Reverses

[mike777]

I love bridge!

 

I have wasted errr I mean spent my whole day in fruitful discussions via emails.:)

A...KJT7...KJ5....A8754

 

This of course all came about after an 83% board in which I thought about opening the hand 1NT 14-16 but did not. Partner made a borderline first reply on nothing, I made a borderline reverse and then I passed a forcing but weakish bid when I did not like my options at bid three.

 

Despite a year of discussing reverses and what they mean with some of my partners I find we all disagree on what they mean and what the follow ups mean.

Of course we all thought this subject was done and set in stone :). We even disagree on what some of the bordline hands for a reverse are :). This of course is with the opp silent, God Forbid if the opp ever enter our auctions. :).

Even the top bridge players and bridge teachers disagree :).

 

What we need here is a Bridge Lord or Overlord to lay down the law!

[mr1303]

Presumably, something like

 

1C 1S

2H 2S

 

all out, for +110 and that proved to be the limit of the hand.

 

I'm a firm believer that a reverse should be able to control the auction. In other words, the reverser has a prepared rebid when making a reverse.

[hrothgar]

Congrats on a good board

Better pray everything was in tempo

 

For what its worth, I'd open 1N...

[Guest Jlall]

I find reversing with this hand to be disgusting. Stiff in partners suit and a horrible anchor suit. Sometimes we must reverse or jumpshift with a subpar anchor suit, but I would not stretch to do so.

 

As for passing a forcing "but weakish" bid, that does not exist. Forcing is forcing. I would rebid 2S on KQJxxx AQx AQx x for instance. Passing a forcing bid opposite an unlimited partner is not bridge and you will be out a lot of partners if you bid this way. Next time partner has a good hand with 5 or 6 spades he will wonder whether he can afford to rebid 2S or if it will be passed.

[luis]

I think I would open 1♣ and if pd bids 1♠ just rebid 2♣. 2♥ to me should show a lot more than what I have.

Passing a forcing bid intentionally is one of the few ways to end a partnership with me, I can stand a lot of things but forcing means you can't pass.

The only problem of the good result is that you might do it again :-)

[han]

It is true that the top bridge players disagree about what constitutes a reverse, but the top partnerships don't. They know exactly what to expect when their regular partnerships make a reverse. An important distinction.

 

Good topic though. This hand is not strong enough for a reverse in my opinion.

 

1C-1S-2H-2S is 100% forcing for me and is unlimited. Passing this would never occur to me.

 

1C-1S-2H-2NT shows a minimal hand for me and could show club or heart support (as well as an attempt to drop in 3D). Although this is forcing, I don't have a big problem with passing 2NT with the given hand, and I suspect that this is what Mike777 did.

[mike777]

As I said p was not unlimited he was weakish( say some 9hcp at most but could be less than 5) not unlimited but in any case I knew I was taking a risk. I thought this was a borderline reverse as I said, but see maybe I should have bid other as I said. My main point of humor at myself and the disarray of reverses and follow ups seems to have been missed, sigh....as even top partnerships seem confused at times on what reverses and follow up mean....sigh....per BW. :)

[Guest Jlall]

Ok, I'll put it another way. No natural bid that is made by a limited hand is forcing.

[Walddk]

I thought this was a borderline reverse

It's not borderline, it's way below par. If I don't open 1♣ and rebid 2♣, I would rather open a 14-16 or 15-17 1NT. Next, I have thrown people out of the window for less than passing forcing bids and take-out doubles, not to mention pulling when I bid a confident 3NT :)

 

Roland

[han]

Could you quote the Bridge World article that you are referring to Mike? I find it hard believe that top partnerships are confused about what a reverse means, although there are of course always borderline hands where one player might do this and the other does that.

 

I also can't imagine that top partnerships have no clear agreements about responder's second call, but of course later and later calls might be more difficult.

 

Justin, may I quote you on this: No natural bid that is made by a limited hand is forcing? I recall a recent thread by Elianna (where the auction 1D-1S-3D-3H-4D was discussed) where this rule could be applied.

 

 

 

Imaginary discussion by Meckwell, bidding goes 1D-1S-2H-2S-pass.

 

Rodwell: 2S is forcing partner!

Meckstroth: no it isn't, you are rebidding your suit!

Rodwell: I thought that we were playing Ingberman...

Meckstroth: Perhaps we should discuss what we play over reverses sometime.

[han]

I thought this was a borderline reverse

It's not borderline, it's way below par. If I don't open 1♣ and rebid 2♣, I would rather open a 14-16 or 15-17 1NT. Next, I have thrown people out of the window for less than passing forcing bids and take-out doubles, not to mention pulling when I bid a confident 3NT :)

 

Roland

Ouch! I hope you were playing no higher than the 2nd floor! :)

[Guest Jlall]

Justin, may I quote you on this: No natural bid that is made by a limited hand is forcing?

Sure, but not everyone will agree. It means you can pass jump shifts, reverses, and the auction elianna gave. The only reason you would pass any of these is essentially because you psyched or semi-psyched the round before though (e.g. 1S p 1N p 3D p p p with x Qxxxx xxx xxxx).

[Walddk]

I thought this was a borderline reverse

It's not borderline, it's way below par. If I don't open 1♣ and rebid 2♣, I would rather open a 14-16 or 15-17 1NT. Next, I have thrown people out of the window for less than passing forcing bids and take-out doubles, not to mention pulling when I bid a confident 3NT :)

 

Roland

Ouch! I hope you were playing no higher than the 2nd floor! :)

Yes, 2nd floor is the limit. I don't want them to get injured.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

Mike, since you asked for laws, here is one:

 

You shall not reverse with bad suits.

 

I think that's the main problem with the reverse on the above hand, I would rather overbid with 2N=18-19 than overbid with 2♥.

 

Arend

[joshs]

Well for what's its worth, your hand A KJTx KJx Axxxx is a major problem hand. It is not good enough for a reverse, and you don't really want to rebid 2C.

 

What's left?

a. Open 1N (You hate doing that with a stiff in the major)

b. Open 1D and rebid 2C over 1S. If partner bids 2D you overbid with 2N next or you guess to pass.

c. Open 1C and rebid 2N over 1S (presumably 17-18 in your methods)

 

I really dislike plan b (if you are going to have a strong auction, you should start with your longest suit, and if you plan on passing 2D you are better off opening 1C and rebidding 1N (underbid city!).

 

I don't know. Its my style to either open 1N or open 1C and rebid 2C and pray I get a 3'rd bid... I think Al Roth would open 1N (Mike, you are the Al Roth fan, right?)since the hand is not good enough for a reverse and in his style its too good for either a 2C rebid or a 1N rebid. All in All probably 1N opening is the best bid...

 

Over a reverse, the usual "expert standard" rules are:

Responder's non-jump rebid of his suit, or bid of the cheapist of the 4'th suit or 2N is Forcing, but does not promise a rebid unless opener does something strong. Everything else sets up a game force.

 

What is strong by opener? There is some disagreement there in expert styles. Some play that opener has to bid higher than 3 of his orginal suit to force (but a single raise of partner's suit is not forcing). Others play that anything other than 2N or either players first bid suit shows extra (E.G. 1D-1S-2H-2N-3C)

[han]

I agree with all that Josh just said, but I really prefer that 1D-1S-2H-2NT-3C does not show extras. I can go either way with 1D-1S-2H-2S-3C.

[pclayton]

Well for what's its worth, your hand A KJTx KJx Axxxx is a major problem hand. It is not good enough for a reverse, and you don't really want to rebid 2C.

 

What's left?

a. Open 1N (You hate doing that with a stiff in the major)

b. Open 1D and rebid 2C over 1S. If partner bids 2D you overbid with 2N next or you guess to pass.

c. Open 1C and rebid 2N over 1S (presumably 17-18 in your methods)

 

I really dislike plan b (if you are going to have a strong auction, you should start with your longest suit, and if you plan on passing 2D you are better off opening 1C and rebidding 1N (underbid city!).

 

I don't know. Its my style to either open 1N or open 1C and rebid 2C and pray I get a 3'rd bid... I think Al Roth would open 1N (Mike, you are the Al Roth fan, right?)since the hand is not good enough for a reverse and in his style its too good for either a 2C rebid or a 1N rebid. All in All probably 1N opening is the best bid...

 

Over a reverse, the usual "expert standard" rules are:

Responder's non-jump rebid of his suit, or bid of the cheapist of the 4'th suit or 2N is Forcing, but does not promise a rebid unless opener does something strong. Everything else sets up a game force.

 

What is strong by opener? There is some disagreement there in expert styles. Some play that opener has to bid higher than 3 of his orginal suit to force (but a single raise of partner's suit is not forcing). Others play that anything other than 2N or either players first bid suit shows extra (E.G. 1D-1S-2H-2N-3C)

I think I'd rather open 1♥ and rebid 2♣ than opt for "B" or "C".

 

Indeed it is a problem hand.

 

I think 20 years ago, more would reverse with hands of this strength, but back then we weren't responding with 4 counts either :P

[mikeh]

I agree with Hannie: no good partnership has any serious disagreement about what constitutes (for them) a reverse nor about followups.

 

That is not to say that experts (I mean real experts, not merely self-proclaimed BBO experts who don't read or pay attention to the BBO definitions) are all of one mind. Clearly not.

 

There are really two schools of thought, but neither school would consider your example as a reverse.

 

The 'weak' school will reverse on good 16 counts or even a great 15 with a 3 card fit for responder's initial major: a 3415: KJx AQ109 x KQ109x: 1♣ 1♠: some would reverse on that.

 

And understandably so, since this is a very difficult hand to describe if you do not reverse. I am not a member of the weak reverse school, so I should be careful not to overstate my knowledge of this area: for all I know many such bidders would reverse if one did away with some of the spot cards.

 

For these reversers, partner must show some positive sign of life to force to game.

 

For the strong reverse school, the presumption established by the reverse is that we are forced to game except in exceptional circumstances, where partner is truly weak.

 

Thus for a non-fitting reverse, such as 1=4=3=5 1♣ 1♠, I would need a decent 18 or so.

 

This can cause problems with some hands, such as your hand. Obviously, I believe that the gains outweigh the losses from this strong reverse approach.

 

As for followup, in my (hardly universal) experience, most good pairs use some version of 2N or ingberman. Ingberman is, in my view, more powerful, although in many auctions it is exactly the same :P

 

Ingberman uses the cheaper of 4th suit or 2N as artificial: usually but not alwyas a precursor to a weak signoff. The non-weak signoff continuations after ingberman leave scope for specific partnership agreement.

 

Thus 1♣ 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ is artificial. Opener is supposed to bid the more logical of 2N or 3♣, being aware that partner may pass or may correct 2N to 3♣, to play.

 

And 1♣ 1♥ 2♦ 3♣ is natural and game forcing. Indeed, responder may well have slam interest.

 

Ingberman morphs into the 2N approach in auctions such as 1♣ 1♠ 2♥:

 

now 2N is the cheaper of 4th suit or 2N.

 

2N here tells opener to bid 3♣, which opener will do in the expectation that 3♣ may be passed. Accordingly opener only bids 3♣ when he is prepared to play there. Should he have some unusual hand, such that he does not want to risk 3♣, he makes another call.

 

One exception to the reverse methods outlined above arises when opener holds a 6-5 hand, with the 6 card suit being a lower-ranking suit.

 

Once again, the treatment of 5=6 hands is not uniform across the expert community. My preference is to rarely open the 5 card suit, even with weak hands. Rarely is not never.

 

But with solid openers, I always open the lower and, if needed, reverse.

 

So 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ will be virtual game force if I hold only 4♥ but may show no more than a decent 5=6 if I hold 5♥. Over whatever partner bids over my 2♥, I will rebid 3♥, which cancels the 'very strong' message.

 

The sequence 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ is unlimited and cannot be passed.

 

And a 2N bid, instead of 2♠, is usually treated by most expert partnerships, as artificial, and thus non-passable, as well.

 

I suppose that for some partnerships, 2N could be played as natural and non-forcing, (and indeed I believe that such would be the standard treatment in a non-expert, non-detailed partnership) but I doubt that many experts play it as such.

[hrothgar]

The 'weak' school will reverse on good 16 counts or even a great 15 with a 3 card fit for responder's initial major: a 3415: KJx AQ109 x KQ109x: 1♣ 1♠: some would reverse on that.

Wish I had the luxury of knowing how partner was going to advance before I had to choose my opening bid...

[kenrexford]

One thought here -- perhaps a flash from the past is in order. I have a neat little collection of very old bridge books, sometimes even auction, where certain neat little princples were discussed, if forgotten today.

 

For instance, it was essentially noted in one text that an "opening bid" for a 1S call should logically be slightly stronger than for a 1C call, because of the preemptive effect a 1S call has on partner. For whatever this is worth, I have found it somewhat useful in handling balanced 11-counts, opting to open 1C rather than 1D when 1C is conceivable (e.g., 4243) and to not open when 1C is not biddable (e.g., 4342). Somehow, perhaps psychologically, this seems to work.

 

The same principle justified what could be called "Undiscussed Herbert Negatives," where people would respond, for instance, 1D to a 1C opening with 4432 pattern and BUST, because, again, 1S should be stronger because it preempts partner.

 

This hand actually illustrates this principle well, it sounds like. Responder's first call of 1S was "borderline." Perhaps passing would have been better, as 1S forced you to select between two terrible options (1NT or 2C) or to reverse. 1D, in contrast, would have caused you no problems. If partner held four spades andfour diamonds, perhaps a response was warranted, that being 1D even if Walsh is used. A slight lie by him rather than a forced lie by you? What about 2344 pattern? Again, perhaps 1D works better in the long run.

 

I would suggest that, assuming this principle to be sound, and the applications to this acceptable, then 1S should not be a "borderline" hand by what I expect "borderline" to mean. In other words, 1S should only be bid IF responder is capable of a no-problem call #2 after a red-suit reverse, on slightly below-normal expectations. That COULD be a club fragment (ability to bid 2NT as a relay) and still very weak. Without this capability, pass or a manufactured 1D might be best in the long run.

 

Lebensohl/Ingberman protects slightly weaker reverses than old-school, and further protection might be offered by Responder, at call #1, only bidding 1S with ability to handle a reverse on THIS hand, meaning club support (3+) if Responder is dead bust. Responder, again, could also protect by slight distortion or by tactical abandonment of Walsh.

[mikeh]

I think that Ken's approach is very out of the normal for experts today: that is not necessarily the same as saying that it is a poor idea.

 

However, I very strongly doubt that any top player now plays, or has played in many years, that a 1♠ opening bid should be stronger than a 1♣ bid, or that a 1♠ response should be sound, both out of fear of preempting partner.

 

There are normally twice as many opponents as there are partners!

 

The modern game involves light opening bids and, by the standards of yesteryear, feather-weight responses.

 

Old books are interesting: I have some going back well before auction. But they are not always sound.

 

My personal favourite (and oldest) is The Bridge Manual, by John Doe, published in the early 1900's. In one chapter it recommends an opening lead against notrump of the A from AQxx. A chapter later, dealing with how third hand should play on defence, it recommends that with Kxx in a suit in which partner has led the A against notrump, one should immediately play the K to 'get out of the way' of partner. It seems that this book was not well edited :P

 

 

Bridge is a darwinian environment: if you come across some long-unplayed suggestion, the odds are very good that the suggestion should remain unplayed.

[joshs]

That reminds me of my wierd regular partnership back in Washington DC with Bob Kerchner.

 

We Played a Weak NT with the following additional agreements:

1.With 18-19 balanced we opened 1C unless we had a 5 card suit (so might be 2 clubs and 4 diamonds)

2. We never passed 1C unless we had 4clubs and 0-3 points and no 5 card major

3. If we had less than 5/6 points (KQxx is good enough) and lacked a decent 5 card major and didn't have 4 clubs, we bid 1D

4. We played walsh style on the 5-11 point hands

 

If responder actually showed a good hand later then retroactively, 1D was natural.

After a 1N or 2N rebid by opener, we played x-fers (If responder takes a 3'rd bid then x-fering to a major showed 4 cards and real diamonds). We also played 1C-1D-2M as VERY strong (21+), but the cheapist bid by responder over that is a double negative. I don't really remember all the details.

 

Anyway, must have been the good drugs I was on. :P

[kenrexford]

I am not proclaiming, here, words of the Chief Lord of the Reverse. I run into this problem myself because I also adopt the modern bid-on-anything approach. However, some realities are popping into my head.

 

First, Openings are getting lighter. This include balanced openings, with the "strong" version dropping from 16-18, to 15-17, to 14-16. Responses are dropping also. Then, reverses drop to handle the gaps created by the lighter openings.

 

The emergence of 14-16 notrumps as the strong version is a relatively new phenomenon. It creates a reality where a 17-count is now handled with a jump to 2NT. Should BOTH sides keep lowering the limits, of does a day come where responses need a tad more? Is Opener the only one who prepares bids? If you would consider on rare occasion opening 1NT with a stiff, or opening canape out of system, or reversing into a three-card suit, or bidding 1NT with an unbalanced hand, or bidding a tactical waiting 2C call after a forcing 1NT, then why is everyone so dogmatic and strict about parameters for a response? Perhaps this needs rethinking.

 

This is not my "approach," but I will, on occasion, make a tactical call as a sub-minimum responder. I might bid 1H after 1D with 4315 and trash. I might pass a relatively hefty hand when no rebid exists after a predictable jump from partner. I might even (consider another post) make a simple, non-forcing rebid on a hand where game might exist and hope that partner bids again or the opponents balance. These actions seem like necessary hedges that enable light initial action, like opening 11-counts and opening a lighter 1NT.

 

I mention all of this to suggest some re-thinking of the CW.

[Gerben42]

I prefer lighter reverses, at least something like the hand above, but then I prefer also a system where my opening range is not 11 - 22. Given good break mechanisms you can reverse on this hand. For me it also does not promise a rebid. In my opinion bids that promise a rebid could be nice, but usually self-forcing turns into self-damaging.

 

This must be different than standard but for me a reverse means: "Partner I have at least a King and Queen more than a minimum opening, and this is my distribution". So it comes down to if the following hand is an opening bid for you:

 

♠A

♥JT74

♦KJ5

♣Q8754

 

If it is, then it is worth a reverse. If you would have passed this, bid 1♣ then 2♣. However, I know that many disagree. Note that this style includes passing partner's opening bid on many hands where the "respond with Any Ace"-gang will respond.

 

What usually happens if you bid 1♣ 2♣ on this kind of hand is that you play there and wonder why everyone else is in 3NT making, after all we only have 25 / 26 HCP combined! This is a real danger and should not be overlooked.

[Winstonm]

I don't see this hand as that big of problem unless you routinely open junky minor hands. First of all, it's not that good of hand and a reverse to me seems to be about feeling a need to show the extra "points". This is not that good of 16 point hand so I have no compulsion about wanting to show this with either 1N or a reverse.

 

This seems a somewhat classic hand that will grow or shrink depending on the auction - and the auction 1C-1S is one that makes it shrink. Aces are building cards, their value increased because of the support they can lend to honors opposite - the singleton Ace loses this affect: Qxx opposite Axx has gained in value but Qxx opposite A is worth next to nothing.

 

The auction itself of 1C-1S-2C by its nature may conceal a fairly good hand with hearts, as any good bidder recognizes - therefore in this particular auction it usually pays to stretch a tad to keep the bidding open with a good 9 count - the classic courtesy raise.

 

If you want a rule for reverses try this: never reverse over a 1-level response unless you are prepared to play 3 of your first suit opposite 2 small support and a 6-count.

 

Winston