two spades he will not pass the 2♠ rebid by responder. But then where are we? If opener has at most two spades he will rebid something. If opener has three spades then he has a stiff in the fourth suit so that we are speaking of an at least fairly good hand, an at least eight card fit, and the stiff is in the hand with the three card trump holding, where it is likely to do the most good. Even with a minimum reverse, unless responder with his 2♠ absolutely guarantees the most minimum hand imaginable, might not opener want to at least raise to an ivitational 3♠ hoping that responder can bid game?

So the argument for bidding again over 2♠ is that either a fit has not yet been found or else, if a fit has been found, game must still be a fairly live possibility.


A weak spot in this argument occurs when opener is 2-2 in his short suits w/o a stopper in the fourth. I can see that one might argue that with such a hand he may well, with a minimum reverse, just say oh the hell with it, let's get out while the getting is good, I pass. It's taking a bit of a position though.


Another issue is, of course, whether the raise of 2♠ to 3♠ should be passable or not. Mikeh, in his write-up linked earlier by hamp, says no. I believe he is in the (N.A.) majority with that. Phil, in his write-up on another thread, says yes it can be passed. My partner and I are actively discussing this and have agreed, tentatively, that it can be passed. No doubt this has something to do with what is taken to be the minimum standard for the reverse. If there is a guarantee of 17 working high card points then, with a presumption of 6 in responder's hand (not always there but I would not base bidding on the pessimistic assumption that they are not there), makes 23 points. With an eight card fit and a stiff, I think that is worth a game. If the reverse can be on significantly less, then probably making 3♠ invitational is the way to go. This also caters to the hand where the initial spade bid was on very little, or very little that is useful.

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on Sep 3 2010, 10:11 AM, said:

The whole concept of promising another bid is foreign to me.

And to me. Or, at least, it seems an unnatural way of looking at things.

Before they invented Lebensohl, a sequence like
  1♣-1♠
  2♥-3♣
was usually played as non-forcing.

If you agree to play 2♠ as forcing and 2NT as Lebensohl, it's true that the reverser will always bid again. However, that's a consequence of your methods, rather than a principle.

[FrancesHinden]

I would strongly suggest that you play the raise to 3S as non-forcing, unless you really do require a good 6+ points for a response.

(i) a 17-count 3=1=4=5 opposite 6- or 7- count with 5 spades is not necessarily making game (you might be going off in 3 on a bad day). And most people these days would respond somewhat lighter, particularly NV. Partner opens 1C, you have Qxxxx QJxxx xx x - are you really going to pass?

(ii) it allows opener to limit their hand. 3145 hands (in that order) can typically be opened at the 1-level wth up to, say, a 23-count simply because they are so awkward to bid otherwise - what would you open on KJx K AKQx AQJxx if not 1C - and so opener needs some easy way to distinguish a very strong hand from a minimum reverse. In the given auction, opener can bid 3S (minimum), 4S (medium), 4H (maximum) even without worrying about some artificiality. I agree that over the 4-level bids you've lost some room, but against that opener's hand is now very well defined.





p.s. what gnasher says about reverses 'promising another bid'

[kenberg]

The comments here, together with Phil's thread and mikeh's write-up, are make the most satisfying and useful discussion of reverses I have ever had. W/o meaning to discourage further comments, let me thank all contributors so far.


On the raise to 3♠. Partrner and I have agreed to play it as NF. For better or worse, that's the agreement. I think that I as with responder, with KJxxx and Qx in either of partner's suits, would accept. Won't always make. true enough, but the points are working, I could have less, and I can pretty easily construct hands where there should be a good play. Give partner
Qxx
x
AKxx
AKxxx

With Qx of diamonds and KJxxx of spades I can count a likely nine tricks and I can see reasonable hopes for ten. With Qx in the fourth suit or with the J of spades changed to a spot, I can pass.

Something like that seems right to me. At the very least, I think the discussion gets me to where failure will be from bad luck or bad judgment, not confusion over the meaning of bids. Thanks.

[gwnn]

Qxx
x
AKxx
AKxxx

is far from a minimum I think.

I think there's 14 counts with this shape that should reverse. This hand is a super prime 16.