Reverses

[Chamaco]

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.

Rodwell: So you do not agree on Ingberman ? Perhaps to avoid problems with reverses we could give a try to a Strong Club System then....

[cherdano]

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.

I am sure you would describe me as a light opener, I open most 11 counts with 5-4-3-1, but definitely not this one. This honor distribution is pretty horrible.

 

This is very much in line with the main problem of the reverse on the given hand: it is not lacking hcp, but the stiff ace (in partner's suit) and the bad anchor suits make the reverse an overbid (by the standards of the solid reverse school alluded to above by Mike).

 

Btw1: What break mechanisms are you using in addition to Ingberman? Non-forcing suit rebid, I suppose. Do you also play 3-level raises as non-forcing?

 

Btw2: my vague guess is that light reverses are very unpopular in North America, but more common in the rest of the world?

 

Btw3: What is this talk about a "respond with any ace"-gang? I thought that's automatic, and the dividing line is whether we respond with any Qxxxx?

 

(Of course this is a style issue, but I don't understand responding with three queens, but passing with an ace.)

 

Arend

[Gerben42]

I would also pass the example hand which was the question above, but only just. This means the actual hand is not a reverse, but it's close (unlike everyone who thinks it isn't close).

 

I use transfer Lebensohl in this situation (what I understand is that Ingberman is some kind of "Lebensohl after reverse"). There is no non-forcing suit rebid as I play WJS and frequent 3-card raises. This means 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ is forcing, and with 5♠ you just give up on your ♠ unless you can force to game.

 

Btw3: What is this talk about a "respond with any ace"-gang? I thought that's automatic, and the dividing line is whether we respond with any Qxxxx?

 

I still think responding to partner's NF opening bid with just an Ace is silly. I've seen too many good results when the whole field was overboard just because they responded lightly, and those who saved themselves did so at the cost of passing a forcing bid, not good for the partnership.

 

But as I said, I don't like systems with opening bids from 11 - 22 HCP. Either limited opening bids or Fantunes style for me, please.

 

If playing such a thing I have a mechanism after 1♣ that caters for hands that are too weak to respond and don't want to pass. As all other bids show a real suit you can just pass those.

[Guest Jlall]

But as I said, I don't like systems with opening bids from 11 - 22 HCP. Either limited opening bids or Fantunes style for me, please.

got it you prefer 14-37 opening bids :(

[joshs]

But as I said, I don't like systems with opening bids from 11 - 22 HCP. Either limited opening bids or Fantunes style for me, please.

got it you prefer 14-37 opening bids :(

I try to make everything in my system be 14-30 when NV vs Vul with justin as my partner. With 31+ I pass, wait for justin to psych and then bid a slam. Its a time honored strategy. In fact we should have a system where P then 4N shows 31-32. P then 5N shows 33-34 P then 6N shows 35-36 and P then 7N shows 37. Ok I admit it, I would probably just open 7N directly with the 37....

 

Now what's the best way of bidding a 4333 balanced 36 count???? Is there an opening bid to ask for specific Q's? :)

[Gerben42]

Now what's the best way of bidding a 4333 balanced 36 count???? Is there an opening bid to ask for specific Q's? 

 

Opening 5NT asks for specific Jacks, to ask for Queens make a fake RKCB.

 

Anyway, I'm working on a complete description of my Fantunes-style system. Work in progress...

[Guest Jlall]

I try to make everything in my system be 14-30 when NV vs Vul with justin as my partner. With 31+ I pass, wait for justin to psych and then bid a slam. Its a time honored strategy. In fact we should have a system where P then 4N shows 31-32. P then 5N shows 33-34 P then 6N shows 35-36 and P then 7N shows 37. Ok I admit it, I would probably just open 7N directly with the 37....

Sadly this only works online :(

 

I actually did have the auction p p 1N p 3N p 4C p 4N p p p with jdonn, and he had indeed psyched his original pass.

[joshs]

I once played a system called T-REX while visiting New Zealand, where A 1/2 seat pass showed either: 0-4 ANY OR 15-20 with no 5 card major. All Pass was always hysterical. Maybe not ideal for mps, but at imps you can tolerate the occasional Pass Out vs making 120 on 22-23 high.

[kenrexford]

Since we are getting silly here, I'll add one. I once played with a lady who was the most timid player I ever met. SO, I forced her to play a light initial action system.

 

Our opening bids and responses, with alerts and explanations, sometimes went like this:

 

"1D"

"Alert"

"Yes...?"

"8-22 HCP's. At least three diamonds."

"Pass."

"1H"

"Alert."

"Yes...?"

"3-17 HCP's, at least four hearts, non-forcing."

"Uh, OK."

 

This was great fun. We had a combined HCP range of 11-37 and we were in a non-forcing auction. It was stupid, though.

[bobh2]

Hey, Mike,

 

You are mired in another "Basics" problem I see all the time.

 

First, reverses should be defined as really good hands, say 17 up to 21 or 22 or so. What you have here is certainly a decent hand but not a really good hand and certainly not the values for a reverse. Moreover, just like a 1-1-1 bid (not nt) promises one more bid, and a 2/1 bid (playing standard) promises one more bid (with exceptions), a reverse promises one more bid (if below game).

 

A tip: If you have, when you bid, every bit of your bid, your partner will be consistantly happy. The single most important part of bridge is to choose good partners and get them to play their best game...that is if you like to win. Nobody, nobody, can win with an unhappy partner...my 4 decades of experience speaks...lol. Don't stretch to make a reverse or a jump shift. Don't open 14 point nts when your range is 15-17. Keep your partner happy and chirping along...if you like to win.

 

Pay attention to Justin. He knows his stuff. So does Winston.

 

Last thing. For those poor misguided souls who muse about opening 1N on that hand? (Again, experience speaks) You get to do that once with each good partner. Once. Then you get to spend the time looking for another good partner. Do you get my drift?

[hrothgar]

Last thing.  For those poor misguided souls who muse about opening 1N on that hand?  (Again, experience speaks)  You get to do that once with each good partner.  Once.  Then you get to spend the time looking for another good partner.  Do you get my drift?

Understand completely: You have a narrow mind...

 

You operate according to a simplistic set of rules and refuse to consider that other approaches are viable. I find this characteristic troublesome in general. Its especially unseemly in someone who is involved in teaching. Persoanlly, I found a lot of the advice that your were dispensing during your lessons problematic. "Nice" to see that the same philosophies are carrying over onto the forums.

 

For what its worth, I've played with some damn good players over the years. I've had the chance to discuss bidding with a lot more. I know for a fact that Bobby Goldman would open 1NT with 5-4-3-1 "problem" hands, with or without a stiff major. Its possible that he didn't know what he was talking about, but I think I'll put a bit more trust in his advice than yours...

[han]

I feel the same way as hrothgar. Reading your advice leaves me with an ugly taste in my mouth and hands that are itching to write stronger statements than this.

[Guest Jlall]

For those poor misguided souls who muse about opening 1N on that hand?  (Again, experience speaks)  You get to do that once with each good partner.  Once.  Then you get to spend the time looking for another good partner.  Do you get my drift?

I would open 1N with this hand. I had a very similar hand with Bob Hamman playing for money. I still opened 1N (and me playing the NT was not in my best interest financially as opposed to Bob!). RHO jokingly told me I was hogging the dummy, and Bob said it was a clearcut 1N opener. Luckily he still plays with me, he must not be good.

 

Pay attention to Justin.  He knows his stuff. 

 

Thanks, appreciate the compliment.

[Winstonm]

Time to go to bat for a friend and partner. While I know Bob to be somewhat....let's say.....shortsighted (better than hardheaded mule, LoL)...I also know that he is as reliable as daybreak - when he makes a constructive bid you know what he has and this does make life easy on his pards.

 

Concerning the entire question of opening and rebids with this hand, doesn't it really come down to a choice of style, whether or not suit quality and length is a bigger issue in your style. After all, with this hand somewhere along the line we have to fudge. For those who believe suit quality and length of more importantance to emphasize, the choice is to fudge in the direction of opening 1N. For those, (such as Bob and myself), who prefer a more disciplined NT structure, the choice is to rebid 2C - making this bid somewhat of a "white noise" bid, signifying not much of anything except a hand less than a jump to 3C.

 

Is there a better method? Perhaps. When the likes of Bob Hamman and Justin Lall take issue with your methods, it might be wise to take heed. After all, it is not a game about HCP but about tricks and length. How to compensate in the bidding for the occassional offshape NT is an issue I'd like to see discussed. It's one thing to say, Oh, I'd open 1N, but quite another issue to follow up with the ripples both positive and negative this offshape choice has on the rest of the club rebid structure as well as the NT structure.

 

Having known Bob for about 35 years now, I can tell you this - if you ask him what he believes he will tell you. Having had to beat on him for hours on end to get him to admit there might be another way that is better can be tiresome and frustrating - I know from personal experience - but think about this - when he is your friend, can you imagine anyone more loyal?

 

So if you don't agree with him that is fine and dandy - but don't castigate someone with the courage to post his convictions and stand by them.

 

Winston

[han]

I don't castigate Bob for his convictions and neither did Hrothgar.

 

It his style that I dislike so much. It is his preaching style and it is his brown-nosing.

[Winstonm]

Question for JLall:

 

In your methods, aren't you forced to open 1N as 1C-1S-2C is Rolling Keycard Gerber? :)

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

I don't castigate Bob for his convictions and neither did Hrothgar.

 

It his style that I dislike so much. It is his preaching style and it is his brown-nosing.

As with any social interaction, learning the society's rules goes a long way toward deflecting ill-feelings. IMO and IMHO are always good starting points - IMHO. :)

 

Speaking of which, this past weekend I got the chance to ask Bob Hamman a question about a bidding sequence. He gave me his views and ended by saying, "But those are just my opinions. That and $5 will buy you a cup of coffee."

 

Nice to see even the greats of the game recognize other views.

 

Winston

[hrothgar]

Nice to see even the greats of the game recognize other views.

Just to clarify: It sounds like you're asking me to be tolerant and accept BobH2's right to be intolerant. Sorry, but I'm not that “good” a person.

 

For better or worse, Bob made a blanket statement that his way is the only way to play quality bridge. This is highly annoying. Even on those occasions where where the person making the statement is factually correct, this type of behavior tends to piss people off. Pull this type of crap in situations that are (at best) ambiguous and folks are going to call you on it.

[Winstonm]

Nice to see even the greats of the game recognize other views.

Just to clarify: It sounds like you're asking me to be tolerant and accept BobH2's right to be intolerant. Sorry, but I'm not that “good” a person.

 

For better or worse, Bob made a blanket statement that his way is the only way to play quality bridge. This is highly annoying. Even on those occasions where where the person making the statement is factually correct, this type of behavior tends to piss people off. Pull this type of crap in situations that are (at best) ambiguous and folks are going to call you on it.

No. What I was saying is that it would be nice to see Bob place an IMO after or before his thoughts as I know him well enough to realize that he recognizes that Bob Hamman and Justin Lall are superior players and if they believe offshape no trumps are right then he would accept that premise - but I'm just as convinced that he believes for players of lesser caliber it is better to stay within a more structured system. I'm not here to put words in his mouth or speak for him but I can tell you from knowing him so long that he when he wrote what he did he was thinking of intermediate types who wish to play with better players - a good player, seeing an intermediate opening a 5431 pattern 1N, might think that player unskilled rather than being the next Hamman/Lall, so for that reason it would be best to stay structured initially. When one reaches the point of playing with a Justin or a Hamman, then it is entirely a matter of judgment.

 

When you teach intermediates you tend to get simplistic - if you give them sharper tools they tend to cut off their own toes.

 

Winston

[bobh2]

Well, I guess it's time for me to take some pressure off of Winston and wade into this to defend myself. Hard to believe that what I said caused that snarling.

 

I guess I had best issue a disclaimer. What I have to say is both simply my opinion, and is usually stated, tongue-in-cheek. I consider "my opinion" on about anything worth considering, but I sure don't consider is "The Gospel", particularly on bridge. There are some people who will get a lot closer to "The Gospel" than I ever could...Bob Hamman is certainly one of those. Bobby Goldman reaches that in my books too. I had the "pleasure" of getting just run over by those two in Dallas in the late 60's when both of them were members of the Dallas Aces.

 

That said, I'm not in the mood to back up much. In the first place, you guys ought to realize that you are putting those opinions in the Beginner/Intermediate area. Teaching them to open 1n on hands with stiff Aces has some potential to do some real damage. Instead of their partner being able to see that they had a difficult and rare problem, their partner is going to mark them as "untrustworthy" and if they are playing with a better player, they are going to get no tolerance...they are going to get screamed at. Bridge players haven't changed since I was learning by getting pounded by the Aces...it's just quieter at the table and you can't smoke, either.

 

Next issue: I thought this was a forum, where opinions were placed for discussion and debate. I honestly think Hannie and Hrothgar need to pick up a sense of humor somewhere. Personally, an opinion that is defensible, issued with an interesting turn of phrasing appeals to me, evidently not to them, and all of the sudden, there is whining about style of writing by Hrothgar and an even lower level of personal attack by Hannie. What is the matter with you guys? How about, "I disagree with Bob and here's why"? Oh, I know, it requires a willingness to deal with a subject in a logical manner, which in turn, requires some expenditure of mental energy.

 

Hrothgar, I really take exception to your comment about what I say being unseemly. I am trying to help some folks learn to play at a level that they can be proud of themselves in their knowledge. This occurs when they handle something right...when they know what they are doing. In my opinion, the most help they need is solid basics. That's where I spend my time. It gives me a charge seeing them become "adept". I take the time to work on their game, item by item in classes, I play with them, in groups or individually, I watch them and make suggestions that I think will help. I talk to them, answering questions as best as I can. I give them my opinion and they find that my opinion is usually functional. All of that is completely free. I do that because I want to give something back to the game that I have enjoyed so much for a half-century. For the record, I do charge a very nominal fee for drill work...trying to straighten out one individual's misconceptions or lack of knowledge, not that that is any of your business. So I ask you, why whine at me? What are YOU doing for the beginners/intermediates/semi-advanced players who thirst for knowledge?

 

Hannie, you get some of this too, starting with style. How do you propose to tell Joe Newbie that 4 points in Jacks are not worth anywhere close to the value of one Ace? Say, well, yeah, that's that, but there's this, and maybe something otherwise? Joe Newbie needs to understand a lot of things, and if he is going to remember them (maybe you have forgotten how much "stuff" you have to remember to get through one simple hand), he needs to know WHY. Then he needs repetition. And concerning preaching...weaseling doesn't get it. The other thing that galls me is your "brown-nosing" comment. I guess you fall under that same heading as Hrothgar...you are not willing to turn on the brainpower and debate and argue and fuss and present different viewpoints, so you resort to name-calling and slurs. Further, the only thing that I said that might have any basis at all in fact was a compliment I gave to both Justin Lall and Winston Munn. Winston is my regular partner and best friend, I have a ton of good things to say about him, but I'll betcha that was pointed to my comment about saying Justin knows what he is talking about. Is it brown-nosing to be nice? What is the matter with that? Just so you'll know, I have known Justin's Dad for longer than Justin has been breathing, and I played with Justin on okb when his age was in single digits. Brown-nosing? Hardly! Maybe you need to be concerned that if you say something nice about people you like and admire, it might be taken as brown-nosing, but I don't. I think I'll just treat those people just like I truely feel, and rock on down the road. You really need to rethink your attitude on some things.

 

Having digressed, I'll recap for you, to allieviate the memory strain. To help people get a good, solid grip on the game, you don't teach them to open nt bids with stiff Aces. You try to get them to understand that nt bids are based on flattish hands. Duh. You know top notch players solve some difficult problems with some imagination, which is part of what makes them top notch players, but you don't teach people who are learning the game that that is the best way. They will do what you tell them relentlessly...and stay in the soup pot. You aren't helping.

 

Oh, yeah, I forgot something. I have an open policy, as in anytime, anywhere...that if someone wants to present their point of view in the classes I teach, with the idea that I am teaching something wrong (Hrothgar referred to "problematical", but didn't seem to be willing to clarify, for some reason), I am perfectly willing to debate anything. All I ask is that the people interested in learning the game learn something from the debate.

 

Bob Holmes (bobh2)

[Chamaco]

but I'm just as convinced that he believes for players of lesser caliber it is better to stay within a more structured system. 

 

.......

 

a good player, seeing an intermediate opening a 5431 pattern 1N, might think that player unskilled rather than being the next Hamman/Lall, so for that reason it would be best to stay structured initially.

 

.......

 

When you teach intermediates you tend to get simplistic - if you give them sharper tools they tend to cut off their own toes.

 

Winston

I agree with this view.

 

The point is, there are a lot of *real* experts (not to be confused with BBO experts) who gets annoyed when a BIL player tries to "be smart".

 

Bidding offshape, and other deviation from mainstream, is most often viewed by such players as "masterminding" rather than "subtle hand evaluation".

 

In other words, until you are not recognized as a good player, trying to adopt offbeat paths is the best way towards being labeled of the "Futile Willie" type among the circle of local top players, who usually try to avoid as hell such players type.

 

So I agree with Winston here: a good BIL instructor must be practical above all.

Sound foundations, even with some "hardcore principle".

Might sound like preaching sometimes, but beginning players need some hardcore basic principles at first, before they start learning when to break the rules aand find the "exceptions".

 

Once one gets good, or at least he has a solid partnership where mutual trust is not broken by frequent offbeat choices, then all is well...

[cherdano]

That said, I'm not in the mood to back up much. In the first place, you guys ought to realize that you are putting those opinions in the Beginner/Intermediate area. Teaching them to open 1n on hands with stiff Aces has some potential to do some real damage. Instead of their partner being able to see that they had a difficult and rare problem, their partner is going to mark them as "untrustworthy" and if they are playing with a better player, they are going to get no tolerance...they are going to get screamed at. Bridge players haven't changed since I was learning by getting pounded by the Aces...it's just quieter at the table and you can't smoke, either.

This is not my world. In my world, when a B/I player gives his rebidding problem thought and opens 1N to avoid it, his more experienced partner will appreciate it. And anyway, if a B/I player gets screamed at for making a certain bid, he should be happy to have found out he/she should find another player.

 

Maybe this is my main problem with your preaching. You are trying to teach strict rules; this gives safety because whatever bad happens when you have followed the rules, it's not your fault, but the rules' fault. When instead you try to think on your own, it's all your responsibility when it goes wrong. Still, that's the way to learn IMHO.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

Whining? That's a new one. Normally when people criticize my demeanor they use words like arrogant or asshole. But not whiny... Oh well, on to more substantive things

 

>Hrothgar referred to "problematical", but didn't seem to be willing to clarify, for some reason

 

I'm sure that members of the peanut gallery can point to a number of examples where rather questionable advice was presented as dogma. I'll point to a few examples that I found interesting for one reason or another. From my perspective, the most problematic issue during your lectures is your assumption of double dummy defense on hands that you want to go down, while assuming much more lax defense on hands that you want to make. You consistently bias your analysis to justify the outcomes that you like.

 

The same lecture informed us that after the auction 1S – (P) – 2S, slam is virtually impossible and that slam exploration isn't a consideration in follow-up bidding.

 

As a final example. Responder holds

 

987

K75

JT83

QJT

 

The auction started

 

1S – 1N

2H – 2S

3C

 

Following the 3C bid, responder advanced with 4S, reaching a rather poor game. You criticized the 4S bid, stating that responder held a minimum 1NT advance. From my perspective, you missed the crucial issue: Responder limited his hand once with 1NT and a second time with 2S. Knowing this, opener still made a 3C advance. Within the context of the previous bidding, responder has a clear maximum. He has a third trump and all of his HCP are working.

 

>What are YOU doing for the beginners/intermediates/semi-advanced players who thirst

>for knowledge?

 

I rarely give lessons to BIL players. Given my idiosyncratic views on bidding, this is probably the best contribution that I can make. With this said and done, I have put an awful lot of work into documenting a good set of notes on MOSCITO and symmetric relay. Many people think that I have the definitive “book” on this topic and a lot of players use my notes to learn the system. I recognize that this really has nothing to do with “Bridge” as played in the United States, but its the area where I think I can best provide some value.

[luke warm]

it seems to me that the combatants in this exchange are coming at the problem from 2 (or more) bridge "worldviews"... what arend and han call preaching, bob calls teaching... the worldview of bob is focused on players who need and have not a good foundation... the worldview of others is that most BIL players have that foundation and are in a sound enough position to exercise bridge judgment and logic... i'm not sure that's necessarily true

 

if an intermedicate player, such as myself, opens the occasional offshape 1nt, i would expect my regular group of friends/partners/opponents to understand that my foundation is maybe sound enough to warrant the bid... i would be forgiven when such a bid didn't work out (usually), because those with whom i play recognize and understand rebid problems... even so, i wouldn't make a habit of it

 

i also think that, while it's true this is a forum and people can't be criticized for offering opinions in forums, ad hominem remarks have no place in anything resembling a debate... points aren't awarded (or shouldn't be) for anything other than logic... all those posting possess above average intelligence, verbal, and bridge skills, which means the logic of their positions should stand or fall on their merits

[Sigi_BC84]

Maybe this is my main problem with your preaching. You are trying to teach strict rules; this gives safety because whatever bad happens when you have followed the rules, it's not your fault, but the rules' fault. When instead you try to think on your own, it's all your responsibility when it goes wrong. Still, that's the way to learn IMHO.

Fair enough, but he is also saying:

Top notch players solve some difficult problems with some imagination, which is part of what makes them top notch players, but you don't teach people who are learning the game that that is the best way. They will do what you tell them relentlessly...and stay in the soup pot. You aren't helping.

Safety is the most important thing for a beginning player. The game is much too complex to bother people who just begin to understand the foundations of bidding theory with ideas that go against anything they have learned before. The beginner gets safety from having a mentor he or she can trust and listen to -- and I think it's a really good idea to just follow the "rules" your mentor has given you until you begin to understand what's going on. This usually takes quite a long time playing Bridge unless you are very gifted and put a lot of time into the game.

 

Stating that this gives you an easy way to blame any accident on the rules is very simplistic. A good teacher will tell you that on a given hand a deviation from the rules would have been appropriate, and after you've played enough of these hands you will be ready to deviate more freely from the beaten track.

 

If you chose to learn the game on your own and if you are in the lucky position to be surrounded by experts who readily bear with your experimental style, you don't have to listen to "solid teachers" like Bob. You being an exceptional player in this regard doesn't make the tried-and-true teaching style of the likes of Bob wrong.

 

I have read a few of Bob's articles and I must say that I really like them. They are just about right for players at the intermediate skill level.

 

--Sigi