[MickyB]

Uncontested, not playing 1D:2C as GF, what do you expect responder to have for -

1♦:2♣; 2♦:2♥?

1♦:1♠; 2♦:2♥?

What bids are now forcing?

Do you agree that this is referred to as "responder's reverse"? It doesn't feel like one to me (1♣:1♦; 2♣:2♥ does, bidding your 2nd suit at a higher level than your first) but I know that many consider all of these auctions to come under the same name.

[Echognome]

My view is that these show GF values and 5-4 respectively in the suits. I believe you can make up some hands where you won't have 4 cards in your second suit, if you have a problem hand, but that it is a distortion. The main thing is that you can control the auction from here on out. To come up with an example, suppose you had:

♠x
♥AKx
♦QJx
♣AQTxxx

Partner opens 1♦ and rebids 2♦ over your 2♣ bid. If 3♣ is NOT GF then you may need to temporize with a 2♥ bid in order to force.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the first one is a reverse, showing 5-4,
forcing, but not game forcing.

the second is not an reverse, and may or
may not be natural (similar to NMF), but
it is forcing, showing at least inv. strength.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[cherdano]

1) is clearly game forcing IMO. 2) is not so clear, I would think it can just be invitational (reverse flannery rulez).

Arend

[hatchett]

The first sequence is a GF
The second sequence is only a one round force. 2♠/2NT/3♦ from opener would be dropable.

[luke warm]

i'm with arend, #1 seems clearly game forcing to me... #2 can cause confusion... assume you're playing nmf for the moment, would this

1d : 1s
1nt : 2h

be forcing? i'd say yes, it's a new suit by an unpassed reponder.. true, you can go thru 2c to game force, but does that mean by *not* using nmf 2h is passable?

i don't understand why more people don't play xyz or 2 way ckback rather than nmf

[MickyB]

Jimmy - even not playing NMF, I'd expect that to be NF.

The original sequences - are you expecting 4 hearts?

[joshs]

MickyB, on Mar 10 2006, 09:54 AM, said:

Uncontested, not playing 1D:2C as GF, what do you expect responder to have for -

1♦:2♣; 2♦:2♥?

1♦:1♠; 2♦:2♥?

What bids are now forcing?

Do you agree that this is referred to as "responder's reverse"? It doesn't feel like one to me (1♣:1♦; 2♣:2♥ does, bidding your 2nd suit at a higher level than your first) but I know that many consider all of these auctions to come under the same name.

I think that 2H set up a game force, but might be only a stopper instead of a suit

[luke warm]

MickyB, on Mar 10 2006, 12:06 PM, said:

Jimmy - even not playing NMF, I'd expect that to be NF.

The original sequences - are you expecting 4 hearts?

i guess the times have passed me by... it used to be (assuming no nmf here) that any new suit by an unpassed responder was forcing

i knew there was a reason i dislike nmf

[joshs]

joshs, on Mar 10 2006, 12:07 PM, said:

MickyB, on Mar 10 2006, 09:54 AM, said:

Uncontested, not playing 1D:2C as GF, what do you expect responder to have for -

1♦:2♣; 2♦:2♥?

1♦:1♠; 2♦:2♥?

What bids are now forcing?

Do you agree that this is referred to as "responder's reverse"? It doesn't feel like one to me (1♣:1♦; 2♣:2♥ does, bidding your 2nd suit at a higher level than your first) but I know that many consider all of these auctions to come under the same name.

I think that 2H set up a game force, but might be only a stopper instead of a suit

Somehow I didn't notice the second sequence. In the first sequence 2H was GFing.

In the second, its forcing but doesn't even promise a rebid, so someone would have to bid the 4'th suit to set up a game force.

Note: I never liked this treatment in the second auction, and prefer to play 2H as an ART force.

[MickyB]

1♦:1♠; 2♦:2♥

I think this is F1R, could be a strong 3 card fragment. A 3♥ raise would show 4 cards and be GF.

1♦:2♣; 2♦:2♥

I quite like responder to be able to bid out his shape on an invitational 4-5, although there is obviously a case for it to be GF. I'm not sure if there is a standard in the UK, I know of people who play it both ways. Again, I think 2♥ only promises 3.