Reverse

[P_Marlowe]

<duplicate>

[Trinidad]

What's a typical minimum unbalanced 1♣ opening bid in your style?

11: ♠7♥KJ76♦Q86♣AJ982

The range of the 1♣-1♠-2♣ rebid seems uncomfortably wide.

11-15, bad 16.

By the way, Opener's rebid problem on this type of hand is one of the advantages of playing weak NT openings. Now you have an easy 1NT rebid (15-17) after 1C-1♠.

Rebidding 1NT to show a balanced 15-17 is just as bad as opening 1NT to show a balanced 15-17. The hand is not balanced, not even semibalanced. You do not have the spade support you promised.

 

The only advantage that the weak NT gives is that in this sequence you have already shown "where you live" (clubs). But what you win here, you lose when you move a king from one hand to the other.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

#1 after the reverse, I am investigating slam, I have a fit, I tell partner,

hence 3c, assuming this to be GF

 

#2 I would not make the reverse with the hand, but it is close.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

This interests me. I mentioned that while I would bid 3♠ I would be worried about the possibility that the proper slam is in clubs, not spades and that it would be difficult to find this after the 3♠ call.

 

When I have five spades, three clubs, and values, I like to bid 3♣ with the understanding that this does not preclude playing in spades. If partner has 3=4=1=5 shape he can call 3♠ over my 3♣.. The spades just seemed too good here to pass up, but I considered 3♣.

 

Further note on the subject:

Imo, mikeh has done the I/A community a service with his pinned post: A primer on reverse bidding. A regular partnership might, or might not, want to adjust some of the suggestions but I recommend that casual partnerships would do well to simply agree "We will play it Mike's way". As this thread shows, various people have various ideas and the result is chaos and mis-understandings. A good system that both have read and agreed to is far better than two systems, however good they might be, with one playing one of the systems and the other playing the other.

[straube]

I think you should tell partner where you live (3S) and not bid 3C. You have AQJTxx of spades and xxx of clubs. Partner will never understand the nature of your hand if you show a fit right away. You may easily wind up in the wrong trump fit. Say partner has K AKQx xxx AQxxx. If you bid 3S, you can support clubs later.

[ggwhiz]

Assume short spades and long clubs in openers hand (and actually owning a reverse which they don't) 3♠ has a lot of merit but makes it tough to get to a club slam.

 

2♠ leaves more room if you have your continuations worked out ie. partner bids 2nt with 2-4-2-5, shows a 6th club or a 1-4-3-5 (or thereabouts) by bidding 3♦. The apple pie win is if pard has something like a 0-4-2-7 hand.

 

Speaking of continuations the reverser not promising another call is NOT! playable.

[Cyberyeti]

Rebidding 1NT to show a balanced 15-17 is just as bad as opening 1NT to show a balanced 15-17. The hand is not balanced, not even semibalanced. You do not have the spade support you promised.

 

The only advantage that the weak NT gives is that in this sequence you have already shown "where you live" (clubs). But what you win here, you lose when you move a king from one hand to the other.

 

Rik

 

 

This is just wrong, opening a strong NT on this can lead to a monumentally stupid result opposite say xxxx, QJ10x, Qx, Qxx where you might not even make 1N with 4♥ playable, in the weak NT context, you know partner has length opposite your shortage and your singleton is the K, which is as good as xx opposite a lot of combinations.

 

I assume you're moving the K from the "1N" hand, now this is an easy 2♣ rebid.

[caddis]

Depends on partnership agreements following reverse to 2H. Is 2S forcing? if not are you using Ingberman 2nt for a weak sign off hand? 3S is forcing but denies a diamond stopper with extra spades.suggest using ingbeman 2nt. Without consideration of background agreements, I would bid ant--it shows stops in the diamonds and spades with the values for ant and enough transportation between the hands to not make shortness in diamonds a real problem. There may be wasted values in both hands so 4S needs to be considered over anuy rebid.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps 3D! ( 4th suit ) could be "telling" about 5 cards ♠ as straube suggested ( post # 17 ) .

I think this works best within a transfer advance scheme. For example:

 

1♣ - 1♠; 2♥

==

2♠ = nat, NF

2NT = clubs

3♣ = 5 spades

3♦ = hearts

3♥ = 6+ spades with diamond stop

3♠ = 6+ spades without diamond stop

3NT = to play

 

Even here you are struggling for space a little bit with 5 spades and it may be better to farm out some of the hands with 5 spades to 2NT. If all of the hands with 5 spades had to rebid 3♦ then I think you would run into difficulties often. I would prefer to keep 2♠ forcing in that case. Similarly for your earlier idea of using 3♠ for GF and 2NT->3♠ invitational. I think we can do away with invites here and it would be better to use 3♠ to show 6+ spades without a stop in the fourth suit and 2NT->3♠ to show 6+ spades with the stop. We have had several examples on BBF where knowledge of a stopper after Responder bids 3♠ in a reverse auction is a key piece of information.

[fromageGB]

1) 3♣ transfer to ♦

2) no

 

Assuming opener had a real reverse, I'd be quite excited by my hand. As Zel says, showing stops while you are still below 3NT is a good idea, so playing simple transfers after a reverse (2♠ natural forcing, 2NT and higher are transfers) I show my stop and then rebid 3♠ to emphasise the suit and lack of prime support. Over to partner.

 

As to the West hand, I think if you have an unbalanced opener you should use it. For me it is a 1♦ open (shortage outside diamonds guaranteed if it is not a 6 card diamond suit) and then a 2NT rebid over a simple natural 1♠ response. This would show the shape (3-suited with singleton or void spade) and strength (17/18) of the hand.

[rmnka447]

1 - I'm another 3 ♠ bidder with this hand.

 

2 - No, it's not a reverse.

[mcphee]

A 2S re-bid after the reverse simply shows 5 or more S and a hand that is not suitable for another bid. This can mean responder is weak, or has game values but is unable to show support. A direct raise of either suit from the opening hand becomes a game force. Jumping to 3S for the most part is impractical, robbing your side from gaining what might be valuable information.

 

The hand does not meet the requirements for a reverse. Once this player elected to open 1C they have to rebid 1NT understating their values, or 2C which for most indicates 6 clubs. Perhaps opening 1NT would have solved the problems and was the best lie.

[kenberg]

I don't want to get bent out of shape over phrasing but I think opener's hand type is common enough to make how to handle it a "choice" instead of a "lie". I have had partners who insist that rebidding clubs absolutely promises 6, that reversing absolutely promises more strength than this, and that opening 1NT absolutely cannot be done with a stiff, or at least not with a stiff in the majors. What am I to do when I hold this hand, get up and leave the tournament?

 

Me, I decided long ago that I open 1♣ and rebid 2♣. I don't insist that this is right and I am happy to hear other views. But for me, a "lie" is something you do with a hand that is sufficiently unusual that only regular and expert pairs would ever have considered how to handle it. The sort of hand opener has here is hardly that odd.

 

Repeating, I don't mean to harp on the choice of words, but I would like to hear how others handle this situation.. Surely we have all encountered it, the hand just isn't that rare. Starting thought: If I open 1NT and partner transfers to spades and drops me, producing a dummy with maybe six points and a five card spade suit such as J9742 this will probably not go well. If, instead, I open 1♣ and rebid my clubs I might still be in a 5-1 fit but at least I have a decent suit. Also, auctions don't shut down at 2♣ nearly as often as they shut down at 2♠. If partner, with his stiff club, is 5/4 in the majors he can bid 2♥ if weak or 2♦ artificial if he is strong.

 

I truly don't know what is best, I do know what I do. I open 1♣ and, over 1♠, I rebid 2♣.

[aguahombre]

Back to Wank's post at the very beginning. For me the choice of opening bid is all about my next rebid. The 1NT opening bid is easy...easy on me.

 

All rebids are flawed, and the opening 1NT is flawed. But my torture is over with early.

[fromageGB]

Repeating, I don't mean to harp on the choice of words, but I would like to hear how others handle this situation..

Playing with a partner with normal minor openings, I open 1♣ and over 1♠ rebid 1NT. This is no lie, because if you have no agreements on balanced or unbalanced openings and rebids, but have agreed that you do not open 1NT with a shortage, then by rebidding 1NT you are not excluding a 1NT opening strength when you do have a shortage.

 

The wide range is unfortunate, but a 2♣ rebid would have an equally wide range, and 1NT is a better description of the hand, in my view.

[Vampyr]

Playing with a partner with normal minor openings, I open 1♣ and over 1♠ rebid 1NT. This is no lie, because if you have no agreements on balanced or unbalanced openings and rebids, but have agreed that you do not open 1NT with a shortage, then by rebidding 1NT you are not excluding a 1NT opening strength when you do have a shortage.

 

The wide range is unfortunate, but a 2♣ rebid would have an equally wide range, and 1NT is a better description of the hand, in my view.

 

I think that wide-ranging 1NT rebids will cause more problems than they solve. For instance, after opener rebids 1NT, responder will not know whether she has an invitational hand or not, and there is the potential to end up in, eg, an uncomfortable 2NT with 12 opposite 8.

[fromageGB]

I think that wide-ranging 1NT rebids will cause more problems than they solve. For instance, after opener rebids 1NT, responder will not know whether she has an invitational hand or not, and there is the potential to end up in, eg, an uncomfortable 2NT with 12 opposite 8.

If you agree that rebidding 2♣ could also have the same range, then this has exactly the same problem.

Opening 1NT with a shortage solves the strength problem, but not many have this agreement. Or they don't disclose it.

[kenberg]

Here is a frequent problem for responder:

 

The other day it went 1♣-1♠-1NT. I have five spades and modest values. Partner might have raised my spades with 3, but with a flat hand he might not. I passed. Well, pard had 3. In this case 1NT made, and 2♠ would hae also made, so no problem. But still, I frequently have to decide, without all that much to go on.

 

After 1♣-1♠-2♣ I am far more confident that partner does not have three spades. Yes, he might, but usually he will not.

 

It is true that there is still the issue of strength, but if I, the responder, look at my hand and figure that we do not have a spade fit and game in clubs requires 11 tricks, I will often get it right.. Sometimes partner will hae more in clubs than I expect and, had I only known, we would end in 3NT. This doesn't seem to happen all that often.