MickyB Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Uncontested, not playing 1D:2C as GF, what do you expect responder to have for - 1♦:2♣; 2♦:2♥? 1♦:1♠; 2♦:2♥? What bids are now forcing? Do you agree that this is referred to as "responder's reverse"? It doesn't feel like one to me (1♣:1♦; 2♣:2♥ does, bidding your 2nd suit at a higher level than your first) but I know that many consider all of these auctions to come under the same name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 My view is that these show GF values and 5-4 respectively in the suits. I believe you can make up some hands where you won't have 4 cards in your second suit, if you have a problem hand, but that it is a distortion. The main thing is that you can control the auction from here on out. To come up with an example, suppose you had: ♠x♥AKx♦QJx♣AQTxxx Partner opens 1♦ and rebids 2♦ over your 2♣ bid. If 3♣ is NOT GF then you may need to temporize with a 2♥ bid in order to force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Hi, the first one is a reverse, showing 5-4,forcing, but not game forcing. the second is not an reverse, and may or may not be natural (similar to NMF), butit is forcing, showing at least inv. strength. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 1) is clearly game forcing IMO. 2) is not so clear, I would think it can just be invitational (reverse flannery rulez). Arend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatchett Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 The first sequence is a GFThe second sequence is only a one round force. 2♠/2NT/3♦ from opener would be dropable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 i'm with arend, #1 seems clearly game forcing to me... #2 can cause confusion... assume you're playing nmf for the moment, would this 1d : 1s1nt : 2h be forcing? i'd say yes, it's a new suit by an unpassed reponder.. true, you can go thru 2c to game force, but does that mean by *not* using nmf 2h is passable? i don't understand why more people don't play xyz or 2 way ckback rather than nmf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 true, you can go thru 2c to game force, but does that mean by *not* using nmf 2h is passable? Yep that's exactly what it would mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Jimmy - even not playing NMF, I'd expect that to be NF. The original sequences - are you expecting 4 hearts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshs Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Uncontested, not playing 1D:2C as GF, what do you expect responder to have for - 1♦:2♣; 2♦:2♥? 1♦:1♠; 2♦:2♥? What bids are now forcing? Do you agree that this is referred to as "responder's reverse"? It doesn't feel like one to me (1♣:1♦; 2♣:2♥ does, bidding your 2nd suit at a higher level than your first) but I know that many consider all of these auctions to come under the same name. I think that 2H set up a game force, but might be only a stopper instead of a suit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Jimmy - even not playing NMF, I'd expect that to be NF. The original sequences - are you expecting 4 hearts? i guess the times have passed me by... it used to be (assuming no nmf here) that any new suit by an unpassed responder was forcing i knew there was a reason i dislike nmf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshs Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Uncontested, not playing 1D:2C as GF, what do you expect responder to have for - 1♦:2♣; 2♦:2♥? 1♦:1♠; 2♦:2♥? What bids are now forcing? Do you agree that this is referred to as "responder's reverse"? It doesn't feel like one to me (1♣:1♦; 2♣:2♥ does, bidding your 2nd suit at a higher level than your first) but I know that many consider all of these auctions to come under the same name. I think that 2H set up a game force, but might be only a stopper instead of a suit Somehow I didn't notice the second sequence. In the first sequence 2H was GFing. In the second, its forcing but doesn't even promise a rebid, so someone would have to bid the 4'th suit to set up a game force. Note: I never liked this treatment in the second auction, and prefer to play 2H as an ART force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 1♦:1♠; 2♦:2♥ I think this is F1R, could be a strong 3 card fragment. A 3♥ raise would show 4 cards and be GF. 1♦:2♣; 2♦:2♥ I quite like responder to be able to bid out his shape on an invitational 4-5, although there is obviously a case for it to be GF. I'm not sure if there is a standard in the UK, I know of people who play it both ways. Again, I think 2♥ only promises 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.