[mikeh]

I think that Ken's approach is very out of the normal for experts today: that is not necessarily the same as saying that it is a poor idea.

However, I very strongly doubt that any top player now plays, or has played in many years, that a 1♠ opening bid should be stronger than a 1♣ bid, or that a 1♠ response should be sound, both out of fear of preempting partner.

There are normally twice as many opponents as there are partners!

The modern game involves light opening bids and, by the standards of yesteryear, feather-weight responses.

Old books are interesting: I have some going back well before auction. But they are not always sound.

My personal favourite (and oldest) is The Bridge Manual, by John Doe, published in the early 1900's. In one chapter it recommends an opening lead against notrump of the A from AQxx. A chapter later, dealing with how third hand should play on defence, it recommends that with Kxx in a suit in which partner has led the A against notrump, one should immediately play the K to 'get out of the way' of partner. It seems that this book was not well edited


Bridge is a darwinian environment: if you come across some long-unplayed suggestion, the odds are very good that the suggestion should remain unplayed.

[joshs]

That reminds me of my wierd regular partnership back in Washington DC with Bob Kerchner.

We Played a Weak NT with the following additional agreements:
1.With 18-19 balanced we opened 1C unless we had a 5 card suit (so might be 2 clubs and 4 diamonds)
2. We never passed 1C unless we had 4clubs and 0-3 points and no 5 card major
3. If we had less than 5/6 points (KQxx is good enough) and lacked a decent 5 card major and didn't have 4 clubs, we bid 1D
4. We played walsh style on the 5-11 point hands

If responder actually showed a good hand later then retroactively, 1D was natural.
After a 1N or 2N rebid by opener, we played x-fers (If responder takes a 3'rd bid then x-fering to a major showed 4 cards and real diamonds). We also played 1C-1D-2M as VERY strong (21+), but the cheapist bid by responder over that is a double negative. I don't really remember all the details.

Anyway, must have been the good drugs I was on.

[kenrexford]

I am not proclaiming, here, words of the Chief Lord of the Reverse. I run into this problem myself because I also adopt the modern bid-on-anything approach. However, some realities are popping into my head.

First, Openings are getting lighter. This include balanced openings, with the "strong" version dropping from 16-18, to 15-17, to 14-16. Responses are dropping also. Then, reverses drop to handle the gaps created by the lighter openings.

The emergence of 14-16 notrumps as the strong version is a relatively new phenomenon. It creates a reality where a 17-count is now handled with a jump to 2NT. Should BOTH sides keep lowering the limits, of does a day come where responses need a tad more? Is Opener the only one who prepares bids? If you would consider on rare occasion opening 1NT with a stiff, or opening canape out of system, or reversing into a three-card suit, or bidding 1NT with an unbalanced hand, or bidding a tactical waiting 2C call after a forcing 1NT, then why is everyone so dogmatic and strict about parameters for a response? Perhaps this needs rethinking.

This is not my "approach," but I will, on occasion, make a tactical call as a sub-minimum responder. I might bid 1H after 1D with 4315 and trash. I might pass a relatively hefty hand when no rebid exists after a predictable jump from partner. I might even (consider another post) make a simple, non-forcing rebid on a hand where game might exist and hope that partner bids again or the opponents balance. These actions seem like necessary hedges that enable light initial action, like opening 11-counts and opening a lighter 1NT.

I mention all of this to suggest some re-thinking of the CW.

[Gerben42]

I prefer lighter reverses, at least something like the hand above, but then I prefer also a system where my opening range is not 11 - 22. Given good break mechanisms you can reverse on this hand. For me it also does not promise a rebid. In my opinion bids that promise a rebid could be nice, but usually self-forcing turns into self-damaging.

This must be different than standard but for me a reverse means: "Partner I have at least a King and Queen more than a minimum opening, and this is my distribution". So it comes down to if the following hand is an opening bid for you:

♠A
♥JT74
♦KJ5
♣Q8754

If it is, then it is worth a reverse. If you would have passed this, bid 1♣ then 2♣. However, I know that many disagree. Note that this style includes passing partner's opening bid on many hands where the "respond with Any Ace"-gang will respond.

What usually happens if you bid 1♣ 2♣ on this kind of hand is that you play there and wonder why everyone else is in 3NT making, after all we only have 25 / 26 HCP combined! This is a real danger and should not be overlooked.

[Winstonm]

I don't see this hand as that big of problem unless you routinely open junky minor hands. First of all, it's not that good of hand and a reverse to me seems to be about feeling a need to show the extra "points". This is not that good of 16 point hand so I have no compulsion about wanting to show this with either 1N or a reverse.

This seems a somewhat classic hand that will grow or shrink depending on the auction - and the auction 1C-1S is one that makes it shrink. Aces are building cards, their value increased because of the support they can lend to honors opposite - the singleton Ace loses this affect: Qxx opposite Axx has gained in value but Qxx opposite A is worth next to nothing.

The auction itself of 1C-1S-2C by its nature may conceal a fairly good hand with hearts, as any good bidder recognizes - therefore in this particular auction it usually pays to stretch a tad to keep the bidding open with a good 9 count - the classic courtesy raise.

If you want a rule for reverses try this: never reverse over a 1-level response unless you are prepared to play 3 of your first suit opposite 2 small support and a 6-count.

Winston

[Chamaco]

Hannie, on Feb 14 2006, 10:33 PM, said:

Imaginary discussion by Meckwell, bidding goes 1D-1S-2H-2S-pass.

Rodwell: 2S is forcing partner!
Meckstroth: no it isn't, you are rebidding your suit!
Rodwell: I thought that we were playing Ingberman...
Meckstroth: Perhaps we should discuss what we play over reverses sometime.

Rodwell: So you do not agree on Ingberman ? Perhaps to avoid problems with reverses we could give a try to a Strong Club System then....

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Feb 15 2006, 11:24 AM, said:

I prefer lighter reverses, at least something like the hand above, but then I prefer also a system where my opening range is not 11 - 22. Given good break mechanisms you can reverse on this hand. For me it also does not promise a rebid. In my opinion bids that promise a rebid could be nice, but usually self-forcing turns into self-damaging.

This must be different than standard but for me a reverse means: "Partner I have at least a King and Queen more than a minimum opening, and this is my distribution". So it comes down to if the following hand is an opening bid for you:

♠A
♥JT74
♦KJ5
♣Q8754

If it is, then it is worth a reverse. If you would have passed this, bid 1♣ then 2♣. However, I know that many disagree. Note that this style includes passing partner's opening bid on many hands where the "respond with Any Ace"-gang will respond.

What usually happens if you bid 1♣ 2♣ on this kind of hand is that you play there and wonder why everyone else is in 3NT making, after all we only have 25 / 26 HCP combined! This is a real danger and should not be overlooked.

I am sure you would describe me as a light opener, I open most 11 counts with 5-4-3-1, but definitely not this one. This honor distribution is pretty horrible.

This is very much in line with the main problem of the reverse on the given hand: it is not lacking hcp, but the stiff ace (in partner's suit) and the bad anchor suits make the reverse an overbid (by the standards of the solid reverse school alluded to above by Mike).

Btw1: What break mechanisms are you using in addition to Ingberman? Non-forcing suit rebid, I suppose. Do you also play 3-level raises as non-forcing?

Btw2: my vague guess is that light reverses are very unpopular in North America, but more common in the rest of the world?

Btw3: What is this talk about a "respond with any ace"-gang? I thought that's automatic, and the dividing line is whether we respond with any Qxxxx?

(Of course this is a style issue, but I don't understand responding with three queens, but passing with an ace.)

Arend

[Gerben42]

I would also pass the example hand which was the question above, but only just. This means the actual hand is not a reverse, but it's close (unlike everyone who thinks it isn't close).

I use transfer Lebensohl in this situation (what I understand is that Ingberman is some kind of "Lebensohl after reverse"). There is no non-forcing suit rebid as I play WJS and frequent 3-card raises. This means 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ is forcing, and with 5♠ you just give up on your ♠ unless you can force to game.

Quote

Btw3: What is this talk about a "respond with any ace"-gang? I thought that's automatic, and the dividing line is whether we respond with any Qxxxx?

I still think responding to partner's NF opening bid with just an Ace is silly. I've seen too many good results when the whole field was overboard just because they responded lightly, and those who saved themselves did so at the cost of passing a forcing bid, not good for the partnership.

But as I said, I don't like systems with opening bids from 11 - 22 HCP. Either limited opening bids or Fantunes style for me, please.

If playing such a thing I have a mechanism after 1♣ that caters for hands that are too weak to respond and don't want to pass. As all other bids show a real suit you can just pass those.

[joshs]

Jlall, on Feb 15 2006, 05:30 PM, said:

Gerben42, on Feb 15 2006, 05:26 PM, said:

But as I said, I don't like systems with opening bids from 11 - 22 HCP. Either limited opening bids or Fantunes style for me, please.

got it you prefer 14-37 opening bids

I try to make everything in my system be 14-30 when NV vs Vul with justin as my partner. With 31+ I pass, wait for justin to psych and then bid a slam. Its a time honored strategy. In fact we should have a system where P then 4N shows 31-32. P then 5N shows 33-34 P then 6N shows 35-36 and P then 7N shows 37. Ok I admit it, I would probably just open 7N directly with the 37....

Now what's the best way of bidding a 4333 balanced 36 count???? Is there an opening bid to ask for specific Q's?

[Gerben42]

Quote

Now what's the best way of bidding a 4333 balanced 36 count???? Is there an opening bid to ask for specific Q's? 

Opening 5NT asks for specific Jacks, to ask for Queens make a fake RKCB.

Anyway, I'm working on a complete description of my Fantunes-style system. Work in progress...

[joshs]

I once played a system called T-REX while visiting New Zealand, where A 1/2 seat pass showed either: 0-4 ANY OR 15-20 with no 5 card major. All Pass was always hysterical. Maybe not ideal for mps, but at imps you can tolerate the occasional Pass Out vs making 120 on 22-23 high.

[kenrexford]

Since we are getting silly here, I'll add one. I once played with a lady who was the most timid player I ever met. SO, I forced her to play a light initial action system.

Our opening bids and responses, with alerts and explanations, sometimes went like this:

"1D"
"Alert"
"Yes...?"
"8-22 HCP's. At least three diamonds."
"Pass."
"1H"
"Alert."
"Yes...?"
"3-17 HCP's, at least four hearts, non-forcing."
"Uh, OK."

This was great fun. We had a combined HCP range of 11-37 and we were in a non-forcing auction. It was stupid, though.

[bobh2]

Hey, Mike,

You are mired in another "Basics" problem I see all the time.

First, reverses should be defined as really good hands, say 17 up to 21 or 22 or so. What you have here is certainly a decent hand but not a really good hand and certainly not the values for a reverse. Moreover, just like a 1-1-1 bid (not nt) promises one more bid, and a 2/1 bid (playing standard) promises one more bid (with exceptions), a reverse promises one more bid (if below game).

A tip: If you have, when you bid, every bit of your bid, your partner will be consistantly happy. The single most important part of bridge is to choose good partners and get them to play their best game...that is if you like to win. Nobody, nobody, can win with an unhappy partner...my 4 decades of experience speaks...lol. Don't stretch to make a reverse or a jump shift. Don't open 14 point nts when your range is 15-17. Keep your partner happy and chirping along...if you like to win.

Pay attention to Justin. He knows his stuff. So does Winston.

Last thing. For those poor misguided souls who muse about opening 1N on that hand? (Again, experience speaks) You get to do that once with each good partner. Once. Then you get to spend the time looking for another good partner. Do you get my drift?

[hrothgar]

bobh2, on Feb 23 2006, 11:42 PM, said:

Last thing.  For those poor misguided souls who muse about opening 1N on that hand?  (Again, experience speaks)  You get to do that once with each good partner.  Once.  Then you get to spend the time looking for another good partner.  Do you get my drift?

Understand completely: You have a narrow mind...

You operate according to a simplistic set of rules and refuse to consider that other approaches are viable. I find this characteristic troublesome in general. Its especially unseemly in someone who is involved in teaching. Persoanlly, I found a lot of the advice that your were dispensing during your lessons problematic. "Nice" to see that the same philosophies are carrying over onto the forums.

For what its worth, I've played with some damn good players over the years. I've had the chance to discuss bidding with a lot more. I know for a fact that Bobby Goldman would open 1NT with 5-4-3-1 "problem" hands, with or without a stiff major. Its possible that he didn't know what he was talking about, but I think I'll put a bit more trust in his advice than yours...

[han]

I feel the same way as hrothgar. Reading your advice leaves me with an ugly taste in my mouth and hands that are itching to write stronger statements than this.

[Winstonm]

Time to go to bat for a friend and partner. While I know Bob to be somewhat....let's say.....shortsighted (better than hardheaded mule, LoL)...I also know that he is as reliable as daybreak - when he makes a constructive bid you know what he has and this does make life easy on his pards.

Concerning the entire question of opening and rebids with this hand, doesn't it really come down to a choice of style, whether or not suit quality and length is a bigger issue in your style. After all, with this hand somewhere along the line we have to fudge. For those who believe suit quality and length of more importantance to emphasize, the choice is to fudge in the direction of opening 1N. For those, (such as Bob and myself), who prefer a more disciplined NT structure, the choice is to rebid 2C - making this bid somewhat of a "white noise" bid, signifying not much of anything except a hand less than a jump to 3C.

Is there a better method? Perhaps. When the likes of Bob Hamman and Justin Lall take issue with your methods, it might be wise to take heed. After all, it is not a game about HCP but about tricks and length. How to compensate in the bidding for the occassional offshape NT is an issue I'd like to see discussed. It's one thing to say, Oh, I'd open 1N, but quite another issue to follow up with the ripples both positive and negative this offshape choice has on the rest of the club rebid structure as well as the NT structure.

Having known Bob for about 35 years now, I can tell you this - if you ask him what he believes he will tell you. Having had to beat on him for hours on end to get him to admit there might be another way that is better can be tiresome and frustrating - I know from personal experience - but think about this - when he is your friend, can you imagine anyone more loyal?

So if you don't agree with him that is fine and dandy - but don't castigate someone with the courage to post his convictions and stand by them.

Winston

[han]

I don't castigate Bob for his convictions and neither did Hrothgar.

It his style that I dislike so much. It is his preaching style and it is his brown-nosing.