reverse bids obsolete

[MickyB]

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).

 

This doesn't feel like an answer to the question asked. If you agree that 1C then 2D can be 5-5, then bidding this way isn't distorting the shape of the hand.

 

Spaderaise -

 

1D then 3C is GF. If partner responds 1H, the hand that WellSpyder gave isn't worth 3C, it is a mere 2C bid. If partner passes, we'll occasionally miss a game, but more likely is that we've done well to stop low. If partner gives preference to 2D, then I'll bid 3C, natural and invitational, 5-5. Now I've described my hand perfectly at a lower level than I ever could by reversing.

 

You could argue that 5-5 GFs should bid 1C..2D...3D or so, rather than 1D...3C which could be 5-4 [or, for some, 6-3], but that would be ignoring contested auctions. For example, 1C-4H-P-P; I want 4NT now to show clubs with a shorter diamond suit, I don't want it to potentially be 5-5. After 1D-4S-P-P, I have 4NT to show D+C, 6-4 or so, and 5C to show 5-5 or 6-5.

 

Regardless of the strength of the hand, reversing is never something you are ecstatic to be doing - hence my veiled brag earlier in this thread about having eliminated all reverses from my system B-)

[TylerE]

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).

 

The more I play the less I understand this. 1♣-Banana-2♦ containing an extra ♦ maybe 10% of the time is worth being almost a full level lower 100% of the time.

[aguahombre]

It is not helpful to compare a distorted reverse to a jump shift and decide the extra room is valuable. Reverses can be less than game-forcing. The example WellSpyder provided above is not worth a game-forcing jump-shift anyway; 1 higher, then 2 of a lower is wide ranging; but there is no real need to give up the value of showing longer in the first suit to manuafacture a reverse and cut down the range.

[q0987]

There are obviously some misunderstandings here. First of all, "reverse bid" is not the name of a convention. It is simply the technical name for what you are doing when you rebid at the 2-level in a higher suit than the one you opened in. Some examples:

 

1♥-1NT-2♦: This is not a reverse

1♦-1NT-2♥: This is a reverse

1♥-1NT-3♦: This is not a reverse, it's a jump shift.

 

Now, what is so special about the reverse bid? Well, let's see what happens when responder shows preference for opener's first suit:

 

1♥-1NT-2♦-2♥: Everything is wonderful

1♦-1NT-2♥-3♦: Oops, we're at the 3-level

 

This simple bit of bridge logic is the primary reason why reverse bids require extra strength. It's not just something people thought up as a fancy convention. If you bid 1♦-1NT-2♥ on 12 HCP, you will get into a lot of trouble. There are also a lot of other reasons why this would be a bad idea (notably, you will have a lot of trouble bidding the hands which do have extra strength properly).

 

 

"New suits forcing" was surely one of the great inventions of the early 20th century. Having e.g. 1♥-1♠ be forcing laid the foundation for modern bidding systems. Extending this to bids such as 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣ did wonders for bidding accuracy.

 

That said, the concept has been known for a long time, yet no serious player plays 1♥-1NT-2♦ (in the context of a natural system) as forcing. Why not? Well, because you could very well be in the highest makeable contract already! If opener has 12 HCP and responder has 6 HCP, being at the 2 level is plenty high already. And if you have a 5-1 heart fit and a 4-4 diamond fit, do you really want to be forced to play in hearts?

 

 

This is not common practice anywhere. You have been thoroughly misinformed.

 

 

Thanks I had forgotten a lot about reverses and this helped. Very well written!