Responder's reverse

[Lurpoa]

♥♥♥

 

A Responder's reverse is best played as game forcing.

 

That is what all experts seem to agree on.

 

I am trying to understand the reason for that.

 

Can you just not play it as one round forcing ? Or to 2NT ?

 

Is this statement true for all natural systems ? SAYC ? 2/1 ? Acol ?

 

I have to say that playing Acol, different variations, I always was teached, that the Responder's reverse was only 1round forcing, and that opener had to bid his full hand.

 

Any opinions on this ? Many thanks.

 

♥♥♥

[Yu18772]

Just my general thoughts on the subject - I cant imagine a sequence with responders reverse (at 2 level), unless opener rebids 1NT - that would just be 4th suit, or opener rebids his minor (as Vampyr kindly pointed out :))

If it is opposite 1NT the opener is always weak, balanced (or close) and limited, and the reverse is into a major that opener had denied -

 

1♣-1♦-1NT-2♥/2♠

1m-1♥-1NT-2♠

In addition most advanced+ partnerships play some variation of nmf/checkback etc... that allows to show invitational hands and 5 card suits with lower bids, so imo responders reverse is the lowest available bid, that doesn't have an obvious natural meaning and it is low enough to let opener describe the hand further without cramping the 3 level. Even without nmf type conventions, most of invitational hands have a comfortable bid on these auctions, on the other hand establishing a gf without jumping to game is pretty tricky, and its definitely beneficial to establish a gf as low as possible. Also you need a way to show a slam invitational hand, without passing game level (often 3NT).

If the reverse is opposite a rebid of a minor (1m-1x-2m-2M) it is still always into a major that was denied by the opener, and the opener is again pretty limited and weak(although the range is larger than 1NT). In a way, showing a gf+ hand at low level by responder is even more problematic with this type of auctions. Again - if we examine these auctions:

 

1♣ -1♦ -2♣-2M

1m -1♥- 2m-2♠

the reverse is the lowest bid that has apparently no sense as "natural", and leaves enough room at 3level. If you played it as invitational+ the opener will have to jump to with better hands (accepting the invitaion), which would leave little or no room for a stronger responder which may had wanted to establish a gf suit at 3 level or inquire about distribution. I would be interested to know if people differentiate between the 2♥ and 2♠ bids on the auctions where both are possible?

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif

[Vampyr]

Just my general thoughts on the subject - I cant imagine a sequence with responders reverse (at 2 level), unless opener rebids 1NT - that would just be 4th suit.

 

I can imagine opener's rebiding his own suit -- 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♠ etc.

[Yu18772]

I can imagine opener's rebiding his own suit -- 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♠ etc.

 

You are right - sorry - will edit the post accordingly :)

 

 

 

[gordontd]

Can you just not play it as one round forcing ? Or to 2NT ?

 

Is this statement true for all natural systems ? SAYC ? 2/1 ? Acol ?

I have two partners with whom, in the context of a system based more on Acol than Std Am, we have the agreement that responder's reverses are only forcing for one round.

 

It has the advantage that we can bid our suits in the natural order with a 4153 11-count for example. It has the disadvantage that having done so, opener now needs to blast to game with a 14-count, rather than just raising. Which has the further effect that you can't improvise by rebidding a strong three-card suit.

 

In a strong-NT context, you need responder's reverses to be forcing to game because opener might rebid 2NT with a minimum hand concealing a four-card major. In a weak-NT context, if opener rebids 2NT concealing a four-card major, the hand will be strong.

[Lurpoa]

I have two partners with whom, in the context of a system based more on Acol than Std Am, we have the agreement that responder's reverses are only forcing for one round.

 

It has the advantage that we can bid our suits in the natural order with a 4153 11-count for example. It has the disadvantage that having done so, opener now needs to blast to game with a 14-count, rather than just raising. Which has the further effect that you can't improvise by rebidding a strong three-card suit.

 

In a strong-NT context, you need responder's reverses to be forcing to game because opener might rebid 2NT with a minimum hand concealing a four-card major. In a weak-NT context, if opener rebids 2NT concealing a four-card major, the hand will be strong.

 

 

 

♥♥♥

You seem to confirm that in Acol those responder reverses are often played as only inviting...

Why would it be thatin SAYC the experts advice against such a treatment ????

♥♥♥

[whereagles]

1. Can you just not play it as one round forcing ? Or to 2NT ?

 

2. Is this statement true for all natural systems ? SAYC ? 2/1 ? Acol ?

 

1. A reverse by responder forces to at least 2NT, so has to show 11+ hcp (you need 23+ hcp for 2NT). The difference between 11 hcp (invite range) and 12 hcp (GF range) is minimal, so you might as well play it as GF and make it simple. You could try lowering it to 10+ hcp and play it as F1 only, but good luck...

 

2. As far as I know, yes.

[Lurpoa]

1. A reverse by responder forces to at least 2NT, so has to show 11+ hcp (you need 23+ hcp for 2NT). The difference between 11 hcp (invite range) and 12 hcp (GF range) is minimal, so you might as well play it as GF and make it simple. You could try lowering it to 10+ hcp and play it as F1 only, but good luck...

 

2. As far as I know, yes.

 

 

 

♥♥♥

 

something to say for that....

 

and indeed, limit-bidding was a cornerstone of the early Acol system.... I learned Benji-Acol from my grandpa...So this is probably why a lot of Acol players will consider a reponder reverse as only one round forcing....

 

But you clearly think, as most experts, that in SAYC it is GF. Does everybody agree with that ?

 

 

♥♥♥

[blackshoe]

But you clearly think, as most experts, that in SAYC it is GF. Does everybody agree with that ?

 

Probably not, but it is what the ACBL SAYC booklet says.

[MrAce]

I can imagine opener's rebiding his own suit -- 1♦-1♥-2♦-2♠ etc.

 

Unless coincidentally, 2♠ is not a suit in this auction.

[Bbradley62]

But you clearly think, as most experts, that in SAYC it is GF. Does everybody agree with that?

Probably not, but it is what the ACBL SAYC booklet says.

FWIW: BBO's step-by-step SAYC convention card says it's game forcing.

[Lurpoa]

Probably not, but it is what the ACBL SAYC booklet says.

 

 

 

♥♥♥

 

Right !

But comming back to my question...

 

Is that really the best treatment ? as all experts tell me... and why ? up to now, somebody volunteered "for the sake of simplicity", and why not ?

 

But is that the only reason, tghat all the experts agree to play the responder's reverse as GF ?

 

♥♥♥

 

[Zelandakh]

If you are talking spceifically about experts then you have to take account of the likely agreements in place. A large number of experts play some sort of reverse Flannery response scheme after a 1m opening. This removes most of the 5H-4S hands from a 1H response and makes a 2S rebid well defined. For example, if you play 1m - 2H as weak and 1m - 2S as invitational then it is obvious that 1m - 1H; 2m - 2S has to be game-forcing. Similarly, the majority of experts play some form of Walsh over a 1C opening. In this case, should you have a 4 card major then you would only respond 1D over 1C with a game-forcing hand. Hence 1C - 1D; 2C - 2M is automatically defined as game-forcing. It is certainly playable for Responder's reverse not to be game-forcing - for most Acol players the idea of it being something else is completely alien - but given the most common expert agreements it seems to be unharmonious to do so.

[blackshoe]

The way I learned Walsh (via Romex) you bid 1♦ with a four card major (in response to 1♣) when you have invitational values or better. I suppose that's a minority view, but it does work, even if you're not playing Romex. Of course, reverses (and jump shifts) in Romex are more akin to those in Precision than those in a "natural" system, since the opening 1 bid is limited (to 18 HCP) in Romex.

[gordontd]

You seem to confirm that in Acol those responder reverses are often played as only inviting...

Not often, sometimes.

Why would it be thatin SAYC the experts advice against such a treatment ????

Because in Std Am you rebid minimum balanced hands with 2NT, sometimes concealing a four-card major. In Acol, if you rebid a balanced hand concealing a four-card major, you have enough extra to force to game.

[Lurpoa]

Not often, sometimes.

 

Because in Std Am you rebid minimum balanced hands with 2NT, sometimes concealing a four-card major. In Acol, if you rebid a balanced hand concealing a four-card major, you have enough extra to force to game.

 

 

 

 

♥♥♥

 

I really do not understand what you are trying to say.

 

The responder reverse is essentially done with unbalanced hands: 5 4...s

 

♥♥♥

[MrAce]

♥♥♥

 

I really do not understand what you are trying to say.

 

The responder reverse is essentially done with unbalanced hands: 5 4...s

 

♥♥♥

 

 

You are wrong

 

1♣--1♥

2♣--2♠

 

AQx AQxxx xxx Jx

 

1♦--1♥

2♦--3♣

 

xxx AKJxx xx AQx

 

Bidding the suits with the intention of being natural (4+) when pd already denied them is not the best way to use those bids. As i said earlier, 2nd bid of responder if reverse being natural is coinsidential.

[Lurpoa]

You are wrong

 

1♣--1♥

2♣--2♠

 

AQx AQxxx xxx Jx

 

1♦--1♥

2♦--3♣

 

xxx AKJxx xx AQx

 

Bidding the suits with the intention of being natural (4+) when pd already denied them is not the best way to use those bids. As i said earlier, 2nd bid of responder if reverse being natural is coinsidential.

 

 

 

♥♥♥

 

Agreed, you could play it like that. Better have agreed on that possibiliity with partner; to avoid play in the 3-3 fit.

 

When I play Acol with grandpa, it is always 4 5, and we play it as one round forcing. Supporting the second color is a proposal to play in the 43fit.

 

Why is it that the experts, at least in SAYC, insist to play it as a game force ?

 

And even, when, as you suggest; it could be a 3 card, why should this be now game force ? It could be simply an invite to 2NT (other possiblites are: opener rebid his color or our first colr as a proposal to end the bidding).

 

♥♥♥