[Zelandakh]

I believe that separating out range evenly is often important but that evenly overall does not necessarily mean evenly on this round of bidding. I believe that ranges critical for accurate game bidding are more important than separating out different sub-ranges within the part-score and game zone, notwithstanding that the latter are useful for slam bidding. I see little problem in the possibility of 1♣ - 1♠; 2♣ containing a 5 card suit. That is also the case for your methods unless I am missing something, albeit less frequently. There is generally enough space between 2♣ and 3NT to sort things out if we are in the game zone.

But what I was actually pointing out was that your categorisation of 15+ as 2/3 against 1/3 and the others as 80+% 2♣ and 20-% fpr everything else is deeply flawed. It was also a continuation of our earlier theme that you had never seen any arguments for the reversing range being what it is. In short, what I believe in is splitting hand types, not hand probabilities. I believe this is what leads to greater bidding accuracy and easier decisons on later rounds.

[awm]

Easy 1♣ for me. I feel that some people are over-predicting the auction.

Certainly it is possible that partner will respond 1♠ and opponents are passing and I will be forced to choose between a slight overbid (2♦) and a slight underbid (2♣) at my second turn. But there are many ways the auction can go -- maybe partner responds 1♥, maybe opponents are bidding spades and I am doubling back in, etc. In these cases I will generally be glad not to have distorted my hand on the first call!

And even if partner is responding 1♠ and opponents are passing, it's not clear that a 1NT bid gets us to the right spot (i.e. we could play 2♠ in a 5-1, or we could miss a good slam when partner has weak spades and scattered values).

[mikeh]

rhm, on 2014-August-28, 02:53, said:

Of course what you say is true.

too bad you didn't stop there

Quote

However

What I have argued is not that 15 HCP is a better minimum requirement than 16 HCP
What I have argued is that the minimum strength requirement for a reverse should be aligned with your strong notrump openings, because there is a serious rebid problem for unbalanced hands, which fall in the gap between these minimum requirements.
You have to distort them because a 1NT rebid is not available and these are good hands even if they do not meet your requirements for a reverse.
I would have no issue with putting the minimum requirement at 16 provided you do the same with your strong notrump openings.
<snipped>

I think this is simply an erroneous correlation. I see zero reason for conflating balanced hand bidding with unbalanced hand bidding. Now, if you are a believer in rebidding 1N with 1=3=4=5 in range (ie, here, 11-14) there is some limited merit in your thinking, but even then I don't find it at all persuasive. We use fundamentally different tools when partner opens 1N, so there is no reason at all to correlate reverse-strength to the 1N opening.

Quote

<snipped>

With regard to the dividing line and strength differentiation:


One reason people changed from 16-18 NT to 15-17 was that we nowadays open many more balanced 12 counts and good looking 11 counts (e.g. Axxx Kxxx Axx, xx), which used to be passed. This makes a maximum of 15 points for a 1NT rebid unwieldy.
Another reason was to make a 1NT opening more frequent.

Having been around when 16-18 was still being played by a small but not tiny minority in NA, and having done a LOT of reading of bridge literature from the 1950s through 1970s, it is my understanding that the lowering of the range of 1N happened before it became common to open 11 counts. It arose because methods over 1N had become very well developed and were leading to good results, and then it was realized that we hold far more 15 counts than 18, hence let's maximize the availability of our best-developed constructive bidding sequences. I think you are using a retroscope to try to argue that the lower range openings can first or even concurrently.

Quote

Now let's say you hold 1♠-3♥-4♦-5♣ as a prototype reverse distribution.
You will open any hand with this distribution when the range is between 11-21 HCP and this is conservative. Some will open 10 counts frequently.
The point is that hands in the upper HCP range are much less likely to occur than those in the lower range. This is even more skewed with unbalanced hands than balanced ones.

If we put the dividing line at 15 HCP for a reverse this means roughly 2/3 of all those hands opened will not qualify for a reverse (11-14 HCP) and one third will (15-21 HCP)
If we put the dividing line at 16 HCP for a reverse 4/5 of all those hands opened will not qualify for a reverse (11-15 HCP) and only one 1/5 will (16-21 HCP).
If we put the dividing line at 17 HCP (remember most said the given 16 HCP hand would not qualify for a reverse) about 6/7 of all those hands opened will no qualify for a reverse (11-16 HCP) and only 1/7 will (17-21 HCP).

Now in all seriousness even if we put more importance onto the stronger opening hands (responder is unlimited too!) which agreement does a better job at strength differentiation?
Yes reverses consume a little bit more bidding room, but this is exaggerated in my view and what is the point of reverse agreements if they rarely come up in practice?
If you want to avoid reverses put the dividing line up, but do not tell me you do a good job in differentiating opener's strength.

<snipped>

What you say is 'true' in the sense of relative distribution of hands, and of the problems inherent in trying to differentiate the wide range non-reverse hands when playing 'strong' reverses. It is also true that there is a tradeoff no matter what approach you take.

It is clear that my perception of the difficulties from our respective positions is different from yours. I will add that the current tendency to permit 1N rebids on in-range 5431 hands, with a stiff in partner's spade response, tends to lessen the problem for the strong reverse group, to a modest degree (altho it creates other problems which is why it isn't universal).

My take on our disagreement is that I think you underestimate the problems that arise after a weak reverse, and you think I underestimate the problems that arise when the non-reverse is wide-range. I doubt that either will convince the other, since my opinion is based upon a lot of play experience and I suspect yours is as well. This is one reason bridge is a great game

[aguahombre]

awm, on 2014-August-28, 08:44, said:

Easy 1♣ for me. I feel that some people are over-predicting the auction.

Certainly it is possible that partner will respond 1♠ and opponents are passing and I will be forced to choose between a slight overbid (2♦) and a slight underbid (2♣) at my second turn. But there are many ways the auction can go -- maybe partner responds 1♥, maybe opponents are bidding spades and I am doubling back in, etc. In these cases I will generally be glad not to have distorted my hand on the first call!

And even if partner is responding 1♠ and opponents are passing, it's not clear that a 1NT bid gets us to the right spot (i.e. we could play 2♠ in a 5-1, or we could miss a good slam when partner has weak spades and scattered values).

This rare for me: disagreeing with Adam.

I see nothing convenient to do on the second round in an uncontested auction (in a 15-17 NT context) after opening 1♣.

Every rebid will be a distortion of both size and shape. When this happens, I choose to distort shape the first time, and get it over with early

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-August-27, 18:09, said:

As stated, our agreement is Lebensohl over partner's reverse - FWIW - seemingly not much.

Zelandakh, on 2014-August-28, 01:32, said:

Another common agreement that requires minimal discussion is "cheapest of 2NT and 4th suit Lebensohl, everything else natural and GF". Now you cannot give partner a choice of majors at the 2 level any more but you have gained quite a bit on constructive auctions; which is a good trade overall.

Over reverses, Blackout has obvious merit but we already play Lebensohl in other situations, so, here, we can returm to familiar ground, even if out of step with experts. We don't miss FSF since Lebensohl provides invitational and GF options, especially when we have a fit in one of opener's minors. We find 2M more useful to express weak likely-misfit hands with long majors.

[awm]

aguahombre, on 2014-August-28, 09:51, said:

This rare for me: disagreeing with Adam.

I see nothing convenient to do on the second round in an uncontested auction (in a 15-17 NT context) after opening 1♣.

Every rebid will be a distortion of both size and shape. When this happens, I choose to distort shape the first time, and get it over with early

1C-1D-3D seems perfect; it may be hard to even find this fit if opened 1nt
1C-1H-2D is fine, 3-support being an upgrade; might be hard to get to game/slam after a 1nt open and here we can pattern out
1C-2C or 1C-3C is great, might find a good 5m/6m when 3nt is lousy
And this is ignoring contested auctions where 1C-1S-X-2S-X (to give one example) is a near-perfect description.

[aguahombre]

awm, on 2014-August-28, 15:30, said:

1C-1D-3D seems perfect; it may be hard to even find this fit if opened 1nt

Hold that thought. It would be a hijack, here..but with reverse strength and array (slightly more suit-oriented than the OP hand)...and within Walsh responses where the 1D response might be 3-3-3-4 with 6-7 too weak for 1NT, or 11-12 same pattern...another thread might explore 1C-1D-2D being a true reverse and 3D reserved for something artificial.

[PhilKing]

aguahombre, on 2014-August-28, 16:19, said:

Hold that thought. It would be a hijack, here..but with reverse strength and array (slightly more suit-oriented than the OP hand)...and within Walsh responses where the 1D response might be 3-3-3-4 with 6-7 too weak for 1NT, or 11-12 same pattern...another thread might explore 1C-1D-2D being a true reverse and 3D reserved for something artificial.

This problem is something of an illusion - pard only needs to fudge 1♦ rarely, and even when that is true, the chances of no one overcalling spades is minimal.

[aguahombre]

PhilKing, on 2014-August-28, 16:32, said:

This problem is something of an illusion - pard only needs to fudge 1♦ rarely, and even when that is true, the chances of no one overcalling spades is minimal.

It is more a matter of "useful space" than frequency of the 3-card diamond response, for us. It would be hard to back off into 2N or 3C if we jump raised to 3D; and, the 2D "reverse" raise could allow a smooth slam probe in either minor below 3NT.

Anyway, I really don't want to misdirect this interesting thread further with additional stuff like 1C-1D-3D on AXXX AKXX X AKJX (diamond shortness).

[gszes]

1D

Yes Yes I see the AKxxx clubs and the puny Qxxx of diamonds but the 1D
bid causes us the least amount of heartache the most often by far. Easy
rebids and continuations and let's face it the 1c opener does not carry
the impact of the precision 2c bid in any way shape or form so the lead
directing advantage of 1c is overstated here. If p takes a 2d preference
over our intended 2c rebid we can now happily announce our extra power.

A 1N opening bid gets the power issue out of the way immediately but will
far too often get us overboard when partner has a spade suit of some length and
is counting on our "doubleton or better" when deciding how to proceed and these
"misguesses" will lead to many big losses.

1D may rarely lose the club suit but on most of those hands opening 1c will
still result in the club suit being lost. I am a strong proponent of trying to
open my best minor but here the rebid hassles over 1c seem to make 1d a standout.

[paulg]

gszes, on 2014-August-29, 08:29, said:

1D

Yes Yes I see the AKxxx clubs and the puny Qxxx of diamonds but the 1D
bid causes us the least amount of heartache the most often by far. Easy
rebids and continuations and let's face it the 1c opener does not carry
the impact of the precision 2c bid in any way shape or form so the lead
directing advantage of 1c is overstated here. If p takes a 2d preference
over our intended 2c rebid we can now happily announce our extra power.

I was mildly surprised that there was so little support for opening 1♦. It's not my style and has never been popular in the UK, but I know many consider it routinely.

[aguahombre]

1D opening would be ok with me on this pattern, if I didn't have NT opening values.

[aguahombre]

1D opening would be ok with me on this pattern, if I didn't have NT opening values. There are a lot of haters of that style, for probably good reasons. I am a hater of opening 1C without an acceptable rebid.