[helene_t]

Partner was me.

The agreement is that dbl shows hearts only and that 2♦ is not a reverse. I prefer 2♦ to be a reverse but w/e.

I think the fact that the local experts consider 2♦ as NF is irrelevant. Those people are used to playing Acol, and in that context it makes a lot more sense to play dbl as showing a hand that can handle a NF 2♦ bid, since opener will only have four hearts if he has 5+ clubs. Besides opener would always open 1♣ with 4♦5♣ when playing Acol. And can't rebid 1NT with 3145 as this would show 15-17. This means that responder can bid 1NT with a hand that has 4-5 hearts but can't handle a 2♦ rebid. After all opener doesn't have four hearts that often.

Playing 5-card majors I think you can't afford not to show the heart suit, but it is still rare to have a hand that has 4-5 hearts and can't handle 2♦. 5521 with a weak heart suit could be an example. I am not to worried about that. I am more worried about the fact that you don't have a natural rebid with a hand that wants to reverse in diamonds. You have to take up a lot of space with a 3♦ bid, or alternatively overload the 2♠ rebid.

btw you can't bid 2♠ with any reverse-strength hand. It will probably have to be gf. So even if 2♦ is NF it would have to be something like 14-17. So you still have to rebid 2♣ with 11-13 and 4♦5♣ I think. Unless you open those hands 1♦.

[Lobowolf]

Siegmund, on Feb 3 2010, 04:51 AM, said:

On your posted example hands such as Qxxx AJxx xx xxx, yes, a large majority of tournament players would double after 1♣-(1♠). A small minority of them -- I don't know how small, maybe it's 5% maybe its 20% -- will have explicitly agreed that the double promises hearts and says nothing whatsoever about diamonds.

I think that for most tournament players (e.g. intermediate-ish level), the double shows hearts and says nothing about diamonds. The problem (for them) is that they haven't put much (any) thought into how this impacts auctions like the original post.

A negative double, when there's one unbid major, shows that major. Period. The problems created when responder can't double to show a 4-card major far outweigh the problems created by doubling without having support for an unbid minor. Give most tournament players a random hand with 4 hearts and lacking 4 diamonds, and the overwhelming majority of them (in the USA, anyway) will double. And in the long run, I like their chances against players of the same skill level who are systemically prevented from doubling because they don't have diamonds.

To the extent that this is true, 2♦ is a reverse for all of the reasons it's a reverse after 1♣-1♥.

[rogerclee]

I also play that over 1C (1H) 1S (P), that 2D shows a minimum hand.

Oh wait!

[manudude03]

It might just be that I was born and taught in the UK and so was brought up doing the Acol way of bidding, but it just feels like 2♦ as a reverse screws you more often than not (to the point where I think this hand was the first time I wished it was a reverse). There's already been 2 distortions posted for what seems like an uncommon problem (16-17 count (13)45 comes up about 0.06% if I've done the maths right, add a little more for 4045). It just doesn't feel worth modifying a system to essentially cater for a hand that comes up once every 1600 hands.

Of course playing it as a minimum does give partner some other problems too, but these seem easier to solve. Take something like KJx Axxx xxx xx, partner can easily bid 1NT and if opener just raises NT, its probably going to play just as well as ♥. The biggest problem I can see with playing 2♦ as a minimum is when you are forced to play in 1NT going down vs 2♥ making. I do suspect that those 5 or 6 imps I lose every time that happens is more than comphensated by the many more times I gain 4 or 5 from playing in the right minor or playing in a minor instead of NT. Playing strong NT does dampen the times where you miss game because you can't find the fit.

Spoiler

I'm ready to get lol'ed at

[rogerclee]

manudude03, on Feb 3 2010, 12:58 PM, said:

It just doesn't feel worth modifying a system to essentially cater for a hand that comes up once every 1600 hands.

What percent of hands are 1C openers? (among other restrictions)

[jdonn]

Yes it's not what % of hands overall, it's what % of hands when the auction starts 1♣ (1♠) X (P). Obviously that is much greater given that you are now only considering 1♣ openers. Also don't forget xx46, xx56, some xx47, etc.

[Siegmund]

At least we've nicely focused the debate down to two reasonable alternatives: either doubler has to have a plan, and opener is allowed to rebid freely, or doubler has made no promises, and onus is on opener to avoid getting in over his head.

I was a bit surprised at how much of a disconnect there is between what the books say and what the webpages say (though we would each choose different paragraphs of the same webpage to support our positions, in a few cases.) Probably good evidence that there is a trend afoot.

I shouldn't be surprised at all that the people who play 2♦ as a reverse don't think opener's 1NT bid shows a stopper, I guess.

[MFA]

Here, I think the standard expert treatment is 'NF reverse', which could be somewhat weaker than a normal reverse. With a gameforcing hand one has to start with 2♠.

This is btw also the treatment suggested by Marty Bergen in 'Better Bidding with Bergen' - the first time I read about this sequence, I think.

[helene_t]

manudude03, on Feb 3 2010, 08:58 PM, said:

It just doesn't feel worth modifying a system to essentially cater for a hand that comes up once every 1600 hands.

I don't think playing 2♦ as a reverse is modifying the system. On the contrary, I would say that since the dbl means the same as a 1♥ response, staying in the basic system is to play 2♦ as a reverse.

I don't think it creates any problems to play it as a reverse, either, any more than play 2♦ as a reverse in the uncontested auction. With 4♦5♣ you can rebid 2♣ or 1NT, just like you planned to do in the first place when you decided to open 1♣. Otherwise open 1♦.

Something else: My second call was 3♥, I wonder if that is correct. I assumed we were in a GF so I could show my 5th heart first and then support clubs later. Now I think I should have bid 3♣, Wayne could still have shown his heart support over that.

[the hog]

Instead of saying "It is a reverse and that's it!", perhaps it might be more sensible to see HOW the op plays it. It is clear that not everyone plays Sputnik doubles the same way.
(I call them Sputnik doubles specifically to annoy Josh. )

I also find the post by Phantom Sac parochial. Just because the majority of posters on this site are from the US, does not mean that we have to kow tow to your philosophies on bidding. Anyway, I am pretty sure, (without putting words into his mouth), that Fred would want this to be an international site and not specifically a US one.

[jdonn]

It doesn't annoy me at all but it was great evidence you are old fashioned!

[andy_h]

If you think 2♦ being a reverse screws you more often than not, think about the times when you actually hold a reverse hand and you bid? If you load that in 2♣ rebid then that transfers the problem to partner, and if you bid 3♦, good luck to the rest of your auction! And also if you can bid 2♦ showing minimum, you are sometimes forcing your partial to an unnecessary level if responder prefers clubs.

[aguahombre]

well, three pages back I was convinced that 2D should be a reverse. Even those of us who open 1C with 2344 minimum can handle not bidding 2D on this auction. Pretending it went 1C (P) 1H (P) works just fine.

[the hog]

The other side of the coin:
xx
Kx
AKxx
Kxxxx

xxx
Axxx
QJxx
xx

1C (1S) X (P)
Would you rather play 2C or 2D? I don't think anyone would advocate a 1NT bid by opener.
If responder has only 4H he is likely to have D support or C support.

I don't care if you play 2D as a reverse or not, but I don't think anyone should assume it is standard.

[aguahombre]

open 1D or rebid 1NT? I would open 1D and rebid 2C...so that hand is out.

[the hog]

[quote name='aguahombre' date='Feb 4 2010, 12:53 PM'] open 1D or rebid 1NT? I would open 1D and rebid 2C...so that hand is out. [/QU

Yes, so would I and therefore I also would avoid that problem. However lots who post here wouldn't open 1D and hate the bid.

The point I am making is that systems should be a cohesive unified whole. You have to look at the implications a bid might have on the rest of your system. So if you open 1C on that hand, you either have to bid an ugly 1NT or 2Cs after the sputnik double.
Too often posters here look at bids in isolation and make comments like "2D is a reverse". Well if I opened 1C on that hand then 2D would definitely NOT be a reverse. I am curious where Josh would end up on my example hand.

There is an old Latin saying "De gustibus no est disputandum".

[PhantomSac]

Your example hand is as usual pretty terrible. The opponents have 20 highs and 8 spades and have bid 1S, and you think you're going to get to play 2D? GL.

I wonder how on your example hands you would find 2D after 1C p 1H p ?

Of course you would not find 2D. That is because you don't always find the best contract in bridge, you try to maximize the chances that you do with priorities placed on games/slam/majors. Finding 2D can get lost in the shuffle sometimes.

The correct counter argument to 2D should be a reverse because 1C p 1H p 2D is a reverse is obviously that "that is a necessary evil in your system, but it doesn't mean you have to play that way after 1C 1S X p, even if X shows the same thing as 1H would, because in this auction you have a cuebid available whereas in 1C p 1H p you don't, and spade bids are natural."

The counter argument to that is "2S crowds your auction and is pretty generic, and it is also GF, so you are still in trouble with min reverse type hands that cannot show extras." Bidding 3D and forcing a preference to 4C with minimum reverses is pretty bad. Being able to show minimum 4-5 hand types might be useful, even though it forces a preference to 3C, because with minimum 4-5 hands, if partner is minimum also, they probably can make 2 of a major anyways.

Producing 2 hands where 2D is better than 1N where they are always bidding 2S anyways is a pretty dumb way to argue that 2D should show a minimum 4-5 though

[jdonn]

Since you are so interested I would rebid 1NT. As Justin says the opponents are almost sure to bid more spades anyway (or to have already done so).

I don't understand the point of your example anyway. Partner's spades and diamonds can just as easily be reversed. In fact that's the only one of the two cases where you will declare what you end up bidding anyway so it's the one that matters much more.

[the hog]

PhantomSac, on Feb 4 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

Your example hand is as usual pretty terrible. The opponents have 20 highs and 8 spades and have bid 1S, and you think you're going to get to play 2D? GL.

I wonder how on your example hands you would find 2D after 1C p 1H p ?

Of course you would not find 2D. That is because you don't always find the best contract in bridge, you try to maximize the chances that you do with priorities placed on games/slam/majors. Finding 2D can get lost in the shuffle sometimes.

The correct counter argument to 2D should be a reverse because 1C p 1H p 2D is a reverse is obviously that "that is a necessary evil in your system, but it doesn't mean you have to play that way after 1C 1S X p, even if X shows the same thing as 1H would, because in this auction you have a cuebid available whereas in 1C p 1H p you don't, and spade bids are natural."

The counter argument to that is "2S crowds your auction and is pretty generic, and it is also GF, so you are still in trouble with min reverse type hands that cannot show extras." Bidding 3D and forcing a preference to 4C with minimum reverses is pretty bad. Being able to show minimum 4-5 hand types might be useful, even though it forces a preference to 3C, because with minimum 4-5 hands, if partner is minimum also, they probably can make 2 of a major anyways.

Producing 2 hands where 2D is better than 1N where they are always bidding 2S anyways is a pretty dumb way to argue that 2D should show a minimum 4-5 though

Well it is also "pretty dumb" not to argue about the points I made. As a matter of fact I would find 2D, because as I stated, I would open that hand with 1D and rebid 2C.
Further it is also "pretty dumb" to always assume the opponents are going to do the right thing - you know as well as I do that sometimes they don't.
Fine, for you 2D is clearly a reverse; for me and for some others it is not. What you shouldn't do in a forum such as this is to assume that your ideas are the only ones that have any credibility

By the way, I take the point about 2S being available, but believe that that is better reserved for something else - perhaps a strong balanced hand without a S stopper?

Let me also ask you this: "How would you play 3D?" If as a mini splinter as one poster above mentioned, let me point out that that is far from standard practise.

To Josh, I think the 1NT rebid by opener is horrible!

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Feb 4 2010, 02:44 AM, said:

To Josh, I think the 1NT rebid by opener is horrible!

You gave me a hand you would open something else to avoid a rebid problem, then made me open what you wouldn't open and gave me an auction with the rebid problem, then told me my choice was horrible. Gee thanks!