when is a reverse not a reverse?

[jmcilkley]

Playing natural I open 1C and LHO overcalls 1S, partner doubles and I rebid 2d. How many points am I showing? Obviously if I bid 1H I will definitely be showing up to a poor 15 but is it different if I bid 1D?

Mike C

[ahydra]

I can't quite make sense of your post. It goes 1C-1S-X-p; how can you bid 1H or 1D here?

 

I'll take a leap of faith, and assume you meant "opened 1H" and "opened 1C" where you wrote "bid 1H", "bid 1D". Going on that assumption... I think it would depend on partnership agreement, particularly about the X. I play the X as showing 4+ hearts, so 2H here would show a minimum with 4-card heart support, 3H would be reverse-type strength with hearts, 2D would be a natural reverse and "everything else" has to bid 1NT or 2C.

 

One can think of this treatment as pretending partner bid 1H - you're simply making the same rebids as opener as in 1C-p-1H-p. So along those lines, if you play the X as definitely showing 4+ in both diamonds and hearts, then I wouldn't treat 2D as a reverse.

 

ahydra

[jmcilkley]

I can't quite make sense of your post. It goes 1C-1S-X-p; how can you bid 1H or 1D here?

 

I'll take a leap of faith, and assume you meant "opened 1H" and "opened 1C" where you wrote "bid 1H", "bid 1D". Going on that assumption... I think it would depend on partnership agreement, particularly about the X. I play the X as showing 4+ hearts, so 2H here would show a minimum with 4-card heart support, 3H would be reverse-type strength with hearts, 2D would be a natural reverse and "everything else" has to bid 1NT or 2C.

 

One can think of this treatment as pretending partner bid 1H - you're simply making the same rebids as opener as in 1C-p-1H-p. So along those lines, if you play the X as definitely showing 4+ in both diamonds and hearts, then I wouldn't treat 2D as a reverse.

 

ahydra

[jmcilkley]

sorry, bidding was 1C-1S-dbl by p-pass-2D

[Jboling]

sorry, bidding was 1C-1S-dbl by p-pass-2D

If dbl was negative, 2D is just showing a hand without interest of game against a minimal negative double, with reasonable support for diamonds (and denying support for hearts)

[mycroft]

The idea behind "this doesn't show extra values" is that you're *raising partner*, not showing your own second suit.

 

Yes, it's possible - even probable - that partner doesn't have diamonds, but that's the theory.

[ArtK78]

We have had this discussion before. I leave it to others to find one or two threads devoted to this subject.

 

The consensus is that a 2♦ rebid shows extra values consistent with a reverse. If opener did not have extra values, he would rebid 1NT or 2♣. Or he would have opened 1♦ originally with 4-5 in the minors.

[Codo]

For the majority of the experts, 2 ♦ shows extras, because the double just shows hearts.

For the majority of the players (at least here) it does not, because the double promised the unbid suits.

 

So: Ask your partner about this sequence and tell him what experts do here.

[CSGibson]

I think it shows a reverse, same as if the bidding had gone 1♣-(1♠)-1♥ insufficient - (p), 2♦. Others don't play it as extras, but either way you need to come to an agreement. It truly is one of those 50/50 things depending on your locale and/or your partner's skill level.

[aguahombre]

Unfortunately, Codo is not correct ---although I believe he should be ---about the opinions of the majority of experts...at least in this country. Hopefully Germany is more sensible.

 

A recent "It's your call" touching on the same situation in the ACBL Bulletin showed only one of the umpteen experts believed 2D showed "reverse" strength. I was shocked.

 

1C (1S) X (P)

2D....should not only show extra playing strength, but should also bring Lebensohl into the mix of continuations by responder.

 

Obviously this does not apply to heart rebids by opener, since that is a suit he is merely raising as if responder had bid 1H without the interference.

[jmcw]

I would open a minimum (up to 16) 4-5 minors 1♦ planning a rebid of 2♣.

If 17+ I would open 1♣ planning a reverse to 2♦.

An intervening bid and X does not change anything, and I have no reason to expect partner to have ♦ for his X.

 

X shows ♥.

 

Perhaps, someone would care to post some examples of minimums that would bid this way.

[jillybean]

For me, 2♦ does show extras, K+. We are forcing partner to the 3 level if she has to show a club preference.

 

The experts in the Bulletin may be right. We don't need full reverse (18) to bid 2♦ but I don't think they would do it on 12. It would be nice to have more information.

[bluecalm]

For me, 2♦ does show extras, K+. We are forcing partner to the 3 level if she has to show a club preference.

 

Good point :)

Apparently this simple logic eludes some "experts"...

[Cyberyeti]

Good point :)

Apparently this simple logic eludes some "experts"...

A number of experts not in the US play that double shows both unbid therefore 2♦ shows no extras.

 

I'm not sure what "playing natural" in the OP means, but if it means 4+ clubs, I would expect the X to show both unbid. Playing Acol, many people with 4♥/4♣ open 1♥ so showing only ♥ is nothing like as useful as it is when 1♣ is 2+.

[bluecalm]

A number of experts not in the US play that double shows both unbid therefore 2♦ shows no extras.

 

It comes down to what 'expert' means but this is very bad agreement and nobody good at this game plays it these days.

[Cyberyeti]

It comes down to what 'expert' means but this is very bad agreement and nobody good at this game plays it these days.

OK, nobody in the UK is any good then as many people play it here, although I suspect the number is decreasing as more move over to a 2+ card club. As I said if the club is natural in a weak no trump Acol 4 card major type system, it's very sensible to play it as both suits (in fact this system has some issues if you don't as we never open 4-5 in the minors 1♦).

[bluecalm]

OK, nobody in the UK is any good then as many people play it here

 

That argument doesn't contradict what I said. Most people are bad at bridge so just because "many people play it" doesn't mean that "nobody good plays it" doesn't hold true :)

Again it comes down to definition of good. I meant players who compete at highest international level.

There is literally no one (at least no one regularly appearing in big events late stages) who passes say:

xxx AKxx Kx xxxx if it goes:

 

1C - 1S - ?

 

Passing is just weak bridge if opponents have any aggression in them you will regularly miss very good heart games.

If you bid 2C it's equally bad for the same reason (your not good enough to double later at 3 level).

Same goes for weakier hands, say: xxx AKxx xx xxxx and two level.

[Cyberyeti]

That argument doesn't contradict what I said. Most people are bad at bridge so just because "many people play it" doesn't mean that "nobody good plays it" doesn't hold true :)

Again it comes down to definition of good. I meant players who compete at highest international level.

There is literally no one (at least no one regularly appearing in big events late stages) who passes say:

xxx AKxx Kx xxxx if it goes:

 

1C - 1S - ?

 

Passing is just weak bridge if opponents have any aggression in them you will regularly miss very good heart games.

No I raise clubs inverted F1 not denying 4M.

 

Actually I have no fear of doubling on this hand and then bidding 3♣ over 2♦ if not playing my style of inverted minors.

[bluecalm]

No I raise clubs inverted F1 not denying 4M.

 

What about 4-4-2-3 ?

Say: xxxx AKxx Qx xxx ?

Still, you lose hearts if it goes something like:

 

1C - 1S - 2C - 3S

 

Because now you need a double for extras and 4-4 heart fit is lost forever.

[gordontd]

many people play it here,

Do they? I can't say I've encountered them.

[wank]

what codo said. people who play it as not showing extras don't understand bidding, irrespective of whether they call themselves experts or not and whether they're in the uk or not.

[awm]

LOL. This is the kind of thread that makes BBF look bad.

 

Awfully quick to resort to insults lately?

[Fluffy]

Unfortunately, Codo is not correct ---although I believe he should be ---about the opinions of the majority of experts...at least in this country. Hopefully Germany is more sensible.

 

A recent "It's your call" touching on the same situation in the ACBL Bulletin showed only one of the umpteen experts believed 2D showed "reverse" strength. I was shocked.

 

1C (1S) X (P)

2D....should not only show extra playing strength, but should also bring Lebensohl into the mix of continuations by responder.

 

Obviously this does not apply to heart rebids by opener, since that is a suit he is merely raising as if responder had bid 1H without the interference.

 

Just goes to show that barring agreements people will assume no extras, not that experts do not play it that way on their partnership.

 

 

Barring raising partner for his dobule, the only non reverse sequence I know is when partner forced over 2 of our suit, 1♣-(1♠)-2♦ for example.

[Cyberyeti]

Do they? I can't say I've encountered them.

Many many people below expert level, some at expert level. The key is among people that play a 4+ card club and 4 card majors, I agree it makes no sense if you don't. OP did say he played natural, so I assumed 4 card club.

 

A lot of these mythical hands where you miss 4♥ while not having extras, you're just as happy saccing in 5♣ as 5♥ over opps cold 4♠ as they have the same double fit and similar number of points.

 

I find that not having to play in 5-0 ♣ fits by rebidding 2♣ with 4-5 in the minors instead of my 4-4/5-4 diamond fit or distort by opening 1♦ more than makes up for hands where I miss the heart fit and wanted to bid it. In fact simply hands where I've not brought the opps double fit to light so they've played 3♠ not 4 have more than covered my losses.

[Zelandakh]

A leading English junior pair had a disagreement about this at a major event which got written up in BM. Standard is to play it as showing extras; the other way is playable if your system is built around it but even then the advantages are somewhat dubious imho.