reverses?

[boshay]

In standard american,do you need 15 0r 17 points to complete a reverse?

[hrothgar]

Traditionally, strong reverses were in favor.

As an approximate standard, the hand should be too strong to open 1NT.

 

More recently, the standards seem to have been slipping, however, a 15 count seems too weak.

 

(All this assumes that we're talking about 5-4 hands. I'm sure that its possible to construct a 6-5 15 count that's worth a reverse)

[whereagles]

I'm all for light reverses (15+H). If nothing else, it allows 1x-1y-2x to have a narrower range.

[fromageGB]

I'm all for light reverses (15+H). If nothing else, it allows 1x-1y-2x to have a narrower range.

So with a 15+ you reverse into an invented 2 or 3 card suit?

[whereagles]

fromage, I'm not sure what you're thinking of.

 

Anyway, I don't think I've ever reversed into a fake suit. Somehow, I could always find a sensible alternative.

[the hog]

fromage, I'm not sure what you're thinking of.

 

Anyway, I don't think I've ever reversed into a fake suit. Somehow, I could always find a sensible alternative.

 

Like opening 1NT?

[fromageGB]

I was thinking of a hand such as a 15/16 count 1363 shape, after a sequence 1♦ 1♠. If a reverse being a (weak) 15+ enables 1x-1y-2x to have a narrower range, I was assuming the narrower range would be something like 11-14. If that is the case, it seems to rule out a 2♦ rebid on my example hand. 2♦ seems the right rebid to me, but then I like my reverses and jumps to be 17/18+. If 2♦ is ruled out, then I guess you have to do one of two things, open 1NT, or rebid something other than 2♦. Not being familiar with a weak reverse, I would not be happy with any of the options.

[helene_t]

A fake reverse on a three card suit is what you might do with a 19 count. With a 15 count you just rebid 3c if you don't think 2c is enough

[whereagles]

Like opening 1NT?

 

No, like rebidding the 1st suit, even if it's wimpish (e.g. xxxxx).

[whereagles]

I was thinking of a hand such as a 15/16 count 1363 shape, after a sequence 1♦ 1♠. If a reverse being a (weak) 15+ enables 1x-1y-2x to have a narrower range, I was assuming the narrower range would be something like 11-14. If that is the case, it seems to rule out a 2♦ rebid on my example hand. 2♦ seems the right rebid to me, but then I like my reverses and jumps to be 17/18+. If 2♦ is ruled out, then I guess you have to do one of two things, open 1NT, or rebid something other than 2♦. Not being familiar with a weak reverse, I would not be happy with any of the options.

 

I have very strict definitions of hand types and one-suiters are to be treated as such. [One-suiter: 6+ in main suit, no other 4-card suit.]

 

12-14 H: open 1x, rebid 2x.

15-17 H: open 1x, rebid 3x.

18-20 H: open with a strong opening (acol 2, french fort indeterminé, sayc 2♣, etc.)

 

My solution for 18-20 H isn't the standard one, though...

[WGF_Flame]

I'm all for light reverses (15+H). If nothing else, it allows 1x-1y-2x to have a narrower range.

you mean hands with 54 and 15 hcp, didnt undrstand your comment before.

Edited March 10, 2014 by WGF_Flame

[whereagles]

I mean with a 5-4 and 15 hcp, I open the 5 carder and later bid the 2nd suit (reversing if necessary).

 

With a 5-4 and 11-14 hcp I open the 5 carder and rebid it (but bid 2nd suit if not reverse).

[fromageGB]

I have very strict definitions of hand types and one-suiters are to be treated as such. [One-suiter: 6+ in main suit, no other 4-card suit.]

 

12-14 H: open 1x, rebid 2x.

15-17 H: open 1x, rebid 3x.

18-20 H: open with a strong opening (acol 2, french fort indeterminé, sayc 2♣, etc.)

 

My solution for 18-20 H isn't the standard one, though...

I fully agree with the desire to split the ranges like this. This seems to be a problem for standard methods, including mine, in that say 17+ is a 3x rebid and 11-16 is the range for 2x. The latter is too wide for comfort.

[Zelandakh]

If only there was some possibility between light (15+) reverses and strong (17+) ones. Perhaps in 50 years a clever bidding theorist will come up with an alternative here.

[steve2005]

If your some sort of 5431 and 15 pts

 

if partner bids your 3 or 4 card suit you can raise.

 

if partner bids your singleton, I submit your not strong enough for reverse. So have to do something which is 11-15/12-15/11-16/12-16 depending on your style. Maybe rebidding your 5 card suit or bidding 1N if you cant bid your 4 card suit without reversing.

[mikeh]

The idea of opening 1m and reversing with all 4=5 15+ hands is silly.

 

What is happening here is that players are understandably unhappy with the wide range of 1m followed by a rebid of 2m with 11-15 hcp.

 

However, the 'solution' of reversing is very, very silly indeed. Yes, it means the 2m rebid is more tightly constrained but it achieves that result by making the range of values shown by the reverse wider!

 

Consider: in a standard-based method an opening bid of 1suit will be as weak as a great 10 count or as strong as a bad 22 count. Now, that is my range...yours may vary, and maybe you would prefer to think of 12-20 or what have you. Indeed, my range wouldn't include many 10 counts for 1m, altho I would hate to pass A10xx x AQ10xxx xx :P

 

Live with my range for a moment: choosing a slightly different one won't make a huge difference to the thought processes.

 

Let's eliminate notrump hands, either opening or rebidding, since they are easy to deal with and would never be the subject of a reverse anyway.....we'd make the very tightly defined notrump call.

 

So the hands we have to worry about are unbalanced and lack 4 card support for partner.

 

We can always raise partner's major with a minimum unbalanced hand with 3 card support, so we can ignore that.

 

We can always rebid 1♠ with 4 spades, should partner respond lower than that, so we can ignore those hands.

 

The hands we have to be concerned about are the 5431, 5440, and hands with a 6 card rebiddable suit.

 

Say we are 1=4=3=5

 

We open 1♣ and partner bids 1♠

 

Let's ignore 1N as an option for now, especially as the specific hands we are concerned with have 15+ hcp, so 1N would be an underbid/misbid in a 15-17 1N based method.

 

We have a range of 11 to 22....since the 22 will be really bad, let's call it 21.

 

If we reverse with 15, we have constrained our 2♣ call to a 4 point range...11-14. Very nice. But our 2♥ call now shows 15-21, a 7 point range!

 

It has to be forcing, since we might have 21 (or more). But partner's hand didn't get any bigger just because we lowered our requirements for the forcing bid. He may still have the 5 count he had to start with. Indeed, many players, including me, wouldn't dream of passing 1♣ with KJxxx xxx xxxx x, so he doesn't even need a 5 count. But let's assume that partner is conservative.

 

I hope we can see that responder is in a pickle. Not only may we already be too high, and getting higher, but even when he has a good hand, he can't be comfortable about where we are heading.

 

With a decent 8 count, opposite even a standard 'light' reverse, game will usually be on, and we'd definitely force. With a slightly better hand and a good fit, slam might be on. But opposite a 15 count, with no fit, a decent 8 count will usually fail in game, and a good-fitting 10 count may get too high in a minor, looking for a slam that was never there.

 

The problem is simple. When playing a standard-based method, the system should be designed so as to define opener's strength early. We have to define the good hands as well as the bad, and that means that one should try to keep the strength ranges of the first strength defining rebids as equally balanced as possible.

 

There is nothing wrong with reversing with some 15 counts. After a 1♠ response to 1♣, I will reverse with AQx Axxx x AJxxx very happily. But to go from that widely held view (even among strong reversers) to making the same 2♥ reverse with x KJxx AJx AQxxx is unplayable without major revisions as to how one moves forward over reverses, and any such method would, imo, pose problems at least as grave as those caused by the need to rebid 2 on the given hand.

 

If you really can't stomach the idea of rebidding 2♣, which admittedly is an ugly choice, then start playing a big club method, where your non-big club suit bids are limited in strength, largely obviating the problem of range showing faced by standard methods.

[hrothgar]

Personally, I just open 1NT with the 15-17 problem hands.

[Lovera]

The hands indicate are right bidding ( because equivalently in force) in Stayman system : for a minimum hand (1c (p) 1 h (p) 1s is sufficient to describe the force (called also occasionally reverse ) whilest the hands 16 -18 are stricty ruled in the system (no major 5th)

[blackshoe]

If you really can't stomach the idea of rebidding 2♣, which admittedly is an ugly choice, then start playing a big club method, where your non-big club suit bids are limited in strength, largely obviating the problem of range showing faced by standard methods.

Or Romex, where the 1suit opening is limited to about 18 by the Dynamic NT, and a reverse, as in Precision, is more shape showing than strength showing, albeit at the top of the range (about (16)17-18). In Romex, hands which would be at the top of the reverse range (19-12) in high card strength open 1NT.

[steve2005]

there are 2 ways to play reverses, I prefer the light 15/16+ method.

 

However not all even 16 pt hands are worth a reverse, have to have good suits and good controls and a partial fit with responder's suit is nice.

 

Reversing light you need a method to stop short of game.

 

 

 

[P_Marlowe]

MikeH wrote

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/18177-a-primer-on-reverse-bidding/

 

I am not sure, if he just copied his answer out of his original post, or rewrote it.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: For what's it worth, I prefer also the light reverse style, the problematic seq.

being

 

1C - 1S

2H - 2S (*)

 

(*) forcing or non forcing

[gordontd]

for a minimum hand (1c (p) 1 h (p) 1s is sufficient to describe the force (called also occasionally reverse )

This sequence is not a reverse, and it is not standard for it to be forcing (although I know some here do play it as such).

[Lovera]

On a color change to jump (forced to run) the statement at the same level by the opener of a second color of rank greater than the first (statement backhand) shows the distribution of the hand without necessarily show that the opening is 'strong (Jose' Le Dentu in Bridge a 'la une). In the statement indicated in my previous post is in fact indicated a weak hand bicolor. The false lapels occasional situation arises when a declarative obligation to bid at level 2.

[Zelandakh]

Lovera, to help you with English terminology:

 

1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ is a simple rebid of a new suit, not forcing but can be made with anything short of a game force

1♦ - 1♥ - 2♠ is a jump shift, forcing to game

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ is a reverse and shows extras

1♦ - 2♣ - 2♥ is also a reverse, this time forcing to game

 

1♥ - 1♠ - 2♣ is also simple rebid of a new suit, not forcing but can be made with anything short of a game force

1♥ - 1♠ - 3♣ is a jump shift, forcing to game

1♥ - 2♦ - 3♣ is often known as a high hat reverse and is forcing to game

[broze]

A good compromise for me is to play that 1x-1NT-2y reverses can be shaded light and that other reverses are up to strength.