[firmit]

Assume a natural system. Bid them up the line. Lowest 4c suit.

1♣-(1♥)-1♠!-(pass)
2♦

- where 1♠ denied 4 c spades - thus minor oriented or strongish. In the actual situation, she rebid 2♣, holding 4-1-4-4 and 12hp - because she felt any other bid would be reverse. But what is 2♦ in this position - given that 1♠ is "take-out"? Is it reverse, or natural preference?

[helene_t]

Since 1♣ promises 4+, I suppose 1♠ almost promises 4+ diamonds (except a 3433 that wants 1NT in partner's hand).

So I would not expect it to show extra values. It's like a simple raise of a 1♦ response.

[FrancesHinden]

There's no answer to this - you have to agree it with your partner. I started playing this 1S gadget quite recently, and it's one of the first things I asked when we were discussing it. We wouldn't have exactly your partner's problem because we open 1D with 4-4 in the minors.

To my mind the correct partnership agreement depends on what your 1C opening shows. For me, the 1C bid can be short, so partner will bid 1S with 4-card club support and no heart stop e.g. on a 3334 and hence we play 2D as a reverse. But for you, where 1C is 4+ clubs, then I assume partner will usually raise clubs with support and thus 1S actually promises 4+ diamonds, then 2D should not be a reverse.

We have also agreed that 1NT by opener doesn't promise a heart stop, it just shows a 1NT rebid with nothing else to bid. This is also relevant: if 1NT promises a heart stop, what is opener supposed to bid on a 4324 or similar without a stop?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Since 1S is t/o 2D is not a reverse (*).

The seq. is similar to

1C - (1H) - X (1) - (Pass)
2D (2) -

(1) denies 4 spades
(2) showes a min. opener with 5-4, assuming you open
1D with 4-4 in the minors.

(*) The term "Reverse" is a term used for uncontested
auction, I would just say, 2D does not promise add. strength.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[FrancesHinden]

yes, it is very similar to the sequence you give, but many people (I would say the majority) play that 2D in your sequence shows reversing values.

[ArtK78]

As mentioned above, the 1♠ bid is the same as a negative double for others. So the 2♦ bid is not a reverse.

Presumably, opener is 4-5 in the minors when opener bids 2♦. The fact that opener is 4-1-4-4 is unusual, unless the partnership has agreed to open 1♣ on this distribution (Matt Granovetter has advocated opening 1♣ on this distribution so as not to lose either minor).

[jdonn]

Of course this is a reverse. Partner could be 3334 for example, he wouldn't want to bid 2♣ if he would rather play 1NT. The fault is in not opening 1♦, so this was very predictable.

[firmit]

jdonn, on Oct 10 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

Of course this is a reverse. Partner could be 3334 for example, he wouldn't want to bid 2♣ if he would rather play 1NT. The fault is in not opening 1♦, so this was very predictable.

Well - that was actually my follow-up question - what do you open with even length in the minors (i.e. 4-4 minors). I guess there is no problem when you have opened 1♦ and respond 2♣ to the 1♠/neg.dbl - it is simply a preference and support bid.

But given the agreement to open your lowest 4c suit (open 1♣ with 4-4 in minors) - should 2♦ promise reverse values as in the OP? Or do you always open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors?

[jdonn]

firmit, on Oct 10 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 10 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

Of course this is a reverse. Partner could be 3334 for example, he wouldn't want to bid 2♣ if he would rather play 1NT. The fault is in not opening 1♦, so this was very predictable.

Well - that was actually my follow-up question - what do you open with even length in the minors (i.e. 4-4 minors). I guess there is no problem when you have opened 1♦ and respond 2♣ to the 1♠/neg.dbl - it is simply a preference and support bid.

But given the agreement to open your lowest 4c suit (open 1♣ with 4-4 in minors) - should 2♦ promise reverse values as in the OP? Or do you always open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors?

It's not feasible to always open the lower. You can open 1♣ if it won't give you rebid problems. Clearly with this shape of 4144, it can give you rebid problems.

[hotShot]

Just a simple question:

Why should the (forced) answer to a forcing bid promise extra strength?

Partners 1♠ bid is forcing a take out and denying 4♠. Partner avoided a ♣ raise and it is hard to imagine a take/out where partner has good ♥'s. So under the given agreements, bidding 2♦ is almost as forced as a Jacoby-transfer, and thus not promising extra strength.

Of cause you can argue about the quality of the agreement, but that is a different story, to be told in a different thread.

[awm]

Responding to a takeout double in one of the suits shown by doubler does not show extras. Similarly I think 2♦ here is a minimum with 4♦. Other inferences depend on exactly which hands open 1♣ (i.e. this may or may not promise 5+♣ also). I think there are two reasonable scenarios here:

(1) Opening 1♣ promises real clubs. Then 1♠ bidder could raise clubs with four. So by bidding 1♠, he essentially shows diamonds. Bidding 2♦ by opener is just raising partner's diamonds.

(2) Opening 1♣ is routine on many balanced hands with only 2♣. Then 1♠ bidder is essentially asking for opener's longer minor. Usually he has something like 4-4 in the minors or perhaps 5♦-3♣. Since the 1♠ bid is basically "I raise your 4cm partner!" bidding 2♦ just shows four cards in that minor suit.

Opener's hands with extras can always bid 2♥ here.

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 02:14 PM, said:

Responding to a takeout double in one of the suits shown by doubler does not show extras. Similarly I think 2♦ here is a minimum with 4♦. Other inferences depend on exactly which hands open 1♣ (i.e. this may or may not promise 5+♣ also). I think there are two reasonable scenarios here:

(1) Opening 1♣ promises real clubs. Then 1♠ bidder could raise clubs with four. So by bidding 1♠, he essentially shows diamonds. Bidding 2♦ by opener is just raising partner's diamonds.

(2) Opening 1♣ is routine on many balanced hands with only 2♣. Then 1♠ bidder is essentially asking for opener's longer minor. Usually he has something like 4-4 in the minors or perhaps 5♦-3♣. Since the 1♠ bid is basically "I raise your 4cm partner!" bidding 2♦ just shows four cards in that minor suit.

Opener's hands with extras can always bid 2♥ here.

Still disagree with people. Partner has not shown diamonds, he may even have four hearts! His two most likely hands are balanced, or weak with diamonds. A minimum opener has just two options. 1NT if balanced (or perhaps something like 3415), 2♣ if not (which is always 5+ clubs) (of course the 4144 shouldn't have been possible). If responder has the weak hand with long diamonds he can bid them, if not then he is surely balanced so wtp no matter what opener did? This is all still completely obvious to me, I feel saying 2♦ is not a reverse shows a lack of understanding of what 1♠ shows.

Partner's double is not "takeout". It's like a negative double not showing four spades, and the same rules regarding rebids after negative doubles apply. Partner could easily be any 4333 except four spades. And as for the silly suggestion that 2♥ is just 'extras', how do you think the bidding is supposed to work after 2♥? Might partner think it's game forcing? If it's not then what if you really do have a game force with diamonds! And meanwhile what is partner supposed to bid over it, he already couldn't bid 1NT or 2♣.

[awm]

I'd say that patterns with five diamonds are quite common, such as 3352 or 2452 or 3451. Do you want to play 2♣ opposite 2245/3145 on each of these hands? Even opposite 4135 I think diamonds might be better than clubs?

I don't think these 3433 hands that keep being mentioned are common. If you are seriously advocating that opener rebid 1NT on balanced hands even with two small in hearts, why can't responder bid 1NT on a 3433? I'd much rather "fake" a stopper with four small than with two small, and 3433 is the most balanced possible shape.

[jdonn]

awm, on Oct 10 2008, 03:53 PM, said:

I'd say that patterns with five diamonds are quite common, such as 3352 or 2452 or 3451.
...
I don't think these 3433 hands that keep being mentioned are common.

So if I just continue to state the opposite are we at a standstill? Or maybe we just shouldn't say things we haven't backed up? I think we can both agree all patterns with four hearts are less likely since partner will often have a stopper in those cases, so what other unbalanced shapes with five diamonds for partner are we worried about?

As for why opener can 'fake a stopper' when he is balanced but responder shouldn't, I hope you don't really need me to really answer that, I mean come on Adam. What argument that you have made is any different than if partner had made a normal negative double? It is well established in that case that 2♦ is a reverse.

[Free]

I play the same method and 2♦ doesn't show extra's. For me however the 1♠ response is a clear indication of ♦, probably with ♣ tolerance. Opener with 5♣ and 4♦ can easily bid 2♦.

[Echognome]

In my partnership with Phil, I expect this to be a reverse.

[barmar]

The usual reason why a reverse shows extra values is because you're forced to the 3 level if responder wants to take preference to the first suit, and responder can have a minimum hand.

But he said that the 1♠ bid shows either minors or extra values. If he has a minimum hand with minors he will pass 2♦, he should never need to take a preference to 3♣. Otherwise, responder has extra values, so it should be safe to go to the 3 level with a minimum opener.