Help
Is there a name for this method? Is this Ingberman ? Or is that something else? And what do other people play here?
Partner opens e.g. 1♣ and you respond e.g. 1♠.
Partner now reverses into 2♦.
1. If responder bids 2♠ (forcing), it simply shows 5+ ♠ and any number of points. Could be strong or weak.
2. If responder bids the cheaper of the 4th suit and 2NT, it is artificial showing a bad hand (7 HCP or less) with only four ♠. In the example, this would be a bid by responder of 2♥. It says "I plan to pass the next time, partner, unless you do something extraordinary." The 4th suit is of course forcing (it is artificial), but if 2NT is cheaper (e.g. 1♣-1♠-2♥), opener is allowed to pass 2NT.
3. Anything else shows 8+ HCP, exactly 4 ♠, and is GF.
Page 1 of 1
Reverse convention ... what is it?
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 701
- Joined: 2007-July-11
Posted 2007-July-24, 11:00
♣♦♥♠ Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that other philosophers are all jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. H.L. Mencken. ♣♦♥♠
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,727
- Joined: 2006-June-05
- Location:Oslo, Norway
- Interests:Bridge, sports, Sci-fi, fantasy
Posted 2007-July-24, 11:15
ralph23, on Jul 24 2007, 07:00 PM, said:
Is there a name for this method? Is this Ingberman ? Or is that something else? And what do other people play here?
Partner opens e.g. 1♣ and you respond e.g. 1♠.
Partner now reverses into 2♦.
1. If responder bids 2♠ (forcing), it simply shows 5+ ♠ and any number of points. Could be strong or weak.
2. If responder bids the cheaper of the 4th suit and 2NT, it is artificial showing a bad hand (7 HCP or less) with only four ♠. In the example, this would be a bid by responder of 2♥. It says "I plan to pass the next time, partner, unless you do something extraordinary." The 4th suit is of course forcing (it is artificial), but if 2NT is cheaper (e.g. 1♣-1♠-2♥), opener is allowed to pass 2NT.
3. Anything else shows 8+ HCP, exactly 4 ♠, and is GF.
Partner opens e.g. 1♣ and you respond e.g. 1♠.
Partner now reverses into 2♦.
1. If responder bids 2♠ (forcing), it simply shows 5+ ♠ and any number of points. Could be strong or weak.
2. If responder bids the cheaper of the 4th suit and 2NT, it is artificial showing a bad hand (7 HCP or less) with only four ♠. In the example, this would be a bid by responder of 2♥. It says "I plan to pass the next time, partner, unless you do something extraordinary." The 4th suit is of course forcing (it is artificial), but if 2NT is cheaper (e.g. 1♣-1♠-2♥), opener is allowed to pass 2NT.
3. Anything else shows 8+ HCP, exactly 4 ♠, and is GF.
I don't really know Ingberman, but the sources I'm able to find say that Ingberman use 2NT as the weak bid in the sequence 1♣-1♠-2♦, not 2♥.
Kind regards,
Harald
Harald
#3
- Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,586
- Joined: 2005-September-21
- Gender:Male
- Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
- Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor
Posted 2007-July-24, 12:27
I like to call that method "Frank."
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.
-P.J. Painter.
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 701
- Joined: 2007-July-11
Posted 2007-July-24, 13:25
kenrexford, on Jul 24 2007, 01:27 PM, said:
I like to call that method "Frank."
I was thinking Doris, but Frank is fine.
♣♦♥♠ Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that other philosophers are all jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. H.L. Mencken. ♣♦♥♠
Page 1 of 1