Reverse followups

[Phil]

See questions. Thanks

[TWO4BRIDGE]

If 2S is GF, then all of the questions are moot .... as all of Responder's subsequent bids would be forcing to game somewhere .

 

If 2S is 1- round forcing and could be weak ( see mikeh's "Primer on Reverse Bidding" , in the Intermediate... forum ), then :

 

1) 3H shows a 6♦/5♥ hand and did partner's 2S promise a rebid or not ?

 

2) 3S now would definitely be non-forcing ( can't stand ♦ or ♥ or 3NT )

 

3) 4D non-forcing, suit preference .

[Phil]

If 2S is GF, then all of the questions are mute.... as all of Responder's subsequent bids would be forcing to game somewhere .

 

If 2S is 1- round forcing and could be weak ( see mikeh's "Primer on Reverse Bidding" , in the Intermediate... forum ), then :

 

1) 3H shows a 6♦/5♥ hand and did partner's 2S promise a rebid or not ?

 

2) 3S now would definitely be non-forcing ( can't stand ♦ or ♥ or 3NT )

 

3) 4D non-forcing, suit preference .

 

Don, I'm assuming 2♠ can be wide ranging which I think is fairly standard.

[Phil]

From MikeH's primer on Reverse Bidding:

 

(after 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥) 2♠ is a one round force, but it may be weak. This apparent paradox arises from the fact that the 2♥ was forcing, so responder has to bid, and using 2N as a weakness bid makes no sense when responder wants/needs to show long ♠s. So responder will rebid 2♠ without in any way limiting his hand.

 

Opener can complete the description of his hand by, for example, rebidding 2N with 5431's short ♠s or 5422 with a good doubleton (AQ is an example) or rebidding a 6 card minor or 5 card major or the 4th suit to create yet another force. Of course, opener can also raise ♠s or bid 3N if certain that that is the right bid: x AJxx AKQJxx AQ.... I'd open that hand 1♦, rebid 2♥ and then, over 2♠, bid 3N... no guarantees but I'm not playing below game even opposite the types of hands I respond on.

 

This I am not sure about. Mike - did you imply that *only* the 4th suit is forcing, or any of 3♣, 3♦ or 3♥?

[Mbodell]

I voted NF, F, F. 2♠ is only a 1 round force, but if you have a sub-minimum I think you should pass the rebid. I mean maybe you have 5 spades and 4 diamonds and 1 heart and need 4 diamonds as a preference, but that is such a narrow window and 2♠ ambiguous is hard enough I'd rather any non-pass from the 2♠ bidder shows extra (unless opener bids 4th suit forcing). But I admit that this is an auction sequence I find hard and am not sure I'm on the same page with occasional partners.

[mike777]

Undiscussed but I think 3h sets up a gf and will not pass.

2s for me is 5s and weakish 1rf.

 

1d=1s

2h=2nt(art and weakish)

3h is discussed as gf

 

 

1d=1nt

2h=3d(weakish)

3h is discussed as gf

 

so I think without discussion then:

1d=1s

2h=2s(weakish)

3h is gf.

[mikeh]

From MikeH's primer on Reverse Bidding:

 

 

 

This I am not sure about. Mike - did you imply that *only* the 4th suit is forcing, or any of 3♣, 3♦ or 3♥?

Unfortunately, I didn't expect my 'primer' to become a reference work :P It was a response to certain posts that suggested massive confusion amongst some B/I players, as the forum was then known. It was long but far from complete, if only because the full topic is bigger than a single post can explain. In addition, it represented my attempt to explain what I understood to be some fairly universal treatments, to afford a basic understanding rather than be exhaustive. Plus, looking back on it, I might reword some passages.

 

Having said that, my take on your posts would be that the first is non-forcing and simply shows a 5-6 with decent suits.

 

The second, where in that same sequence, responder bid over 3♥ would be forcing. Now as it happens, I prefer to play a method in which a weak hand with that many spades would have bid 2♠ on his first call, as a weak js. I cap that out at 6 hcp, so this sequence shows at least 7, and it may be that such is insufficient to warrant a gf opposite a reverse based more on shape than hcp, but we can't cover all the bases. So I would take this as forcing.

 

The third, where responder takes a 4 level preference, is even tougher than the second.

My take, which may be influenced by 'knowing' what is about to happen, is that if responder has real diamonds, and a weak hand, he should give up on rebidding spades and just lebensohl his way to 3♦ over the reverse. Therefore this should be forcing.

 

Now, with 6=1=3=3, for example, this seems counter-intuitive but I think it is reasonable.

[lalldonn]

I think opener rebidding the second suit is game forcing. If I had a minimum 5-6 I would rebid the first suit after 2♠. I think this is a lot simpler than the alternative since you will be screwed when you want to force otherwise, and just about the best you can do without a very complicated system.

[mikeh]

I think opener rebidding the second suit is game forcing. If I had a minimum 5-6 I would rebid the first suit after 2♠. I think this is a lot simpler than the alternative since you will be screwed when you want to force otherwise, and just about the best you can do without a very complicated system.

I don't follow.

 

You treat a minimum 5-6 in the same way as a powerhouse 4=6?

 

x AKQx AKQ10xx xx is bid the same way as x AQJxx AQJxxx x? I am assuming that both begin 1♦ and both are seen as reverses. Feel free to tweak the examples if you differ. The point is create a maximum 4=6 with no club stopper, and a minimum 5=6 and see if bidding them the same way is effective.

 

I guess my concern is that no matter what you decide, you are going to have a problem, and I don't see your suggestion as 'simpler'.

 

Maybe I am missing something...I often am.

[Phil]

I'd like to get some more feedback, however, I have an idea for a possible 'fix' to I will post later.

[lalldonn]

I don't follow.

 

You treat a minimum 5-6 in the same way as a powerhouse 4=6?

 

x AKQx AKQ10xx xx is bid the same way as x AQJxx AQJxxx x? I am assuming that both begin 1♦ and both are seen as reverses. Feel free to tweak the examples if you differ. The point is create a maximum 4=6 with no club stopper, and a minimum 5=6 and see if bidding them the same way is effective.

 

I guess my concern is that no matter what you decide, you are going to have a problem, and I don't see your suggestion as 'simpler'.

 

Maybe I am missing something...I often am.

Rebidding the first suit is NF. You can't do it on a GF 4-6. You would bid the fourth suit. I mean what's your alternative suggestion? What would you bid on a not powerhouse 4-6?

[JLOGIC]

Nf f nf. 6-5 hands can look good opposite a fit but ugly opp a misfit, I think you should be able to show them and still get out.

[nigel_k]

All non forcing.

 

In each case you can jump or bid the fourth suit with a better hand. Sometimes bridge is allowed to be simple. Case 2 would be forcing if playing 2♠ over 1♦ as weak.

[gnasher]

NF, depends on WJS style, NF.

 

I think 3♥ should be NF, but rarely passed. If you really want to game-force you can bid FSF and will usually survive, especially after opening 1♦.

 

If you play 3♥ as NF, 4♦ is logically NF too, because you might have a 5125 pile of filth. 3♠ should be non-forcing if you can have a bad hand with six spades, but not otherwise.

 

Transfers by opener would work quite well, though I wouldn't want to have such an obscure agreement.

[Zelandakh]

No love for 2♠ non-forcing and transfers? For example:-

 

1♦ - 1♠; 2♥

==

2♠ = to play

2N = to play 3♣ or various GF hands

... - 3♣

... - ... - 3♦ = slam try in diamonds

... - ... - 3♥ = 6+ spades with club stop

... - ... - 3♠ = 5 spades with club stop

... - ... - 3N = to play with good club stop

3♣ = diamonds

... - 3♦

... - ... - 3♥ = 5+ spades

... - ... - 3♠ = no club stop

... - ... - 3N = clubs stopped, mild slam try in diamonds

3♦ = hearts

... - 3♥

... - ... - 3♠ = starts a cue auction

... - ... - 4m = singleton splinter

3♥ = 6+ spades, no club stop

3♠ = 5 spades, no club stop

3N = to play but without a secure club stop, typically 4324 shape

4m = void splinter

4M = to play

 

 

In the case of playing Standard, I suspect that using WJSs makes life a great deal easier (especially if you define the top end to be a non-gf opposite a reverse!). If you have that in your arsenal then clearly 2 is forcing; if not then it can presumably be non-forcing. 3 is trivially non-forcing if 1 is; and it probably should be, especially if you reverse lighter with good shape.

[Phil]

I mean what's your alternative suggestion? What would you bid on a not powerhouse 4-6?

 

The idea is to use an intermediate call by opener after responder's 2M to signal a minimum.

 

For instance, after

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 2♠

 

use 2N to say, "I have a minimum reverse". Example hands would be

 

Kxx AQxx AKxxx x (that wants to support spades, but not GF)

x AQxxx AKxxxx x (that initially bid 2♥ to pattern a 5-6)

x AQJx AKxxxx xx (that just wants to indicate a good, but not rock crusher 4-6)

 

If any of the above are not reverses for you, tweak them as you see fit. The purpose of this isn't to argue about "what's a reverse", but rather, "what do the followups mean".

 

This allows an immediate 3♣, 3♦, 3♥ and 3♠ to be GF. Add a King (or more) to any of the above examples.

 

I mean, if 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♥ is really NF as everyone suggests, what do you bid with x AKJxx AKQxxx x?

 

After

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 2♠

2N*...

 

I'd suggest 3♣ as "Gazilli-like" and make that call GF and other calls NF and trying to get out (usually 3♦. Or, other calls could be GF, and 3♣ could simply be getting out of opener's way. I think I prefer the 1st suggestion.

[mike777]

Root Pavlicek play bidding the 4th suit by opener as forcing, if a minor, it shows. 5440 distribution, if a major then artificial.

 

so in this example 3c by opener would be natural 0=4=5=4 shape.

 

3h is undiscussed but I think it would be 6-5 and gf.

2nt would be natural and show a club stopper.

 

with some of these examples we might be forced to open 2c and rebid 3h to show h and longer diamonds.

 

with some other examples perhaps 1d=1s then 3d if playing reverse flannery where pard will deny 4h very often.

 

Phil's example of:

 

x...AQxxx...AKxxxx..x is a good problem hand if playing Root Pavilcek style.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Root Pavlicek play bidding the 4th suit by opener as forcing, if a minor, it shows. 5440 distribution, if a major then artificial.

Root & Pavlicek play their own system called "Structural Reverses" ( in their 1981 book: Modern Bridge Conventions ) .

I'm afraid their treatment isn't considered "modern" anymore .

[mike777]

Root & Pavlicek play their own system called "Structural Reverses" ( in their 1981 book: Modern Bridge Conventions ) .

I'm afraid their treatment isn't considered "modern" anymore .

 

 

Good point. :)

 

Not sure if you are saying it has stood the test of time or if you are making the claim it is too risky to play this style?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Good point. :)

 

Not sure if you are saying it has stood the test of time or if you are making the claim it is too risky to play this style?

 

It's OK as long as you and partner know the agreements -- in whatever system you play.

 

For example for the two special reverse cases of 1C open and the 2D reverse, I prefer:

1C - 1M

2D - 2oM! = the artificial weakness bid [ This is NOT part of R & P -- In their system, 2NT! is always the artificial weakness bid ] .

[lalldonn]

The idea is to use an intermediate call by opener after responder's 2M to signal a minimum.

 

For instance, after

 

1♦ - 1♠

2♥ - 2♠

 

use 2N to say, "I have a minimum reverse".

I don't know anyone who plays that but it's probably a decent idea, although not being able to stop in 2NT could be pretty bad since you haven't found a fit yet. You might as well just play transfers instead if you are going to play that though. But I mean if you are really going for the optimal system, every reverse auction should probably be different since they all have different suits shown and available below other suits.

[Phil]

although not being able to stop in 2NT could be pretty bad since you haven't found a fit yet.

 

You don't play a reverse a force through 3 of our minor?

[lalldonn]

No for opener's third bid after responder rebids his suit I play 2NT and three of his minor not forcing, as well as raising partner's major to three. I thought those three bids in particular were standard and there was only question about opener rebidding the second suit and bidding the fourth suit?

[Finch]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but...

 

As (lall)donn says if you are trying to write an optimal system, every reverse auction should be slightly different because the order of the suits changes.

 

I wouldn't like to say what is 'standard', but what I've discussed and agreed with my regular partners, is that after

 

1D - 1S - 2H - 2S (forcing but not promising a rebid)

 

2NT - natural NF

3C - fourth suit FG

3D - NF, 6 cards

3H - nat 5-6 FG

3S - NF

3NT - suggests playing there (typically 1543 extra values but not enormous extras which would bid 3C)

4C - 3541 extra values

 

We play 3H as FG simply because you are otherwise stuck on huge hands that want to explore the best game/slam. With a min 5-6 you have to rebid 3D.

 

[auctions after a 1C opening are a little different for us because of inferences after the transfer response, and opener's other forcing alternatives]

 

p.s. having agreed to play 3H as FG, that makes my answers to the second and third poll questions more or less self-defined

[cherdano]

I disagree quite strongly with one point of Mikeh's (overall excellent) primer: rebidding your 6-card minor after a reverse should be non-forcing. In fact, I am confident this is standard and I am quite surprised Mike thinks otherwise.

This means that with a powerhouse 4=6, you have to make an ugly 4th suit forcing bid. But that seems better than the alternative: not being able to reverse with 4=6 below game force, which means you might miss your heart fit.