Reverse Structure

[kriegel]

I'm wondering what everyone thinks of this reverse structure. Played in a 2/1 system that's fairly natural but open to artificiality and specific treatments.

 

After opener's "classic" reverse (which we play is 17+), responder has a few options:

1. If the 4th suit is available on the 2-level, it shows a generic minimum
   
2. 2NT is always a minimum; if the 4th suit is available, it is natural with 6-7 - if not, it's a generic minimum
   
3. Responder rebidding his suit is game-forcing with 5+ cards
   
4. Raising either of opener's suits is game forcing
   

 

If opener gets a minimum 4th suit response, he can bid 2NT or 3 of his first suit with a hand that wants to sign off. If so, responder can correct to either of opener's suits or rebid his own to play. If opener gets a natural 2NT response, he can pass or rebid 3 of his first suit with a minimum. If opener gets a generic 2NT response, he can pass (which might not be the best idea) or he can bid 3 of his first suit with a minimum. All other sequences create a game force.

 

So a sequence would look like:

1♣ - 1♠

2♦ (17+)

..............2♥ (generic minimum)

..............2♠ (game forcing, 5+ spades)

..............2NT (natural, 6-7, non-forcing)

..............3♣ (3+ clubs, game forcing)

..............3♦ (4+ diamonds, game forcing)

..............3♥ (splinter for diamonds)

..............3♠ (good 6+ spades, slam interest)

..............3NT (natural, 8-10 or so)

..............4♣/♦ (natural, 5+ support, slam interest)

 

Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks.

[mgoetze]

Have you read http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/18177-a-primer-on-reverse-bidding/ ?

[zasanya]

I think your 1st option of 4th suit is called Ingberman convention

and 2nd option of 2NT is lebensohl or reubensohl convention. Many variations available on net.

Both are very helpful if your partnership allows response with 4-5 hcp.

You may also like to look at Wolf Sign off which helps after a jump rebid by opener of 2nt =18-19.

Say 1♦-1♠-2NT-3♣where 3 ♣shows 4-5 hcp .Opener is expected to bid 3♦.Responder can then pass or show second suit ♥ which is passable or rebid ♠ passable

[kriegel]

Thanks. I've read the Primer on Reverse Bidding, but I found it to be very light after responder's second response. If I recall correctly, it didn't address with any specificity what responder's rebids of his suit should be. I'm also familiar with Wolff Signoff.

 

I guess one thing I'm wondering about is the usefulness of using 2NT not as a relay when it is the generic minimum (as in lebensohl), but just as a minimum bid. Then if opener rebids his cheaper suit, we stop at a partscore. This seems more useful to me than a relay to 3♣ because now opener has to break the relay with any game-forcing hand, which might not convey any information besides, "I'm a maximum reverse." Does anyone have experience playing 2NT as a minimum relay vs just a minimum?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

I think your structure is fine.

 

If I correctly understand Ingberman and Lebensohl-3, BOTH NOW use the 2-level 4th suit as the "weakness" bid .

and this ONLY occurs for the 1C open >> 2D reverses :

1C - 1M

2D - 2oM! = weakness, start of the sign-off.

 

All OTHER Responder rebids are FORCING .

 

This means that in BOTH Ingberman and Lebensohl-3 that:

1C - 1M

2D - 2M = forcing.

 

It used to be in Ingberman that 2NT! was ALWAYS the weakness bid and a 2M responder rebid of his suit ( last example ) would be non-forcing .

[Zelandakh]

I don't think you need 2NT as a minimum when the 4th suit is available. For example, in your given auction:-

1♣ - 1♠

2♦ - 2♥

2♠ - 2NT could show the weak balanced 6-7. That would free up a 2NT rebid for a better hand. You can also bundle some stronger hands into the "weakness" bid if you like. They have to be strong enough to clearly distinguish themselves from the weak hands of course. One last thing you might want to consider is the sequence: 1♦ - 1♠; 2♥. What are you going to do here with (for example) 5323, 5314, 5224, 5215 shapes and minimimum?

[Venom]

Hmmm. Curious.

Writing this at almost 1 am in morning. Hope it's coherent. :)

 

I think that I just read a similar posting / question about reverse structures on Bridgewinners. I liked Henry Bethe's suggested response structure. His suggested structure seems to me to be a combination of Structured Reverses as presented in the Root-Pavlicek book, and also using the fourth suit/ other major as the possibly artificial weakness response (when biddable at the 2-level) instead of using 2NT for this purpose. Using 2NT as a weakness response has the potential of giving opener rebid problems(especially when holding a reverse that includes 3-card support for responder's major, and of potentially wrong-siding a NT contract.

 

Imho, it is a mistake to make responder's major suit rebid as being a game force instead of just showing a 5-card suit, hand strength undefined. For starters, this takes the pressure off of opener when opener has 3-card major suit support. It also gives opener more room to operate when you have responded initially in spades and can now rebid 2H as a possibly weak hand, especially when you do not have a heart stopper. There is little need for responder to rebid 2H to show 4 hearts after having responded 1S to opener's 1C opener (and 2D reverse): I would anticipate that opener would have bid hearts as the reverse suit had he/ she had 4 hearts.

 

There may be times when it might be more beneficial to rebid 4SF at 3-level when holding a 5-card major (usually when no stopper in the 4th suit), but this overall basic structure seems to make sense to me.

 

However, I am always looking for a better mousetrap. So, I look forward to reading others' ideas on the topic. As I said, I just responded because I thought I recognized the post.

 

Be well, be safe

 

DHL: aka: Double !

[mike777]

I'm wondering what everyone thinks of this reverse structure. Played in a 2/1 system that's fairly natural but open to artificiality and specific treatments.

 

After opener's "classic" reverse (which we play is 17+), responder has a few options:

1. If the 4th suit is available on the 2-level, it shows a generic minimum
   
2. 2NT is always a minimum; if the 4th suit is available, it is natural with 6-7 - if not, it's a generic minimum
   
3. Responder rebidding his suit is game-forcing with 5+ cards
   
4. Raising either of opener's suits is game forcing
   

 

If opener gets a minimum 4th suit response, he can bid 2NT or 3 of his first suit with a hand that wants to sign off. If so, responder can correct to either of opener's suits or rebid his own to play. If opener gets a natural 2NT response, he can pass or rebid 3 of his first suit with a minimum. If opener gets a generic 2NT response, he can pass (which might not be the best idea) or he can bid 3 of his first suit with a minimum. All other sequences create a game force.

 

So a sequence would look like:

1♣ - 1♠

2♦ (17+)

..............2♥ (generic minimum)

..............2♠ (game forcing, 5+ spades)

..............2NT (natural, 6-7, non-forcing)

..............3♣ (3+ clubs, game forcing)

..............3♦ (4+ diamonds, game forcing)

..............3♥ (splinter for diamonds)

..............3♠ (good 6+ spades, slam interest)

..............3NT (natural, 8-10 or so)

..............4♣/♦ (natural, 5+ support, slam interest)

 

Any feedback would be appreciated, thanks.

 

 

fwiw for decades it has been common to play most of this except

2h=generic gf often 5s

2s=weakish 5+sp

2nt=generic weakish 4 spades

most of the time you expect pard to just rebid 3c.

 

 

the big complaint against this is 2nt does not promise bal hand or stoppers...wrong side 2nt....you choose to live with that or not.