Reversing without extra values

[NickRW]

Acol-twos are pretty low frequency; what if you lower the requirements a lot, so that most reversing hands will be opened 2x?

 

I've played an Acol like system which had a sort of Benji/Multi fusion going on with very aggressive use of 'strong' twos. Reverses and jump rebids, though not often passed, were non forcing. They were, however, highly encouraging and did show extras compared to a min opening.

 

I thought it was highly playable at MPs, but used too much space too quickly to be contemplated as a serious IMP system. (But, it has to be said, I tend to view straight Acol itself in a similar light).

 

Nick

[PeterAlan]

The long-term goal in this partnership is to achieve a reliable 55% in a weak club field, or 50% in a decent club field.

If this is your goal, worrying about reverses should not be your problem. My regular partner and I have always played a simple shape-showing style without worrying about extra values for reverses, and it's very far from being a big problem. We've easily met your goals, and more. So much so that, after 8 years of playing that way, it's also very far from being our priority for what we need to work on - we lose far more through bad judgment, and easily avoidable play and defensive mistakes, than we do through reverses that don't have extras.

 

We play it very much like what I believe Andrew Robson teaches his beginners. If you open all balanced 12-14 with 1NT, whether the 5 in 5-3-3-2 is a major or not, and bid your 5-4s in shape order, then you get quite a bit of extra shape definition that provides a lot of compensation: in particular, a re-bid of the opening suit on the next round always has 6 cards, and we've found this very helpful. And if you're playing pairs, being a little too high at the 3 level in a minor is quite often a place where you're happy to be.

 

I haven't much to add about the strong 2-suiters - we play a fairly standard Benji, with 2NT 21-22, and a wide-range (15-18) 1NT rebid. We'll open 1x with a strong 2-suiter that's unsuitable for either a Benji 2C/D or a 2NT opening, and decide on the re-bid after partner's response (for us, responder's 2-over-1 is Rule of 14). With your strong 2 openings, I imagine you can do much the same - just be prepared to open 1x rather than 2x when in doubt about 2-suiters, and look to catch up later - this is better than starting out too high on a misfit.

 

My suggestion? Just do it, keep it simple if that suits your partnership, and enjoy the game. The system itself won't be your largest problem.

[hrothgar]

Better start learning to read those hitches if you want to average 55% ;-)

[32519]

I'm looking for a simple, mostly natural, treatment that enables better handling of strong 2-suiters. We play our 2-level openings (except 2♣) as natural, strong but non-forcing. What would people suggest?

Your thread title says this is an Acol based system. So what exactly is the issue here? This is an extract from the Acol document on the English Bridge Union website.

 

Responding in a new suit

"A response at the one level promises at least 6 HCP, at the two level at least 9 HCP. There is no upper limit in either case. Opener must bid again (unless, exceptionally, responder has already passed). Simple new suit responses show 4+ cards except 1S 2H which guarantees a 5-card heart suit."

 

If responder has bypassed your 4-card major, to bid on the 2-level, what do you gain by showing it now? Won’t you gain more by showing that your first bid was a 5-card suit by rebidding it? The cheapest NT rebid will mis-describe your hand, both in shape and HCP. If you end up playing in a 5-2 fit, it's no train smash. Allow responder to describe her hand further.

[Vampyr]

If responder has bypassed your 4-card major, to bid on the 2-level, what do you gain by showing it now?

 

Responder may have 4 in that major, but had a longer suit and the values to bid at the 2-level.

[helene_t]

I don't think a reverse should be forcing if it can be made on 11 points opposite 6. With preference for the second suit, the simple raise gets too wide a range if pass is not an option. 2NT gets too wide a range as well.

 

How have you defined a reverse? I used to define it as bidding the higher suit last but that sounds ad hoc and some beginners think that

1♦-1♥

1♠

is a reverse, while

1♠-2♥

3♣

isn't (although the latter may fall under a "new suit at the three-level clause).

 

Defining it as the first bid that bypasses the "barriere" (two of the first bid suit) makes more sense and is simpler. If you play Dutch Acol it doesn't work since it would make

1♥-2♣

2NT

a reverse, but in a weak-notrump system it is fine.