back to basics

[jillybean]

[hv=s=sxhxxdkqt4cakq852]133|100|[/hv]

 

2nd position, your bid

[cherdanno]

1♣ what else?

[jillybean]

OK just checking, my pickup BBO expert opened this 1♦, rebid 2♣ over my 1♠ and was aghast when I took preference for ♦'s. His logic for opening 1♦ - to avoid reversing 2♦/1♣ :)

"you always start with 4card ♦'s"

[blackshoe]

That hand is strong enough to reverse over a one level response.

 

Your BBO "expert"... isn't. :-)

[karlson]

If you don't consider it strong enough for a reverse, you can bid 1♣...2♣ and it'll be much less of a distortion than 1♦...2♣.

[neilkaz]

OK just checking, my pickup BBO expert opened this 1♦, rebid 2♣ over my 1♠ and was aghast when I took preference for ♦'s. His logic for opening 1♦ - to avoid reversing 2♦/1♣ :)

"you always start with 4card ♦'s"

LOL...make a note that this guy needs bidding lessons so then you won't forget and PD him again.

 

Automatic 1♣ opening and then I think it is just a bit too light to reverse 2♦ or jump rebid 3♣.

[the hog]

OK just checking, my pickup BBO expert opened this 1♦, rebid 2♣ over my 1♠ and was aghast when I took preference for ♦'s. His logic for opening 1♦ - to avoid reversing 2♦/1♣ :blink:

"you always start with 4card ♦'s"

I understand the reasoning, and the hand certainly is NOT strong enough to reverse. However with a decent 6 card C suit he can open 1C and has an easy rebid of 2C.

Many players with a weaker hand and 5C would open 1D and rebid 2C, but this hand certainly does not qualify.

[peachy]

1C. Advice you got from an expert partner (is he REALLY an expert?) is very strange.

[jdonn]

Even the reverse would barely be an overbid with how nice this hand looks. But yes obviously never open 1♦ with 4-6 in the minors, if you aren't strong enough to reverse just bid 1♣ 2♣.

[pooltuna]

OK just checking, my pickup BBO expert opened this 1♦, rebid 2♣ over my 1♠ and was aghast when I took preference for ♦'s. His logic for opening 1♦ - to avoid reversing 2♦/1♣  :)

"you always start with 4card ♦'s"

As a rather frequent user of bidding shorter ♦ over longer ♣ this is a "does not apply" situation (2 card length disparity). As a system fault you have to conceal the ♦ suit and just rebid 2♣ over partner's 1x, x =/= ♦. A much harder hand would be xx xx KQTx AKQxx since strength disparity is an issue as well in choosing ♦ over ♣.

[gwnn]

Yes I think with this hand it is

 

1♣ then 2♣=100

1♣ then 2♦=55

1♦ then 2♣=big fat 0.

[Free]

I know a few LOLs that play "5 card Majors 4 card ♦" and they will always open 1♦ if they have 4 of them regardless what the ♣ holding is. I've seen them do this with 4♦-7♣! Needless to say they haven't agreed on good continuations, and as a result they've played at high levels with very few trumps.

 

With my regular partner our 1♦ opening followed by 2♣ may be with longer ♣. BUT this is only to avoid a rebid problem! With 6♣ we open 1♣ since we have an easy 2♣ rebid. There's no reason to get fancy with this hand.

[kenrexford]

As a person who now only opens 1♣ with 4♦/5♣, but who used to open 1♦, I don't get the problem for Opener. Why not...

 

1♦-P-1M-P-

2♣-P-2♦-P-

3♣?

[bluecalm]

1♦-P-1M-P-

2♣-P-2♦-P-

3♣?

 

Because partner will (correctly I believe) think you are showing 5-5.

[mikeh]

1♦-P-1M-P-

2♣-P-2♦-P-

3♣?

 

Because partner will (correctly I believe) think you are showing 5-5.

Precisely....and with extra values

 

Responder, with a decent 9 count, for example, with 2=3 in the minors, should give a false preference over 2♣ because doing so keeps the auction alive.

 

One of the many weaknesses in standard methods (hey, all methods have many weaknesses....I play standard based methods) is that opener can still be quite strong after a non-jump change of suit rebid. Thus opener may have a 5-5 hand just short of jumpshift values and passing 2♣ with a 4=4=2=3 9 count may well lead to a sub-optimal result.

 

Thus the false preference because, in part, it allows partner another chance.

 

One of the real risks of the 1♦ on 4=5 school is precisely because of this: statistically, opener will be minimum-range far more often than near jumpshift range, so we will often find our 4=2 fit.

 

Playing Ken's suggestion hardly helps: if opener has to rebid 3♣ to show 4=5 minimums, we get to play our 4=3 fit at the 3 level when responder has 4=4=3=2 weakness, while at the same time, we can't show either 5=5 or extras.

 

On the OP: only a complete idiot would open this hand 1♦.

 

To me this is a wtp 1♣ followed by either 2♣ or 3♣: the hand isn't worth a reverse, epecially with the minors and an unstopped, weak unbid major. I'd personally bid 3♣ at imps and 2♣ at mps.

[wank]

don't assume bbo experts are above intermediate level would be my tip.

[cherdanno]

To me it is:

1C-2C: 100

1C-2D: 80

1C-3C: 20

1D-2C: -1000

 

If it's strong enough to jump to 3♣, it's strong enough to reverse (especially with such a good side suit).

[mikeh]

If it's strong enough to jump to 3♣, it's strong enough to reverse (especially with such a good side suit).

That's a question of style, I suspect. The style with which I am most familar is quite different: I jump rebid on good 6 card suits with good 15 counts, and my reverses are much stronger.

 

I don't think this is a trivial issue: a jump rebid is not the least bit forcing: it is constructive but can be and often is passed. A reverse, however, cannot be passed. Partner will force to game opposite a reverse on some hands that would/should pass a jump rebid...at least in the 'strong reverse' school to which I belong.

[jdonn]

If it's strong enough to jump to 3♣, it's strong enough to reverse (especially with such a good side suit).

That's a question of style, I suspect. The style with which I am most familar is quite different: I jump rebid on good 6 card suits with good 15 counts, and my reverses are much stronger.

 

I don't think this is a trivial issue: a jump rebid is not the least bit forcing: it is constructive but can be and often is passed. A reverse, however, cannot be passed. Partner will force to game opposite a reverse on some hands that would/should pass a jump rebid...at least in the 'strong reverse' school to which I belong.

But a good 15 count with a good 6 card suit is approximately as valuable as a 17 count without a 6 card suit.

 

Also regarding a reverse being forcing, that is true but you can actually stop at a lower level than after a 3 level rebid since it might go 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT P or something. Also the fact a reverse is forcing is because it has a higher maximum than a 3 level rebid, not a higher minimum.

 

I don't think this is a trivial issue either, but I contend your "school" is simply not standard. I think your 3 level rebids are just a hair light, your reverses are just a hair heavy, and thus you have created space in the middle where in standard bidding there is none.

[bab9]

Did you have time to discuss the system you were playing with your partner before this hand occurred?

 

Were you playing 2/1?

 

Was your partner playing canape openings?

 

On the hand in question, what did you have?

[mikeh]

If it's strong enough to jump to 3♣, it's strong enough to reverse (especially with such a good side suit).

That's a question of style, I suspect. The style with which I am most familar is quite different: I jump rebid on good 6 card suits with good 15 counts, and my reverses are much stronger.

 

I don't think this is a trivial issue: a jump rebid is not the least bit forcing: it is constructive but can be and often is passed. A reverse, however, cannot be passed. Partner will force to game opposite a reverse on some hands that would/should pass a jump rebid...at least in the 'strong reverse' school to which I belong.

But a good 15 count with a good 6 card suit is approximately as valuable as a 17 count without a 6 card suit.

 

Also regarding a reverse being forcing, that is true but you can actually stop at a lower level than after a 3 level rebid since it might go 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT P or something. Also the fact a reverse is forcing is because it has a higher maximum than a 3 level rebid, not a higher minimum.

 

I don't think this is a trivial issue either, but I contend your "school" is simply not standard. I think your 3 level rebids are just a hair light, your reverses are just a hair heavy, and thus you have created space in the middle where in standard bidding there is none.

There's no 'middle' here. This is not a case where theory says there has to be a meshing of methods.

 

For one thing, the two sequences (jump rebid/reverse) show entirely different hand types, merely on distributional grounds. One is essentially a one-suiter, non-forcing, while the other is nominally at least a 2-suiter (and often 5431), and forcing.

 

Indeed every good player knows that with a powerful one-suiter, it may be too strong to jump rebid and we fake a reverse! That would be impossible or absurd if the two rebids covered the same range.

 

Secondly, the strength shown by the two rebids falls into different ranges. Even if we grant that a minimum reverse may have the same strength as a jump rebid, we all know that the reverse is limited only by our failure to open 2♣.

 

You are comparing apples and oranges, and critizing my suggestions because the fruit aren't the same colour.

 

That's not to say that there is not a school that advocates that the low end of the reverse approximates the jump rebid....the 'light' reversers do that and it works well for them...and I assume that you belong to that school as do many fine players...to the point that I am considering lightening my minimum reverse standards.

 

But that is not the same as arguing that in theory there need be any correspondence between the bids as you suggest. There is no 'gap' because they don't deal with similar hands.

[mich-b]

If it's strong enough to jump to 3♣, it's strong enough to reverse (especially with such a good side suit).

That's a question of style, I suspect. The style with which I am most familar is quite different: I jump rebid on good 6 card suits with good 15 counts, and my reverses are much stronger.

 

I don't think this is a trivial issue: a jump rebid is not the least bit forcing: it is constructive but can be and often is passed. A reverse, however, cannot be passed. Partner will force to game opposite a reverse on some hands that would/should pass a jump rebid...at least in the 'strong reverse' school to which I belong.

But a good 15 count with a good 6 card suit is approximately as valuable as a 17 count without a 6 card suit.

 

Also regarding a reverse being forcing, that is true but you can actually stop at a lower level than after a 3 level rebid since it might go 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 2NT P or something. Also the fact a reverse is forcing is because it has a higher maximum than a 3 level rebid, not a higher minimum.

 

I don't think this is a trivial issue either, but I contend your "school" is simply not standard. I think your 3 level rebids are just a hair light, your reverses are just a hair heavy, and thus you have created space in the middle where in standard bidding there is none.

There's no 'middle' here. This is not a case where theory says there has to be a meshing of methods.

 

For one thing, the two sequences (jump rebid/reverse) show entirely different hand types, merely on distributional grounds. One is essentially a one-suiter, non-forcing, while the other is nominally at least a 2-suiter (and often 5431), and forcing.

 

Indeed every good player knows that with a powerful one-suiter, it may be too strong to jump rebid and we fake a reverse! That would be impossible or absurd if the two rebids covered the same range.

 

Secondly, the strength shown by the two rebids falls into different ranges. Even if we grant that a minimum reverse may have the same strength as a jump rebid, we all know that the reverse is limited only by our failure to open 2♣.

 

You are comparing apples and oranges, and critizing my suggestions because the fruit aren't the same colour.

 

That's not to say that there is not a school that advocates that the low end of the reverse approximates the jump rebid....the 'light' reversers do that and it works well for them...and I assume that you belong to that school as do many fine players...to the point that I am considering lightening my minimum reverse standards.

 

But that is not the same as arguing that in theory there need be any correspondence between the bids as you suggest. There is no 'gap' because they don't deal with similar hands.

I think he was saying that the LOWER limit for reverse and jump rebid is the same,

and this means that a jump rebid denies having another 4 card suit , which could be shown by reversing "on the way". (By "on the way" I mean that the reverse is a lower bid than the jump rebid).

[kenrexford]

1♦-P-1M-P-

2♣-P-2♦-P-

3♣?

 

Because partner will (correctly I believe) think you are showing 5-5.

Precisely....and with extra values

 

Responder, with a decent 9 count, for example, with 2=3 in the minors, should give a false preference over 2♣ because doing so keeps the auction alive.

 

One of the many weaknesses in standard methods (hey, all methods have many weaknesses....I play standard based methods) is that opener can still be quite strong after a non-jump change of suit rebid. Thus opener may have a 5-5 hand just short of jumpshift values and passing 2♣ with a 4=4=2=3 9 count may well lead to a sub-optimal result.

 

Thus the false preference because, in part, it allows partner another chance.

 

One of the real risks of the 1♦ on 4=5 school is precisely because of this: statistically, opener will be minimum-range far more often than near jumpshift range, so we will often find our 4=2 fit.

 

Playing Ken's suggestion hardly helps: if opener has to rebid 3♣ to show 4=5 minimums, we get to play our 4=3 fit at the 3 level when responder has 4=4=3=2 weakness, while at the same time, we can't show either 5=5 or extras.

 

On the OP: only a complete idiot would open this hand 1♦.

 

To me this is a wtp 1♣ followed by either 2♣ or 3♣: the hand isn't worth a reverse, epecially with the minors and an unstopped, weak unbid major. I'd personally bid 3♣ at imps and 2♣ at mps.

This does not follow.

 

If I were to bid 3♣ in this sequence, it would show 5-5. GBut, I don't open 1♣ with six clubs and four diamonds.

 

The person who complained about the conversion to diamonds does. If you play that opening 1♦ with 6♣/4♦ is right, then 3♣ in this late sequence shows longer clubs. With equals, you would presumably bid 2NT, or 3♦, or a major.

 

I never get this kind of reasoning by people. Third-round bids do not show what they should show for YOUR system; they should show what makes sense to the system used by the BIDDER.

[Wackojack]

Back to basics: Why does a reverse bid need to be strong? Answer, at least as far as I am concerned: Because opposite a 1 level minimum response and reverse, responder may have to give preference at the 3 level. This means that if the reverse is based on 5 clubs and 4 diamonds and not 3 card support for partners bid suit, then you need around 17HCP. The hand in question:

♠ x

♥ xx

♦ KQT4

♣ AKQ852

 

has 14HCP but a compensating very good 6 card suit.

 

If the bidding goes 1♣-1♠-2♦, what are the dangers if responder has a minimum 5HCP? I would suggest minimal and there are potential rewards when your 3♣ contract steals opponents possible 2 major contract.

 

The down side of reversing here I believe is partner's expectations when she has a hand that expects to be in game opposite 17+HCP. Give partner ♠Axxxx, ♥Axx, ♦xxx, ♣xx, you are likely to find yourself in a bad 3NT, which a 2♣ rebid would save you from. OTOH give partner another club and one less diamond ♠Axxxx, ♥Axx, ♦xx, ♣xxx, and 5♣ is an excellent contract, likely to be missed if you rebid 2♣.

 

So I think it is evenly balanced between the simple rebid and the reverse. Possibly the deciding factor is what you think your partner believes to be the requirements for a reverse. This could be different according to the system you play and which part of the world you live in.

[hanp]

I think the main reason that a reverse is strong is that it is useful to be able to show a strong hand. Sure, the preference to the 3-level argument came first historically and is how we explain it to beginners, but the risk of getting to high is not the reason to play reverses as strong as we do.