[mike777]

edit
One commonly used method is Root-Pavlick's structured reverses.

Here 2nt is the catch all weak bid, it does not promise a balanced hand or stoppers.
On this auction 3c=weak and has maybe 3+ card support.(Our first response was 1nt).

http://www.reginabri...tions/rvstr.txt

[ArtK78]

mike777, on Jul 2 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

One commonly used method is Root-Pavlick's structured reverses.

Here 2nt is the catch all weak bid, it does not promise a balanced hand or stoppers.
On this auction 3c=natural, game force.

http://www.reginabri...tions/rvstr.txt

Mike:

I believe you misread the text that you cited.

In the case of a 1NT response, a preference to 3 of opener's minor is a weak bid.

[mike777]

ArtK78, on Jul 2 2008, 04:19 PM, said:

mike777, on Jul 2 2008, 04:04 PM, said:

One commonly used method is Root-Pavlick's structured reverses.

Here 2nt is the catch all weak bid, it does not promise a balanced hand or stoppers.
On this auction 3c=natural, game force.

http://www.reginabri...tions/rvstr.txt

Mike:

I believe you misread the text that you cited.

In the case of a 1NT response, a preference to 3 of opener's minor is a weak bid.

yes i will edit.

[Fluffy]

I am surprised of fred's strong opinion about 3♣ being non forcing. In Spain only the weak players play that way, stronger always use catch all for weak and many strong ones towards slam.

Maybe on this specific secuence this is different, but know of nobody who ahs specific agreements on this kind of bids.

BTW I use 2♠ as general force asking opener to partern out (even on 1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠)

[fred]

The considerations of "normal" reverse auctions (ie when responder bids a suit instead of 1NT on the first round) do not apply here because:

1) The 1NT response puts serious constraints on both the strengh and distribution of responder's hand.

2) There are only a few possible target contracts when the bidding goes this way. The vast majority of the time the bidding will end in either 3C, 3NT, or 5C. Only rarely will a slam be a possibility (and 6C is pretty much the only slam in play). Only rarely will it make sense to investigate playing in some other trump suit.

These rare cases tend to work themselves out (because opener will have an extreme hand so he will later make an extreme bid).

In a "normal" reverse auction like:

1C 1S
2H

it is very different. Responder could have just about anything in terms of strength and shape and playing in almost any contract between 3C and 7NT is a live possibility.

In such cases an artificial negative really helps resolve some of massive ambiguity regarding the nature of responder's hand.

An artificial negative is not necessary in the auction in question because there is a very little ambiguity about responder's hand. Given that responder has already more or less described what he has, he is usually in a strong position to make a naturalish bid that moves the partnership toward one of the few possible final contracts.

IMO comparing the followups of 1C-1S-2H with 1C-1NT-2H is like comparing apples with oranges. If you are serious about bridge and if your textbook or local experts use analogous methods in both auctions, I suggest you ignore them and think this through for yourself.

Or you could just ignore me instead

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

Walddk, on Jul 2 2008, 08:56 AM, said:

In an ideal world, playing with myself, I would want...the enormous hand...

Interesting analysis.

[mikeh]

Quote

So just bid 3C (NF) if you want to sign off in 3C. If your hand is too strong in support of clubs to sign off, then bid something else (you have lots of choices).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I understand, and agree with all that you have posted, Fred. But: what would you bid over 2♥ with the given hand, of Qxx Kx 109xxx Axx?

This is a maximum, even before we hear 3♠. We have 3 controls in partner's suits and a ruffing value in his shorter suit.

You have suggested that 2♠ should show something like AKx Jxx xx Jxxx: a concentration of values that might allow opener to bid 3N with, say, 1=4=3=5 or even some 1=4=2=6 hands, I assume.


So I am not at all sure about the 'lots of choices'

2♠ and 3♣ don't fit. 2N is natural and effectively forcing (I think it should be in theory as well, if only because it seems foolish to describe as non-forcing a bid that we know won't be passed). But bidding 2N here is all too likely to lead to 3N or to present us with a profound problem over 3♣... altho I suppose we can probably get away with 4♣ over that call.

If we don't use 2N, we are left with jumps beyond 3N or an artificial 3♦.

I don't, in the least, mind 3♦... as an artificial raise of clubs, and it is sufficently uncommon that it might not result in a fatal case of note-bloat.. I mean, what else can it be, since it effectively forces to 4♣ or 3N?

[fred]

mikeh, on Jul 2 2008, 11:07 PM, said:

Quote

So just bid 3C (NF) if you want to sign off in 3C. If your hand is too strong in support of clubs to sign off, then bid something else (you have lots of choices).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

I understand, and agree with all that you have posted, Fred. But: what would you bid over 2♥ with the given hand, of Qxx Kx 109xxx Axx?

I actually wouldn't worry about it too much because I am unlikely to want to play 3NT unless partner seriously tries to insist and I am not the least bit concerned about going down in 5C (though of course it is possible that 5C will have no play at all).

It may sound sick, but I actually think 2S has a lot going for it: it maximizes space, it says "I like my hand", and it is not unlikely that my Queen of spades will be a useful card - partner is more likely to short in diamonds than spades, both because of my relative lengths in those suits and also because of the opps' silence.

But this is a rather exceptional hand (due to my great holdings in partners suits). As a result of having such an exceptional hand, without knowing anything more about what partner holds, you "know" that 5C will usually be OK - with most hands you won't be in this (nice!) position. That gives you some mesaure of control which means that misleading partner by bidding 2S with Qxx is less likely to screw things up.

Plus partner is supposed to be a big boy. He knows you aren't always dealt a hand that is prototypical for any of your alternatives. He also knows he is missing the Ace of clubs and the King of hearts so I don't expect him to have trouble visualizing my hand if I make an unexpected bid later in the auction.

That being said, I doubt it would be hard to convince me that any of a number of other bids (3D, 3H, 4C for example) are better than my (admittedly weird) 2S.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[CSGibson]

Jlall, on Jul 2 2008, 09:45 AM, said:

Is everyone confident partner cannot be 4414? Must he bid NT with that shape?

I expect that if partner was 4-4-1-4 and trying something strange with the hand, he would have rebid 2 spades instead of 2 hearts, intending to bid 3 hearts next. If he was going to be non-scientific, I would expect some level of NT bid already to deny the information to the opponents.

[nige1]

jonottawa, on Jul 1 2008, 11:46 PM, said:

♠Q98 ♥K6 ♦T9752 ♣A43
Uncontested auction:
1♣ - 1N
2♥ - 3♣
3♠ - ?

I agree with Fred that 3♣ is NF unless you play 2♠ or 2N as some kind of Blackout. Conversely, if you don't play Blackout, you might bid 2♠ over 2♥ as an artificial forcing move, provided that you agree it could mean something like this.

Now Partner seems to be 3415 4414 or more shapely but I've no idea what to do.
I guess 4♠ = 10, 3N = 9. 5♣ = 8. 4♣ = 4.

4♠ or 5♣ may be quite high enough opposite say
♠ AKJ ♥ AQxx ♦ A ♣ xxxxx

[kenrexford]

Well, since we are discussing theory here and parallel or not parallel auctions, an interesting further level of analysis, IMO...

1♣-P-1NT-P-2M is much different than 1♦-P-1NT-P-2M.

The availability of a waiting 1♦ bid means that many folks define 1NT here as 8-11, whereas after 1♦ it might be 6-9, or even 6-11.

This nuance seems more than technical, changing the parameters of what should be going on after these two different starts.

[benlessard]

I like to play that

1C---1Nt = 8-10
1C---1Nt----2oS could be lighter then a reverse and isnt GF.

and after reverse(& even jump shift) i play that the cheapest bid available is a slow down or a im stuck bid. So that all other bids are Gf and show faily precise things.

So for me 3C is forcing and show Hxx or xxxx. So after 3S, if i have an economic keycard at 4C or 4D that is my bid otherwise im making a 4C cue.

[jonottawa]

Wow, thx for the illuminating responses. Sorry to disappear -- I was playing in the Austin regional all day (we won the KO in spite of this hand, woot!)

The actual hand itself doesn't prove a whole lot, but it's only fair that I finish the 'story.'

I thought 3 Clubs would be forcing because our 1NT shows 8-10 and if pard has anything resembling a reverse we belong in game or at least 4m. But perhaps I should rethink that. I indeed never thought to draw a distinction between a reverse over a 1NT response and a reverse over a suit response.

I was significantly less certain about whether 4 Clubs would be forcing, and as a complicating factor I play 'minorwood' with this partner where 4 of a minor is often keycard. If I wasn't sure what it meant, I didn't think he would be either, so I felt like I had to either bid 5 Clubs or 6. As others have mentioned, 4 of either major could just conceivably be an offer to play and I tend to prefer slightly more unilateral but unambiguous bids over highly misinterpretable actions.

After a 30-second tank, I bid 6 Clubs. I thought I had 3 huge cards and almost couldn't have a better hand (besides a 4th club.)

Pard's hand was not what I hoped for.

♠KJ6 ♥J875 ♦A ♣KQJ62

I felt like he hosed me, shrug.

[Walddk]

jonottawa, on Jul 3 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

Pard's hand was not what I hoped for.

♠KJ6 ♥J875 ♦A ♣KQJ62

If this is a 2♥ rebid after 1♣-1 any, I have not grasped one word of the reverse concept. With that hand you have three options: pass, 2♣, or 2NT if you take a very optimistic view.

But 2♥? That would not cross my mind.

Roland

[benlessard]

Lets just switch the Aof D for the A of H do you bid 2H or not ?

♠KJ6 ♥AJ87 ♦3 ♣KQJ62

[Walddk]

benlessard, on Jul 3 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Lets just switch the Aof D for the A of H do you bid 2H or not ?

♠KJ6 ♥AJ87 ♦3 ♣KQJ62

No, this is still not a reverse in my books, but it is definitely better than the one opener actually had.

Roland

[the hog]

Walddk, on Jul 3 2008, 06:57 PM, said:

benlessard, on Jul 3 2008, 12:49 PM, said:

Lets just switch the Aof D for the A of H do you bid 2H or not ?

♠KJ6 ♥AJ87 ♦3 ♣KQJ62

No, this is still not a reverse in my books, but it is definitely better than the one opener actually had.

Roland

Agree with Roland. Not within cooee of a reverse.

[kenrexford]

Whereas this actual hand might be a tad light, I'm not sure. As mentioned, the 1NT bid was 8-10. A lot have 8-11. It does seem practical to be able to show the major, and hence a more complete picture of the hand, with invitational-to-game values, which is a lower-than-expected minimum if Responder has a higher-than-usual hand.

In other words, whereas the reverse after a limited 1NT is different because of the limit, the reverse opposite a constructive 1NT is different than after a 5+ call because of that expected additional value.

[han]

I agree with Ken that if 1NT shows 8-10 then it seems right to allow for reverses to be a bit lighter. However, the actual hand is far far too light, that's not a reverse at all.

Does anybody think that 4D by Jon should be a bluhmer like call, showing a good hand for clubs in context and nothing wasted in diamonds? I do, though I don't think it should deny the diamond ace. If you are not sure about 5C or 6C and you don't dare to bid 4C or 4H then 4D seems a good bid.

[kenrexford]

han, on Jul 3 2008, 07:25 AM, said:

I agree with Ken that if 1NT shows 8-10 then it seems right to allow for reverses to be a bit lighter. However, the actual hand is far far too light, that's not a reverse at all.

Does anybody think that 4D by Jon should be a bluhmer like call, showing a good hand for clubs in context and nothing wasted in diamonds? I do, though I don't think it should deny the diamond ace. If you are not sure about 5C or 6C and you don't dare to bid 4C or 4H then 4D seems a good bid.

If 3♠ is a natural pattern bid, showing either a fragment or a COV (stiff or worthless doubleton diamond), then probably yes. I'm a little uncomfortable about reliance on the diamond being short, though, in which case there may be easy contructions where Opener needs the diamond control. The doubleton possibility may throw off the usual expected meaning. I was debating this myself in my mind.