reverse bids obsolete

[Vampyr]

I've seen a couple of good follow up schemes. The problem here is that few know of them. And many people aren't willing to put in the effort to learn them. "I just want to play bridge". :blink:

 

I don't mind if I play a good, indifferent or even poor follow-up scheme with a casual partner. I would consider it enough just to be on the same wave should a reverse come up. But I have absolutely no idea what would be the default without discussion.

[mycroft]

I don't mind at all. My name is still in my profile. I just got bored of seeing it with every post.

And given that nobody gets your name right whether it *is* in your post or not...

 

I assume that anyone that cares in the bridge world can figure out who I am. It's not hard. I don't put my name to my account publicly because my future employers don't come under the heading of "cares in the bridge world" (and there are still some people from my past that might have the same attitude to me that I have to them, plus an interest in continuing; and, of course, nobody can spell or pronounce my name correctly either). This has caused problems in other places; their site, their rules. However, my name, *my rules*.

[aguahombre]

There are probably even fewer than that who care who I am :rolleyes:

 

But I don't exactly hide it either. Just got tired of getting the reject "Waterman is taken" every time I registered for a new site.

[barmar]

The discussion about terminology has got me wondering -

 

Given that 1C-P-1H-P; 2D is a reverse even if 2D doesn't show extras, is it a reverse even if 2D isn't natural?

The Bridge World's Glossary defines a reverse as:

a non-jump bid in a new suit that bypasses a bid in a lower-ranking suit already bid by the same player.

There's more extensive discussion in Wikipedia.

 

So it's still a reverse. Whether it requires extra values depends on what it shows. The requirement for extra values is generally necessary if responder might have to bid 2NT or take preference to opener's first suit with a minimum. But if 2♦ shows a raise of ♥, going back to clubs is unlikely, so no extra values are required.

[aguahombre]

Given that 1C-P-1H-P; 2D is a reverse even if 2D doesn't show extras, is it a reverse even if 2D isn't natural?

Maybe. But I can't imagine using the term "reverse" to describe it could possibly serve a useful purpose; not in discussion with partner, not in disclosure, not in an article.

 

I have heard/seen the term "jump-reverse" used to describe what is really a splinter:

 

1C-1H

3D! As in, "This jump reverse shows Diamond shortness and (whatever) values in support of hearts."

 

We know a reverse is not a jump-bid by definition, but the point gets across to the reader/listener.

[barmar]

Bridge is full of terms with nonsensical meanings when you try to interpret them literally. E.g. in "Two-way New Minor Forcing", one of the minor suits is usually not "new" (they're only both new when the auction starts 1♥-1♠-1NT). This is a consequence of terms evolving based on treating previous terms as conceptual entities, rather than as phrases to be parsed literally. It's also related to the inclination to pull words apart and use prefixes or suffixes as conceptual entities. E.g. "Blackwood" was named after a person, but over time the "-wood" suffix has become used for a number of ace-asking conventions, such as Redwood (which also plays on the first syllable being a playing card color) and Minorwood; this is analogous to the real world use of "-gate" as a suffix for political scandals, ever since the Watergate.

 

This is just a consequence of the way the language area of the brain works. We don't process letters and words, we process phrases and concepts, except when initially learning them.

[blackshoe]

I don't mind if I play a good, indifferent or even poor follow-up scheme with a casual partner. I would consider it enough just to be on the same wave should a reverse come up. But I have absolutely no idea what would be the default without discussion.

"Everything natural".

[ArtK78]

The term "reverse" comes from the fact that you are bidding your suits in the "reverse" order of what would be considered to be the normal order - higher ranking suit first - and, as a consequence, the bid of the second suit is at a higher level than a simple rebid of the first suit. Whether the bid is natural or shows more values than bidding the suits in their "normal" order is not relevant.

 

1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ is not a reverse because the bid of the second suit is not at a higher level than a simple rebid of the first suit.

 

However, 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♦ is a reverse because the bid of the second suit is higher than 2♣.

 

So, if you are asking whether a bid is a "reverse," you have to keep in mind that you are not asking whether it shows additional strength or even whether it is a natural call.

 

It is almost universally true in modern bridge bidding that a reverse shows extra values. It is not universally true that a reverse is a natural call. Most of the time it is defined as a natural call, but it is not unheard of for the reverse bid to be made on a short holding.

[Vampyr]

"Everything natural".

 

Right, but what is/is not forcing?

[qwyz]

Re: Reverse Bids becoming obsolete

I appreciate all of u taking the time to provide your comments on this topic.

I think that this topic can be concluded with the following comments:

From glen: when playing SAYC with no partnership agreements on a cruise ship, the ‘trend’ is anything goes.

From RMB1: we understand that Andrew Robson (London, England) teaches his beginners that they do not need extras to reverse. (If they get too high, they get too high).

From Trinidad: It seems entirely sensible to not say anything about reverses and strength requirements to absolute beginners. Let them (mis)bid the hands and get on with the play. First teach them to show their distribution, locate a fit, etc. The next step will be to teach them that you need to decide at some point when you stop showing your suits (because otherwise you will get too high). Once people understand that, you can easily teach them about reverses by pointing out that they will get you higher and that you, therefore need extra strength to make a reverse bid.

From P_Marlowe: My guess is, that this is due to a mixup. There is a children’s game called ‘Stille Post” (the English call it ‘chinese whispers’/telephone.... It is quite funny what comes out after 3-4 stations.

 

With the above comments and others in mind, it seems possible that the statement that ‘reverse bids are no longer being taught by cruise ship bridge instructors and others at regional and national events ' may be true BUT not because they are now considered to be obsolete bids, BUT rather that perhaps it takes too much effort to explain and to get beginners and others who are attending these instructional sessions to fully understand the whole reverse bid picture. Perhaps the old telephone game outcome has resulted in this unique local belief that reverse bids have become obsolete.

 

And from the comments it does appear that this is a local practice. It is known that bridge players may have personal agreements that can be like the one that caused this post: that ‘any new suit by Opener is forcing upon Responder who must bid again regardless if it appears as if coming from a minimum or a stronger – reverse bid type of hand as the Opener’s rebid no longer suggests the strength of the hand. My concern in raising this post is; if this is the practice and it is not alerted as being different from the expected, how would I know when a new suit bid is showing the stronger typical reverse type bid or hand or is showing this local practice of simple further bidding out of the hand regardless of the strength of the hand. The posting by barmar as to ACBL’s Alert Procedures was very informative and actually does reflect what is occurring at this local club: “Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong... So this requires you to compare your agreement with how the bid ‘sounds’. If it were actually true that ‘nobody plays deliberate reverse bids any more,’ then it wouldn’t sound strong, so you wouldn’t alert it.”

On two occasions, what I took to be a reverse type of bid was made by the Ops without an alert being made. In both cases the Opener did not have sufficient strength to make what I took to be a reverse type of bid. I excused the first one based on the experience of the players, however the second time it was made by some level of ACBL life master members. So now barmar’s statement as to the interpretation of the bid according to the local ‘sound’ has a great deal of significance. As I was informed later that at this local club reverse bids do not imply extra strength and therefore will not have a ‘strong sound’. A significant lesson as to the value of asking what the local customs are before playing.

 

The posting by PeterAlan containing reference to the Draft Minutes of EBU Laws and Ethics Committee Meeting 19 September 2012 was also very informative: “The secretary asked whether a sequence such as 1D-1S; 2H, where the 2H was bid to show a 5-4 hand in diamonds and hearts but only on a minimum opening hand, was alertable. It was agreed that it was not, although players should be encouraged to disclose that their method was unusual (although it was recognized that many may not know, if that is how they have been taught)”. And I think that this brings us to the full circle: it players are not being taught about reverse bids showing an extra strength hand, then they would not know that what they are playing is unusual".

And again reinforces for me the value of asking what the local customs are before playing.

 

In response to aquahombre statement that “it is not clear that the OP (Opening Poster) understood the extra values needed by most experienced players in order to rebid a higher suit at the 2 level.” Let me assure you that I do consider myself a serious student and player of bridge, although because of location somewhat limited in available bridge venues. I was considerably alarmed when I was informed that ‘nobody makes deliberate reverse bids to show extra strength hands anymore’, and that reverse bids are no longer being taught by bridge instructors on cruise ships nor at regional or national bridge events. And this disbelief in this statement is what caused me to raise this post.

Again I thank all of u for ur comments. I have concluded that I will continue to use reverse bids to show extra strength type of hand as any serious bridge player would. 

[GreenMan]

It seems entirely sensible to not say anything about reverses and strength requirements to absolute beginners. Let them (mis)bid the hands and get on with the play. First teach them to show their distribution, locate a fit, etc.

 

The next step will be to teach them that you need to decide at some point when you stop showing your suits (because otherwise you will get too high).

 

I believe that what is happening is that people will turn up for the first part of the course, then decide to go it alone after that and skip the next set of lessons. They are doing as they were taught, possibly not knowing that their education was incomplete.

[aguahombre]

I have a problem with the term "deliberate". I have been ranting to all who will listen against "deliberately" creating a reverse by distorting the relative lengths of the two suits in order to show extra strength. If that is what is meant by deliberate reverses, then they can't become obsolete fast enough, IMO.

 

Opening 1C with 5-5 in clubs and diamonds within a natural system because we have a 17 count would be an example of what I thought was a deliberate reverse.

[bberris]

I have a problem with the term "deliberate". I have been ranting to all who will listen against "deliberately" creating a reverse by distorting the relative lengths of the two suits in order to show extra strength. If that is what is meant by deliberate reverses, then they can't become obsolete fast enough, IMO.

 

Opening 1C with 5-5 in clubs and diamonds within a natural system because we have a 17 count would be an example of what I thought was a deliberate reverse.

Oh, you mean a perverse reverse?

[blackshoe]

Right, but what is/is not forcing?

Heheh. Of course. However, I expect the answer often is "I don't know".

[blackshoe]

I believe that what is happening is that people will turn up for the first part of the course, then decide to go it alone after that and skip the next set of lessons. They are doing as they were taught, possibly not knowing that their education was incomplete.

Let me get this straight. I sign up for an eight week course on how to bid, I attend two weeks of it, and I don't know that my education was incomplete? Just exactly how stupid am I?

[barmar]

Let me get this straight. I sign up for an eight week course on how to bid, I attend two weeks of it, and I don't know that my education was incomplete? Just exactly how stupid am I?

Eight weeks on a cruise ship?

[Trinidad]

Right, but what is/is not forcing?

Nothing is forcing, except for bids in the fourth suit, jumps to 4m and Blackwood.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Eight weeks on a cruise ship?

Bah. Pick some other numbers then. Two of four lessons, whatever.

[GreenMan]

Let me get this straight. I sign up for an eight week course on how to bid, I attend two weeks of it, and I don't know that my education was incomplete? Just exactly how stupid am I?

 

Four weeks of Basic Bridge Bidding, four more weeks of Bridge Bidding II, and not everyone in the first class goes ahead and joins the second.

[gwnn]

Nothing is forcing, except for bids in the fourth suit, jumps to 4m and Blackwood.

 

Rik

And when is 4NT Blackwood? :) And what is it for?

[mgoetze]

And when is 4NT Blackwood? :) And what is it for?

What do you mean "for"? It's for aces of course! :P

[Trinidad]

And when is 4NT Blackwood? :)

Always.

 

We are talking about a simple default standard system to deal with reverses. My biggest problem was whether a jump to 3M would be forcing (1♦-1♠; 2♥-3♠). I guess that you can have different opinions there (influenced by the question whether you play weak jump shifts).

 

Maybe I should have said: "Nothing is forcing, except: fourth suit and jumps below and beyond game."

 

Rik

[WellSpyder]

Opening 1C with 5-5 in clubs and diamonds within a natural system because we have a 17 count would be an example of what I thought was a deliberate reverse.

Funny you should say that....

 

This hand came up in a county match yesterday:[hv=pc=n&n=sat4hdaqt32ckqj42]133|100[/hv]

I had to give a ruling on the hand after 1♣ was opened and a Ghestem 2♦ overcall was not alerted. While trying to think about how the auction might have gone with an alert, I asked the person holding this hand why he had opened 1♣. "So I could reverse into diamonds to show a strong hand." I see, I said, hopefully without any of the surprise I felt at hearing this argument used by a county (second-team) player. (He then felt a bit stuck on the next round after the apparently natural 2♦ overcall was raised to 3♦....)

[spaderaise]

Funny you should say that....

 

This hand came up in a county match yesterday:[hv=pc=n&n=sat4hdaqt32ckqj42]133|100[/hv]

I had to give a ruling on the hand after 1♣ was opened and a Ghestem 2♦ overcall was not alerted. While trying to think about how the auction might have gone with an alert, I asked the person holding this hand why he had opened 1♣. "So I could reverse into diamonds to show a strong hand." I see, I said, hopefully without any of the surprise I felt at hearing this argument used by a county (second-team) player.

 

It sounds like you (and aguahombre) disagree with his logic, but what's the problem? Is it particularly worse to put strong 5-5 hands through 1C-..-2D rather than through 1D-..-3C? Of course, the 1C-..-2D sequence becomes less well defined, but in compensation the 1D-..-3C sequence becomes better defined. Arguably this is better since it keeps the auction lower on more hands, and increases the definition of the auction that has reached the 3-level at the cost of reducing the definition of the one that has reached only the 2-level. Am I missing something obvious?

[Vampyr]

Is it particularly worse to put strong 5-5 hands through 1C-..-2D rather than through 1D-..-3C?

 

Yes, the first sequence distorts the shape. When a reverse is made the second suit is always shorter than the first one. Also, in most "normal" systems, the higher of two 5-card suits is opened (some people make exceptions at certain strengths when the two suits are the blacks).