eeshtel

Response to Stephen Hu The "hole" I had in mind is as follows: 1C-1S 1N-3H Notwithstanding length, etc. I bid 13 and 19 point hand the same way. Using artificial 2c/2d I am better off for the bid level not shape. Evidently, reverse of majors describes one type of hand - length difference - and differentiate strength only between ~ 10-12 point hand with 2H response and ~ 13-19 point hand with 3H response.

Still on reverse; Thank you Stephen Hu for mentioning the origins of this treatment. I accept bidding longer suit first as basic concept in sayc and other standard systems. I am still uncertain how to interpret using reverse of 5-5 length major suits with 17-19 point hand. Your post suggests bidding spades before hearts and then warns of some shortcomings in bidding certain hands, inherent in the system. In casual game, using standard methods, when bidding: 1C-1H 1N-2S who, with rudimentary sayc knowledge, will pass? Is it not the reverse that is supposed to fill the hole created by: 1C-1S 1N-3H by switching inquiry to a stronger hand? Thank you in advance

I think Elvis was great ,precpj, and so is reverse of majors as to which AScolnik can attest to. (6-5 distribution or similar becomes secondary consideration, probably subjective to particular style of play) Many thanks.

What ,then, is your position on a "reverse" bidding. Not so much how you should play the hand but whether it should be recognized. P.S In description, accepted by ACBL as part of SAYC, there is no mention of suit length, etc.etc. I have been using reverse precisely for that type of hand, never found any problems of partners not understanding it. (key to using reverse is 16-18 point hand) It may be coming from ACOL originally and I was surprised myself to find it in official ACBL booklet. But there it is. "european" sayc player, West in diagram