Enough For Reverse?

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt8hkqt95d8ckjt&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1hp2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

so have I got enough to reverse into spades here. I know it's only 14 count but:

 

- likely fit in clubs

- intermediates pretty much the best they can be

- singleton diamond.

 

I decided the 14 count was more like 16 and bid 2 spades but think I should maybe be more disciplined!

 

Thanks,

 

Eagles

[PhilKing]

Good evaluation.

 

It's not gilt-edged in Acol, since partner may have nine points, but it will work well most of the time even when pard is minimum.

[wank]

what you did was fine and showed good judgment. reverses opposite 2 level responses are often shaded a trifle anyway - knowing partner has significant values obviously changes things.

[TylerE]

I don't really like the reverse here. When you start cheating on your reverses, it can have a knock-on effect to all your strong auctions. You don't want a little voice in the back of partner's head going "Is he really strong this time?"

[Zelandakh]

I think system is relevant here. If you are playing traditional Acol then 1♥ - 2♣; 2♥ is not forcing and unlikely to be a good landing, so there is some pressure to make a game force right here. That said, if we are really traditional then 2♣ might be 8 hcp so it really depends on just how traditional and how much partner needs to keep the bidding open. Playing a more modern Acol version where 2♣ promises a rebid or is forcing to 2NT, I would want to avoid reversing, knowing that I can still force to game later without overstating my values. Similarly for SA. Finally, if the 2/1 is GF then the reverse does not promise extra values (unless you agreed to the style where it does) so the reverse is clear.

[TylerE]

. Finally, if the 2/1 is GF then the reverse does not promise extra values (unless you agreed to the style where it does) so the reverse is clear.

 

This should show extras, even in a 2/1 context, as this is a suit partner "can't" have. This is different from an auction like 1♣-1♠-2♥, where responder may well have hearts.

[broze]

This should show extras, even in a 2/1 context, as this is a suit partner "can't" have.

 

This is just plain wrong and has been discussed countless times on these fora. In fact in my partnership responder *never* responds 1S to 1H with a GF hand with exactly 4 spades - we always make a 2/1 - and I would go so far to say that this is now 'expert standard' whatever that means.

[helene_t]

reverses opposite 2 level responses are often shaded a trifle anyway - knowing partner has significant values obviously changes things.

Yes I agree that it's oke to force to game once you know partner has at least a decent 9-count. This hand is probably worth about 15.5 points. Opposite a 1-level response you need more for reversing IMHO.

[Zelandakh]

Why is it that Responder cannot have 5+ clubs and 4 spades? Many on these forums also prefer to respond 2♣ with 4-4 in the black suits too. I do not play 2/1 but it is clear that the majority style is for the auction 1♥ - 2m; 2♠ merely to be showing shape and not showing extras. The alternative style is also prefectly playable of course.

[Cyberyeti]

In an Acol context it's an aggressive action, but one that will often work well. You know what your partnership 2/1s with and what they pass 1♥-2♣-2♥ with, the key question is do you want to be in game opposite hands that will pass 2♥ more often than you'll be in a non making game if you make a FG bid now ? I would reverse, my partner might not.

 

Partner should not pass 2♥ if he has 4 spades.

 

A good maxim for acol players is with 4♠/5+♣, if you're going to pass 1♥-2♣-2♥ then bid 1♠ instead of 2♣ so partner doesn't have to press, but here the club fit indicates that pressing is probably right.

[neilkaz]

I'd clearly reverse here as you have tremendous playing strength after pd bids 2♣.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd clearly reverse here as you have tremendous playing strength after pd bids 2♣.

 

You may have, it's a judgment call, not so good opposite Qxx, xx, Qxxx, AQxx which is a fairly clear 2♣ in Acol for most people.

[steve2005]

This should show extras, even in a 2/1 context, as this is a suit partner "can't" have. This is different from an auction like 1♣-1♠-2♥, where responder may well have hearts.

In Lawrence style 2/1 reverse promises extra values, but that's just 14+ pts not what would commonly be called reversing values.

Even ACOL clear reverse, you have a singleton with 3♣ so your hand really worth 16-17 pts and want to GF

 

and partner can easily have 5♣4♠ 11+ pts so ♠ suit in play

[the hog]

snipped

Finally, if the 2/1 is GF then the reverse does not promise extra values (unless you agreed to the style where it does) so the reverse is clear.

 

This is topsy turvy. In fact the reverse of course promises extras unless you have agreed to the style where it does not so the reverse is an overbid.

[CamHenry]

In response to the OP: I think 2♠ is the best call here. You're minimum for it, but it's a good bid.

[ahydra]

I play my 2/1 as 10+ (enough to GF opposite a balanced 15), but 1H-2C-2H is still passable. Reverses opposite a 2/1 are 15+ creating a GF.

 

Here the OP has rightly evaluated his hand as being worth more than 14 points, so I would happily bid 2S. Those club cards are great.

 

For those of you who are still playing traditional Acol with 8+ 2/1's, I urge you to drop them in favour of the modern 10+ style. The benefits of having the unambiguous GF sequences that result (1x-2y-2z reverse, 1x-2y-2NT) can't be overstated.

 

ahydra

[billw55]

My concern with 2♠ is that it loudly points out the diamond lead should we want to play in 3NT. If north is a player who will not have four spades, is it worth choosing something else - say, a 3♣ raise - to avoid giving this information?

[PhilKing]

My concern with 2♠ is that it loudly points out the diamond lead should we want to play in 3NT. If north is a player who will not have four spades, is it worth choosing something else - say, a 3♣ raise - to avoid giving this information?

 

3♣ has the same flaw as 2♥ - it is non-forcing in Acol. Partner will not be amused to wrap up twelve tricks with ♠xx ♥Ax ♦Jxx ♣Axxxxx.

 

As to the tactic of not describing shapely hands and hoping they find a bad lead as a result, I would not recommend it as a winning tactic.

[billw55]

3♣ has the same flaw as 2♥ - it is non-forcing in Acol. Partner will not be amused to wrap up twelve tricks with ♠xx ♥Ax ♦Jxx ♣Axxxxx.

 

As to the tactic of not describing shapely hands and hoping they find a bad lead as a result, I would not recommend it as a winning tactic.

lol, I'm just a silly American who doesn't know acol.

 

But I don't think I would call leading (say) an unbid major with four to an honor bad, even if it doesn't work on a particular deal.