[kenberg]

1♣ 1♠
2♦ 2♥


My question makes sense only if you agree to:
Over 2♦ the bid of 2♥ is potentially the beginning of a sign-off and, for the moment, says nothing about hearts.

A possible continuation is, I suppose, 2NT by opener showing a heart stop, and then pass, hoping for the best? And if instead of passing 2NT, responder bids 3♣ or 3♦ this is still a weak passable call just announcing that NT really doesn't sound like a good idea?

I was discussing reverses, announced the above as fact and then got to wondering if this is actually the way it is usually played.

Somewhat rarely, a partner actually wants to discuss reverses, hoping to get it right. Often my partners seem to think that there is nothing to discuss. So I want to be on solid ground.

[TylerE]

IMO 2♥ is FSF. establishing a GF, and with doubt about strain / no clear bid. Prefer some sort of artifical NT structure here to handle signoffs. I want more accuracy in my slam auctions over reverses, not my partscore auctions.

[Stephen Tu]

Kenberg, how you describe is the normal way to play if you have BWS'ish agreements, i.e. cheapest 2nt/4th suit = possible weakness signal.

TylerE, the idea behind using a cheap weakness signal is that this is the only way to stop in 2nt if that's best. It doesn't really cost all that much in GF auctions since you have lots of other GF bids or F1R (2S) available, and if you really don't have a clear bid 2♥ still effectively functions as a force. About the only tough bid you'd have is with some say 4-4-3-2 type of hand with no heart stopper; with almost everything else you have an easy forcing natural bid available.

[kenberg]

Oops, Stephen already responded while I was writing this. Fair enough, but there are many who play that after the reverse into 2♦. the other major begins the (potential) sign-off, similar to the use of 2NT to start a sign-off after a reverse into 2♥, after 1m-1♠. Thus, after the 2♦ reverse, repeating the major at the two level is passable (I see Stephen plays it as a one rnd force which I can well believe) and bidding 2 of the other major shows (until one hears differently) an interest in getting out. Not for everyone maybe, but as I said the question only makes sense if you buy into this usage. After which it is worthwhile to make sure we agree on the follow-ups.

[peachy]

I believe what kenberg described is right, when playing the BWS style system.

Tyler, if you don't play and don't agree with the system which kenberg wants to discuss, fine. Your post adds nothing except that you want help with reverses. If so, listen in or start another thread:)

edit: I didn't see Stephen Tu's post before posting.

[mcphee]

There are 2 ways to treat the 2H response, natural and GF or as the lebensohl step, just as you would use 2S should the beeing been 1C 1H, 2D 2S, 2S being the waiting step rahter than creating a potential problem with 2NT as the lebensohl step, or ingberman as many call it. The treatment of using the idle major was introduced by Rodwell I believe and it protects the stronger hands potential stop in the suit. This makes a tremendous amount of sense to me. In both cases it denies a 5th card in the first major which when repeated is F one round.

[kenberg]

The above response is the second voice saying that 2S would be forcing for one round. I need to think about this.

After the reverse into diamonds I could imagine two ways of getting out: Rebid a passable 2S announcing that I really think 2S is high enough (presumably with six cards), or 2H expressing a desire to get out, together with the message that if opener has three spades, or even Kx, this would be a really good moment to show them. Responder, with four spades, would then pick a minor expecting a pass from opener, while a responder with five spades could pass. With both Stephen and McPhee saying that 2S is a one round force I gather that my way of thinking is not the way it is generally played.


While I can see 2S as one round forcing I am having more trouble seeing why 2H should deny a fifth spade. Surely, over 2H, opener would bid 2S whenever he has three, just bidding out his shape. So if 2S is forcing it seems it might suggest that a spade contract could be played with fewer than three card s in support from opener.

[peachy]

kenberg, on Feb 26 2010, 11:06 AM, said:

The above response is the second voice saying that 2S would be forcing for one round. I need to think about this.

After the reverse into diamonds I could imagine two ways of getting out: Rebid a passable 2S announcing that  I really think 2S is high enough (presumably with six cards), or 2H expressing a desire to get out, together with the message that if opener has three spades, or even Kx, this would be a really good moment to show them. Responder, with four spades, would then pick a minor expecting a pass from opener, while a responder with five spades could pass. With both Stephen and McPhee saying that 2S is a one round force I gather that my way of thinking is not the way it is generally played.


While I can see 2S as one round forcing I am having more trouble seeing why 2H should deny a fifth spade. Surely, over 2H, opener would bid 2S whenever he has three, just bidding out his shape. So if 2S is forcing it seems it might suggest that a spade contract could be played with fewer than three card s in support from opener.

I missed that part of your questions. I agree 2S is not a weakness showing bid although it could be, just showing 5+ spades. It is neutral. The "forcing" aspect comes from the principle that when opener reverses, _he_ is promising a third bid. Much of the time, we are playing in one of opener's suits but not always.

[kenberg]

In my conversation with partner I stated the obvious, that the most important thing is to decide which bids are passable and which are not. I will report back that the consesus is that the 2S rebid is not passable. To correct myself on something above, if responder bids 2H and opener bids 2S, presumably on three, I don't think that a responder with five spades would pass. He expects an eight card major fit, a stiff heart, and reverse values.

I am not sure I am sold on 2S being forcing but I accept that it is generally played as such. The dictum that a reverse promises another bid could be amended to apply unless responder rebids 2S. I know folks who play it that way but that doesn't make it right.

Anyway, I think we should be able to work it through. At the club game yesterday there were two reverses. Let's say that the results demonstrated the importance of discussion.

For your amusement:


I was watching the coaching for the juniors for a couple of hands today. I will give you responder's hand:

---

The auction began
1♣1♥
2♦

Since hearts don't run there are only 16 top tricks!

[Stephen Tu]

2M being 1RF isn't universal; there are some people who play it as NF. It just happens to be forcing in BWS, and probably more people play it F than NF. Obviously you have an advantage playing NF in being able to get out in 2M way more often, but a disadvantage on stronger hands in having to perhaps take up more space and getting a less descriptive 3rd bid from opener.

On this auction, with a cheap 4th suit available, obviously this enlarges the options available, you could conceivably play this auction different from other reverse auctions. I think the idea behind 4th suit denying a fifth card the way some people play it is to help opener on some 3x45 very strong hands, maybe the fifth card is all he wants to just blast game & think it will have good play, while without he'd like to stay lower.

[kenberg]

Thanks. Thinking a little, I see that 1♣1♥2♦ and 1♣1♠2♦ present slightly different problems. I imagine there is a lot to be said for accepting the BWS view and playing the major rebid as a 1 round force.

I hadn't looked up BWS. Should have.