[ArcLight]

IMPS, white on white you deal, holding
♠ A J x x x
♥ A K x x x x
♦ x
♣ A

You open 1 heart

1♥ - 1NT (forcing)
2♠ - 3NT (2NT shows 10+ - 12-) so 3NT is more of a sign off



Pards hand hidden below

Spoiler

♠ Q x
♥ x
♦ Q 9 8 x
♣ Q J T 9 7 x

3NT -3, could have been 3NT -1

[Gerben42]

I pass. Partner is not interested in majors.

[Apollo81]

I don't understand your comment about 2NT. It looks like you may not understand this auction correctly.

As for what to bid, I would pass since your majors lack internal quality.

[jtfanclub]

Gerben42, on Jun 15 2007, 09:51 AM, said:

I pass. Partner is not interested in majors.

I'd feel better if I had the AJT of spades (or even the AJ9), but you gotta play what you're dealt.

I pass too. Partner should have at least 10 cards in the minors.

[neilkaz]

Haven't you shown a strong 56 major hand ? I respect PD's decision to s/off in 3NT.

.. neilkaz ..

[jdonn]

I bid 4♥ and change my system after the hand.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Jun 15 2007, 10:24 AM, said:

I bid 4♥ and change my system after the hand.

agree 100%

[FrancesHinden]

Quite.

[ArcLight]

jdonn, on Jun 15 2007, 10:24 AM, said:

I bid 4♥ and change my system after the hand.

What would you suggest?

2NT after 1NT shows 10+ - 12+. Is that what you don't like?
That it should be a bail out?


Perhaps the 3NT response was not correct?
Maybe its better for the responder to bid Clubs after the 1NT response, as this shows a weak hand with no fit.


>Haven't you shown a strong 56 major hand ?

All 2♠ promises is 4=5, not 5=6

[jdonn]

ArcLight, on Jun 15 2007, 11:27 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 15 2007, 10:24 AM, said:

I bid 4♥ and change my system after the hand.

What would you suggest?

2NT after 1NT shows 10+ - 12+. Is that what you don't like?
That it should be a bail out?


Perhaps the 3NT response was not correct?
Maybe its better for the responder to bid Clubs after the 1NT response, as this shows a weak hand with no fit.


>Haven't you shown a strong 56 major hand ?

All 2♠ promises is 4=5, not 5=6

Hehe I link to it every time. Play TRANSFERS on this auction. There is, essentially, no downside.

[ArcLight]

Josh,

I'm not familiar with the transfers you suggest.
Please show me the bidding you would use with your preferred system.

[kenrexford]

Yeah, the problem is this powerhouse 2NT call after a reverse. Maybe 3NT should show this, perhaps, or 2NT...3NT better.

2NT as a weak relay works if partner's hand was weak. If not, a GF bid in whatever is his longer minor as waiting might make sense.

Finally, if there is no solution with any of the above, then Opener can bid 4♥, it seems, at least showing 6♥/4-5♠.

Now, let's check on Responder's hand...

OK. Having now reviewed his hand, it seems that his obvious next call should be 3♣. You complete pattern (3♠), and he bids 3NT. Easy enough.

[jdonn]

ArcLight, on Jun 15 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

Josh,

I'm not familiar with the transfers you suggest.
Please show me the bidding you would use with your preferred system.

http://squeezingthedummy.blogspot.com/2006...-transfers.html

[ArcLight]

After looking at the link Josh provided, and reading Kens comment I think transfers over a reverse make sense.

The 10-12 isnt needed over a reverse becaus eunless pard has 21 and you have 12 you arent making slam. Offsetting those rare missed slams, you have a way to handle weak hands opposite a reverse which are fairly common.

So after the reverse, 2NT is a transfer to Clubs.

(But now what does Opener do? Break the transfer and bid 3♥ with extra length and responder passes? Ok. Because 4♥ was down 1)


Thank you all for showing me this

[FrancesHinden]

You don't have to play transfers after a reverse to solve your problem on this hand.

2S shows reversing values, about 16+
There's no reason to assume this is game forcing, so responder's jump to 3NT should show
- extra high cards
- stuffing in the minors

2NT is either a minimum with stuffing in the minors, or something conventional.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 15 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

You don't have to play transfers after a reverse to solve your problem on this hand.

2S shows reversing values, about 16+
There's no reason to assume this is game forcing, so responder's jump to 3NT should show
- extra high cards
- stuffing in the minors

2NT is either a minimum with stuffing in the minors, or something conventional.

Frances' view of the strength shown by a reverse is not universal.. as mentioned on another current thread, some (many in NA) would play the reverse as stronger... if not 5=6, I'd be showing about a great 17 and up. I am NOT saying that Frances' view is wrong (I'd never be that presumptuous, I hope), but I am pointing out that this is one of those areas in which respected players (I don't mean me) can disagree about the best approach.

Regardless of the strength shown, I agree with both her view of followups and the fact that, as josh wrote, there are useful gadgets available for those interested.

[Echognome]

Just to mention that I would bid 4♥ as well. I simply do not like playing 65 hands in NT.

I agree with others that *some* system over reverses is very useful to have. See mikeh's thread on reverses and also Justin's transfer scheme.

[foo]

mikeh, on Jun 15 2007, 12:53 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jun 15 2007, 12:47 PM, said:

You don't have to play transfers after a reverse to solve your problem on this hand.

2S shows reversing values, about 16+
There's no reason to assume this is game forcing, so responder's jump to 3NT should show
- extra high cards
- stuffing in the minors

2NT is either a minimum with stuffing in the minors, or something conventional.

Frances' view of the strength shown by a reverse is not universal.. as mentioned on another current thread, some (many in NA) would play the reverse as stronger... if not 5=6, I'd be showing about a great 17 and up. I am NOT saying that Frances' view is wrong (I'd never be that presumptuous, I hope), but I am pointing out that this is one of those areas in which respected players (I don't mean me) can disagree about the best approach.

Regardless of the strength shown, I agree with both her view of followups and the fact that, as josh wrote, there are useful gadgets available for those interested.

As usual, I agree with Frances' and mikeh's comments here.

Very well put mikeh.

I'll add that IMHO the weaker reversing style is something that players should only consider playing after their bridge skills are up to a certain standard. Before that, playing looser or weaker reversing requirements is IME a recipe for bad results and gets in the way of learning more basic things that still need to be mastered.

So If I'm answering posts involving Reverses in the Beginner and Intermediate forum, I'm going to 100% advocate strong reverses.

I will not necessarily have the same POV in the Advanced and Expert forum.

[FrancesHinden]

OK, replace 16+ with good 17+ but as mikeh says, everything else is still true.

In fact, I agree that you need a better hand to reverse after 1H - 1NT, rather than after 1m - 1M, both because you know you don't have a 4-4 spade fit to find, and also if you play 1H - 1NT - 2S - 2NT as artificial as you committing the hand to the 3-level knowing that you are unlikely to have an 8-card fit.

Quote

I'll add that IMHO the weaker reversing style is something that players should only consider playing after their bridge skills are up to a certain standard. Before that, playing looser or weaker reversing requirements is IME a recipe for bad results and gets in the way of learning more basic things that still need to be mastered.

There is very little difference between the "weak" and "strong" reversing styles in terms of system, only in terms of what the minimum hand you have shown is. I can't see any "recipe for disaster" either way. I would say stick to what your partners expect - if you play in England, a reverse after a 1-level suit response is a good 15+

[foo]

The difference between a good 15+ and a good 17+ is ~ a trick.

Most B&I's I know are playing the hand and reading the table at least a trick less than they should...

However, I do agree that if "Standard" in your geographic area is Acol-like reverses, of course you should bid according to that standard as closely as possible.