[gnasher]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 11 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

it can be argued, that denmark does not belong to europe,

That would be a rather chauvinistic argument, comparable to arguing that Canada is not part of North America.

[helene_t]

P_Marlowe, on Aug 11 2008, 08:53 AM, said:

it can be argued, that denmark does not belong to europe,
at least they did not agree to ratify some central EU laws,
... if I think about it, the same holds true for Great Britain,
do they really feel they belong to the continent?

Denmark certainly belongs to Europe. This should be uncontroversial, currency issues nonwithstanding.

As for UK, people often make the distinction between "the continent" (to which they don't belong) and "Europe" (to which they do belong).

It's true that British people rarely identify themselves as "Europeans", but this is true almost everywhere (even in Turkey the European sentiments seem to be fading).

[ASkolnick]

I would not play this as a reverse, but it depends what you play as a negative double. We play it as 2 places to play, focused on the major, so either H&C,H&D.

Also, what do you open if you are 4-4 in the minors? If you always open 1C (Many people do), then how would you get to 2D to play or is this not possible?

[Lobowolf]

ASkolnick, on Aug 11 2008, 09:00 AM, said:

I would not play this as a reverse, but it depends what you play as a negative double. We play it as 2 places to play, focused on the major, so either H&C,H&D.

Also, what do you open if you are 4-4 in the minors? If you always open 1C (Many people do), then how would you get to 2D to play or is this not possible?

I open 1♦ when 4-4 in the minors. If your negative double can show ♥ & ♣, then it seems to me that 2♦ should be a reverse; if partner doesn't have ♦, he's got to go to the 3-level to find a playable spot, which is the rationale for 2♦ being a reverse in the auction:

1♣-1♥;
2♦

[helene_t]

We have (not surprisingly) had this discussion ate the Dutch StepBridge forum also. I think there was a small majority for forcing.

[benlessard]

In "classic" standard its 100% not forcing. The reason was that a 1Nt rebid showed a stopper or xxxx. 2H with 3 and 2C with any 5 suit were possible.

However i believe that 2D forcing might be better than a 2D non-reverse. Especially if you open 1D all 4-4 minors hands.

[Lobowolf]

benlessard, on Aug 12 2008, 01:01 AM, said:

However i believe that 2D forcing might be better than a 2D non-reverse. Especially if you open 1D all 4-4 minors hands.

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

[benlessard]

Quote

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands)

[Lobowolf]

benlessard, on Aug 12 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

Quote

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands)

Well, what I meant by my comment was this...if you have a minimum 4-4 hand, and it goes:

1♣ - (1♠) - X - P;
2♦ NF (because you don't have a stopper for 1NT), if partner doesn't like diamonds, he's got to go to the 3-level to get back to clubs. I'd rather have opened 1♦ and shown clubs at the 2-level, so if partner doesn't like my second suit, he can still play in the first one at the 2-level.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Aug 12 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

benlessard, on Aug 12 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

Quote

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands)

Well, what I meant by my comment was this...if you have a minimum 4-4 hand, and it goes:

1♣ - (1♠) - X - P;
2♦ NF (because you don't have a stopper for 1NT), if partner doesn't like diamonds, he's got to go to the 3-level to get back to clubs. I'd rather have opened 1♦ and shown clubs at the 2-level, so if partner doesn't like my second suit, he can still play in the first one at the 2-level.

If you are 4-4 in the minors and balanced you should rebid 1NT....

[benlessard]

Quote

If you are 4-4 in the minors and balanced you should rebid 1NT

You will find a lot of very good players (mostly over 50) that for them rebidding 1Nt without a stopper or with a stiff is unthinkable. All im saying was from the "classic standard" point of view.

Me i dont remember having some terrible boards with opening 1C with 4-4 in the m and rebidding D after a neg X but at the same time i see that playing 2D as a reverse is probably superior.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Aug 12 2008, 11:12 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 12 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

benlessard, on Aug 12 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

Quote

Or, conversely, if you're going to play it non-forcing, then you'd better open your 4-4 hands 1♦.

I think its the opposite. If you are opening 1C with 4-4m than 2D as non-forcing make sense. If you open 1D with 44m than playing 2D as non-reverse make little sense (only useful with 5C+4D weakish hands)

Well, what I meant by my comment was this...if you have a minimum 4-4 hand, and it goes:

1♣ - (1♠) - X - P;
2♦ NF (because you don't have a stopper for 1NT), if partner doesn't like diamonds, he's got to go to the 3-level to get back to clubs. I'd rather have opened 1♦ and shown clubs at the 2-level, so if partner doesn't like my second suit, he can still play in the first one at the 2-level.

If you are 4-4 in the minors and balanced you should rebid 1NT....

I agree; I was just commenting on the supposition from the earlier post for people that promise a stopper with 1NT.