[jillybean]

Hi,

Is this always a reverse?

1♦ (2♣) 2♦ (P)
2♥?

as opposed to:

1♦ (2♣) 2♥ (P)
2♠

I dont think this 2nd auction is even forcing.

ty
jb

[awm]

Here's my take on this:

In the first auction 1♦-(2♣)-2♦-(Pass); 2♥, diamonds have been bid and raised. The 2♥ call is a natural game try, showing extra values and looking to reach game in diamonds, hearts, or notrump. It's forcing, but the auction can die in 3♦.

In the second auction 1♦-(2♣)-2♥-(Pass); 2♠, the 2♠ bid doesn't necessarily show extras. It's the lowest available call and the auction was already forced to 3♦, so it's not a reverse. However, I also don't think 2♠ limits the hand -- I would always bid this way with four spades pretty much regardless of strength (if I have to bid 3♠ to force this will always be awkward). So I think 2♠ is a one-round force opposite partner (who has shown 10+ points) despite not showing extras.

[P_Marlowe]

1) 2H is probe for 3NT, responder could have doubled
if he did hold the mayor (hearts and / or spades)
2) Assuming 2H is forcing, 2S is forcing as well,
it does not promise add. strength, and shows merely
some values, but responder wont have a 4 card suit,
since he did not make a neg. double
Assuming 2H is nonforcing, 2S is forcing, but now 2S
promises reverse strength

Marlowe

[adhoc3]

1♣-(1♥)-pass-(2♥)
2♠*

*probe for NT or reverse?

[helene_t]

adhoc3, on Nov 28 2005, 04:16 PM, said:

1♣-(1♥)-pass-(2♥)
2♠*

*probe for NT or reverse?

This is a proposal to play in spades since partner did not deny spades, he could just be too weak to make a neg dbl.

How much strength it shows is a matter of agreement. I think it makes sense to play this as showing shape only (usually 4♠+6♣ but could be 4+5 with extra values and/or good suits), at least at matchpoints.

As for Kathryn's question I agree with Marlowe.

[P_Marlowe]

adhoc3, on Nov 28 2005, 09:16 AM, said:

1♣-(1♥)-pass-(2♥)
2♠*

*probe for NT or reverse?

Hi,

as Helen said, 2S shows real spade.
Since we are in the beginner / intermediate
section, I wont torture you with sicence,

but for me, 2S shows a hand, just good enough
to compete, ... you need to be able to stand 3C
from partner, but that's it, ... and 2S can be passed.

Depending on your style, 3S instead of 2S, shows a powerful
2-suiter, which would have qualified for 2C, but usually you
dont open 2C with 6-5.

Marlowe

[ack_hh]

jillybean2, on Nov 28 2005, 08:23 AM, said:

Hi,

Is this always a reverse?

1♦ (2♣) 2♦ (P)
2♥?

REVERSE = rebid of a new suit higher than the first one AND which has been *denied* by partner.

Partner has not denied hearts, so it's not a reverse.

[ArcLight]

>REVERSE = rebid of a new suit higher than the first one AND which has been *denied* by partner.

Would that be valid in competition? In an uncontested auction, with 4 hearts and 4 diamonds, I'd respond 4 hearts, knowing that 2 Diamonds was also a fit.

In competition, what will happen if pard doesn't like hearts? Rebid 3 Diamonds with a 4-2 fit?


>Partner has not denied hearts, so it's not a reverse.


Regardless of what you label it, it obviously shows extra values, as opener has forced the auction higher. Pard raised in competition, he/she may be weak.

I think its clearly a reverse (meaning its got extra strength, and/or extra distribution)

[mikeh]

Some of the posts show either some confusion or a non-standard method.

1♦  (2♣)  2♦  2♥

assuming that 2♦ was a single, non-forcing, non-invitational raise (ie not playing inverted minors) then opener was not obliged to bid and the partnership had found a playable home in 2♦.

Logic therefore suggests that the 2♥ bid shows extras: opener is comfortable with playing 3♦ should responder have a non-useful hand.

Responder could certainly hold either but not both majors. Responder has denied the values for a negative double, but responder will not double with, for example, xx QJxx KJxx xxx for fear that opener's ♠ bidding will result in getting too high.

So 2♥ is ostensibly natural and will show, typically, a great, shapely 15 count or more: the more opener has, the less shapley the hand may be, bearing in mind that it will never be a 1N opener (assuming strong 1N opening bids)

The second auction 1♦  (2♣)  2♥  P  2♠

2♥ is forcing for one round in standard methods (some pairs use negative free bids, but that is not what we are assuming in this area of the BBF) and promises another bid if made by an unpassed hand.

Since it is forcing, and promises another bid, opener is not showing extras by bidding 2♠, which is not a reverse, anyway. A reverse requires that a correction to opener's first suit raise the level:

Thus 1♦  1♠  2♥: responder must go to the 3-level to go back to ♦: in the auction under consideration, responder is already compelled, by his first bid, to go to the 3-level if he ever wants to support ♦: the 2♠ bid does not change that.

Responder could certainly still hold a ♠ suit: negative doubles are not used for all 2-suiters by any means.

With AJxx AKJxxx xx x I would not negative double: I would bid 2♥, expecting partner to bid 2♠ with 4, unless he can support ♥

With KQxx QJxxx xx xx I would negative double, because I lack the strength to bid 2♥. And with AQxx AKxx xx Qxx I would negative double because I lack the length to bid either major: I'd double and then make a strong bid.

[adhoc3]

helene_t, on Nov 28 2005, 09:37 AM, said:

adhoc3, on Nov 28 2005, 04:16 PM, said:

1♣-(1♥)-pass-(2♥)
2♠*

*probe for NT or reverse?

This is a proposal to play in spades since partner did not deny spades, he could just be too weak to make a neg dbl.

How much strength it shows is a matter of agreement. I think it makes sense to play this as showing shape only (usually 4♠+6♣ but could be 4+5 with extra values and/or good suits), at least at matchpoints.

As for Kathryn's question I agree with Marlowe.

Hi Helent & Melowe,

With which of these hands you will bid 2♠ after: 1♣-(1♥)-pass-(2♥)
2♠*?

1) Kxxx x xxx AKQxx pass, dbl
2) Kxxx xx xx AKQxx pass
3) Kxxx x xx AKQxxx 2S?
4) AKJx xx Kxx AQxx dbl
5) KQTx xx x AQxxxx 2S?
6) KQTx x Qxx AKxxx dbl

[cinvent77]

2♠ is a proposal to play in a 4-3 fit and therefore has to show good spades. With hand 3 I won't bid 2♠ but 3♣ seems alright as does 2♠ with hand 5. In fact I cannot think of a 4-5 hand which would bid 2♠ as double on these hands seem more natural. Thus, 2♠ shows 4♠ - 6♣ in my opinion.

[Winstonm]

I go all the way back to a book I read in my infancy written by Charles Goren - who at least had the knack for making things simple to understand.

He said that a reverse is not some bid that a bridge guru invented and dubbed as being a strong bid; no, instead it is a strong bid because it forces partner to take a preference to the origianl suit at a higher level. Logic dictates that the hand must have extra high cards to force responder to chose one level higher.

In the auction given: 1D-1S-2D-P-2H. What does logic say? Logic says that to return to diamonds we must commit to the 3-level; hence, opener must have extra strength to make this demand.

In the second auction: 1D-1S-2H-P-? It is responder who has forced opener to rebid - now a 2S bid is not extra because logic says that responder was the one who forced opener to bid (Imagine if opener had to rebid diamonds - he would have to do so at the 3-level, so responder has forced to this level.)

The Simple Simon of bridge can keep you straight on these sequences.

Winston

[barmar]

While I'm certainly not in the same league as Goren, you have to remember that bidding theory has advanced quite a bit since his time, especially in the area of competitive bidding. The Law of Total Tricks suggests that it's often appropriate to compete to the 3 level even though you don't have extra values. And with appropriately fitting hands, you can often make game on significantly fewer HCP than the traditionally-quoted 26, which is why we have all sorts of game tries.

However, it's generally only safe to go to the 3 level with minimum values when you actually have a fit. So if you have an uncontested auction like 1♦-1♠-2♥, opener is forcing responder to take a preference on the 3 level even without good support. To make 3♦ with a potential 5-2 or 5-1 fit, he needs extra values (about 17 HCP, less if you more extreme distribution). But in the auction from the initial post, 1♦ (1♠) 2♦ (P) 2♥ (P), you have found a fit, and so forcing to 3♦ is not a problem and doesn't require as much extra (a good 14-15 HCP is enough to make a game try in a major, it's tougher in minors since you need quite a bit to make 5, and 3NT generally only makes with less than 25 HCP if you have a long running suit).

[Winstonm]

barmar, on Nov 30 2005, 05:27 PM, said:

While I'm certainly not in the same league as Goren, you have to remember that bidding theory has advanced quite a bit since his time, especially in the area of competitive bidding.  The Law of Total Tricks suggests that it's often appropriate to compete to the 3 level even though you don't have extra values.  And with appropriately fitting hands, you can often make game on significantly fewer HCP than the traditionally-quoted 26, which is why we have all sorts of game tries.

However, it's generally only safe to go to the 3 level with minimum values when you actually have a fit.  So if you have an uncontested auction like 1♦-1♠-2♥, opener is forcing responder to take a preference on the 3 level even without good support.  To make 3♦ with a potential 5-2 or 5-1 fit, he needs extra values (about 17 HCP, less if you more extreme distribution).  But in the auction from the initial post, 1♦ (1♠) 2♦ (P) 2♥ (P), you have found a fit, and so forcing to 3♦ is not a problem and doesn't require as much extra (a good 14-15 HCP is enough to make a game try in a major, it's tougher in minors since you need quite a bit to make 5, and 3NT generally only makes with less than 25 HCP if you have a long running suit).

Exactly and well said. But the point is the anytime opener forces responder to a higher level to return to the agreed suit or unagreed suit it shows extra values - in some cases more extras than others but as this is in the beginner and intermediate forum it seems best to simplify as much as possible.

Winston

[HeartA]

First one, it IS a reverse. Partner's 2D denied majors OR showed very weak (and balanced) hand with D fit (don't want to go 3D if major fit is not available). Facing a weak hand, to try game is a reverse, in my opinion. Note that, if bid goes like 1H-(1S)-2H-(p)-3m is a game try.

For the second one, I would say 2S should be natural (in rare cases, could be stopper showing), not reverse.

[mike777]

jillybean2, on Nov 28 2005, 01:23 AM, said:

Hi,

Is this always a reverse?

1♦ (2♣) 2♦ (P)
2♥?

as opposed to:

1♦ (2♣) 2♥ (P)
2♠

I dont think this 2nd auction is even forcing.

ty
jb

I see this posted on forum all the time. One more Time. A reverse is not by definition strong ok? It may or may not be strong OK? I am not sure why people think reverses=strong 100% but they are not by definition, OK?

To repeat whether a bid is a reverse is one question, OK?
Whether it shows extra HCP is another, OK?

[barmar]

mike777, on Dec 1 2005, 12:57 PM, said:

I see this posted on forum all the time. One more Time. A reverse is not by definition strong ok? It may or may not be strong OK? I am not sure why people think reverses=strong 100% but they are not by definition, OK?

In any natural system, they have to show extra. You're forcing responder to take preference on the 3 level, which isn't safe with a minimum opener facing a minimum responder with no good fit.

[mike777]

barmar, on Dec 5 2005, 11:40 AM, said:

mike777, on Dec 1 2005, 12:57 PM, said:

I see this posted on forum all the time. One more Time. A reverse is not by definition strong ok? It may or may not be strong OK? I am not sure why people think reverses=strong 100% but they are not by definition, OK?

In any natural system, they have to show extra. You're forcing responder to take preference on the 3 level, which isn't safe with a minimum opener facing a minimum responder with no good fit.

All reverses do not force responder to make a preference at the 3 level. Again the the definition of what a reverse is getting confused here.

In fact even if we make responder take a preference at the 3 level there may be cases where reverse need not be strong, example is when responder has shown a strong hand...etc....

Repeating, yes, many reverses are strong showing but not all. You can make a reverse in 2/1 or a natural system and not be strong.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on Dec 5 2005, 07:40 PM, said:

mike777, on Dec 1 2005, 12:57 PM, said:

I see this posted on forum all the time. One more Time. A reverse is not by definition strong ok? It may or may not be strong OK? I am not sure why people think reverses=strong 100% but they are not by definition, OK?

In any natural system, they have to show extra. You're forcing responder to take preference on the 3 level, which isn't safe with a minimum opener facing a minimum responder with no good fit.

Bullshit... There are any number of 2/1 variants that don't treat reverses as strong following a 2/1 response. This isn't my preferred style, but many people like it.

I agree with Mike that players are well served differentiating between

1. The definition of a reverse
2. Specific bidding sequences playing system XYZ

[barmar]

Yes, I forgot the case where responder has already shown extras. The general point is that at least one of the partners has to have extras for a reverse to be safe. If responder hasn't shown it, then opener needs to have it.