Perhaps someone can explain to me...

[jogs]

The 'style' of inventing a suit in a three card suit has been appearing in The Bridge World 'Master Solver's Club' answers for at least 20 years. Only the 3 card suit is usually headed by the ace and lower ranking than the real suit. But what was your rush? Why didn't you just bid 3♦?

[nekthen]

S A 8 4

H A K 9

D A J 8 6 4 2

C 3

 

This is the sort of hand that can consider a 3 card reverse.

We have the strength for 3♦ but the suit is ragged.

 

1D 1S

2H 3H

3S

 

We know when p bids 3H that he has 5 spades. If our black suits are swapped we cannot reverse because 3N could be a disaster over 3H possibly we could get to 4H or 4/5D

 

That makes it borderline between 2 or 3 D

 

The other sort of hand where opener may rebid a 3 card suit is

 

S 4

H A J

D A K J 9 7 6 4

C K Q 8

 

I would open 2D multi but if that is not available and 2D is weak, you have to open 1D and after 1S 3D not strong enough and 4D by passes 3N.

Solution is to bid 3C. Again you can't do this with the hearts and clubs swapped and you would not reverse as you are way too strong so have to choose between 3 and 4 d

[helene_t]

You are entitled to assume that partner has four diamonds.

 

Reason 1: Many people never reverse on a 3-card suit. There are always alternatives (2NT rebid, opening Benji 2♣, underbidding 3♣, rebidding 4♣ assuming that it is natural)

 

Reason 2: If partner has only three diamonds he will usually be 1336 (with shortness in hearts the rebid is 3NT, without shortness he would rebid 2nt or open 2nt). So he can correct to hearts.

 

With this particular hand partner had a normal 3♣ rebid.

[blackshoe]

S 4

H A J

D A K J 9 7 6 4

C K Q 8

 

I would open 2D multi but if that is not available and 2D is weak, you have to open 1D and after 1S 3D not strong enough and 4D by passes 3N.

Solution is to bid 3C. Again you can't do this with the hearts and clubs swapped and you would not reverse as you are way too strong so have to choose between 3 and 4 d

I would open that hand 1NT (Dynamic NT, 4-5 losers, 18-21 HCP, unbalanced, or 19-20 HCP, balanced, 6 controls). Partner will probably respond 2♣ (0-5 HCP), and I will rebid 2♦, showing this hand. If I were playing Romex, that is. :P

[ahydra]

S A 8 4

H A K 9

D A J 8 6 4 2

C 3

 

This is the sort of hand that can consider a 3 card reverse.

We have the strength for 3♦ but the suit is ragged.

 

1D 1S

2H 3H

3S

 

We know when p bids 3H that he has 5 spades. If our black suits are swapped we cannot reverse because 3N could be a disaster over 3H possibly we could get to 4H or 4/5D

 

That makes it borderline between 2 or 3 D

 

The other sort of hand where opener may rebid a 3 card suit is

 

S 4

H A J

D A K J 9 7 6 4

C K Q 8

 

I would open 2D multi but if that is not available and 2D is weak, you have to open 1D and after 1S 3D not strong enough and 4D by passes 3N.

Solution is to bid 3C. Again you can't do this with the hearts and clubs swapped and you would not reverse as you are way too strong so have to choose between 3 and 4 d

 

You have to be extremely cautious about lying about the length of a major suit. Partner holding 5♠4♥ will jump to game and leave you nowhere to go (is 4S really natural rather than a cue now that hearts are agreed?). So on that first hand I would still bid 3D - the suit isn't _that_ bad and you describe the strength and shape accurately.

 

On the second hand I rebid 3NT, which we have defined as "6+ cards, a hand too strong for 1x then 3x" (but not good enough for a 2C opener). Even if you don't have that system option available, 3NT is a practical shot as most roads lead there anyway.

 

ahydra

[billw55]

I don't see any problem with 3♣ at all.

[Charlie Yu]

5D is still very bad. At least you should bid 2H/2S showing your fifth heart.

[akwoo]

I should remind everyone that, especially with an unknown partner, it's not clear that 1♣-1♥-2♦-2♥ is forcing, nor is it clear that 1♣-1♥-2♦-3♦ is forcing. Indeed, I have partnerships where they are not forcing (because partner wouldn't be able to remember that they are forcing).

 

I agree they should be forcing (or at least 3♦ should be), but…

 

Remember that Lebensohl is too complicated for most bridge players.

[barmar]

I should remind everyone that, especially with an unknown partner, it's not clear that 1♣-1♥-2♦-2♥ is forcing, nor is it clear that 1♣-1♥-2♦-3♦ is forcing. Indeed, I have partnerships where they are not forcing (because partner wouldn't be able to remember that they are forcing).

I don't think they were when I first learned.

I agree they should be forcing (or at least 3♦ should be), but…

 

Remember that Lebensohl is too complicated for most bridge players.

And lots of poor bridge players don't even understand the requirements for a reverse.

[wank]

Maybe to you. Bear in mind we were in the Acol club, and I have Acol very firmly stated on my card. We had made no agreement to play otherwise. And in Acol, unless I'm very much astray, a reverse is a reverse, a natural bid showing a strong hand and two suits. Where are the two suits in this hand????

 

no matter how much you write in bold,you're wrong.

 

acol, as any other system, involves sometimes faking a suit.

 

i think you need to tone down your posting style which tries to combine being aggressive with playing the victim.

[ahydra]

5D is still very bad. At least you should bid 2H/2S showing your fifth heart.

 

I don't think he said he bid 5D directly over 2D, just that 5D was the final contract. I like a 2S bid (4SF) here.

 

ahydra

[blackshoe]

Remember that Lebensohl is too complicated for most bridge players.

Bridge is too complicated for most bridge players. B-)

[blackshoe]

no matter how much you write in bold,you're wrong.

Don't agree with this.

 

acol, as any other system, involves sometimes faking a suit.

Do agree with this.

 

A reverse is a bidding sequence that reverses the normal order of bidding, which is to bid the higher ranking suit first. In that sense, a reverse is indeed a reverse. By implication, the lower ranking suit should be longer than the higher ranking (if the higher ranking were longer, there would be no need to reverse). Also by implication from the agreement that the second bid suit is natural, it should have four cards. By implication from the fact that responder will be forced to the three level to give simple preference to opener's first suit, the reverse should contain extra values (unless, for example, responder's first bid was forcing to game). However, these implications must sometimes give way when opener does not have the perfect hand. So a reverse on a 3 card second suit is certainly acceptable. Keep in mind that the implications are what the bid shows, not what it promises. A partnership agreement cannot promise, lest the hand become unbiddable.

[nullve]

Keep in mind that the implications are what the bid shows, not what it promises. A partnership agreement cannot promise, lest the hand become unbiddable.

Reduced Stayman:

 

1N-2♣; ?:

 

2♥: shows, but does not promise, 4+ H

2♠: shows, but does not promise, 4+ S

other (incl. 2♦): not allowed / end of partnership

 

Less ridiculous, perhaps:

 

1♥(5+ H)-1N(F1); ?:

 

2♣: shows, but does not promise, 4+ C

2♦: shows, but does not promise 4+ D

Edited March 25, 2016 by nullve

[barmar]

Some cases are obviously more likely to be close to promises, because there's unlikely to be a need to lie. I can't imagine ever responding falsely to Stayman, there are no "problem hands" where none of the normal replies are a good fit.

 

I don't quite agree with your forcing NT example, though. Responding 2minor shows 3+ in the suit, not 4+ (responder shouldn't consider raising with less than 5). Sometimes you have to lie and bid 2♣ with only 2, because you have a weak 4=5=2=2 hand.

[nullve]

Responding 2minor shows 3+ in the suit, not 4+ (responder shouldn't consider raising with less than 5). Sometimes you have to lie and bid 2♣ with only 2, because you have a weak 4=5=2=2 hand.

So

 

1♥(5+ H)-1N(F1); ?

 

2♣: shows, but does not promise, 3+ C

 

I think we could do without the show/promise distinction by describing bids more carefully, though.

[barmar]

I think we could do without the show/promise distinction by describing bids more carefully, though.

Sure, but that might not be as useful if the exceptions are rare.

[nullve]

Sure, but that might not be as useful if the exceptions are rare.

Agree.

[TheoKole]

I'm baffled. Perhaps I just don't know enough. This was in the BBO Acol club and I thought my partner was reversing:

[hv=pc=n&s=skqhaj743dkt53c94&n=sj9hkdqj7cakqt853&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1cp1hp2dp]266|200[/hv]

Anyway, liking partner's (presumed) diamonds and (presumed) lots of points, a lot, I thought "slam" but eventually landed us in 5♦.

 

After the fiasco (3 down), I was about to ask partner what 2♦ was all about, but he/she scarpered before I got a chance.

 

Perhaps it's me. Not the first time something like this has happened. Perhaps I'm not up to this game, and others are taking it out on me... :( Should I quit?

 

 

No, you should not quit the game if you enjoy it.

 

As others have said previously it is very difficult to manufacture a 1 suit forcing bid in ACOL, especially when the suit is in a minor. That being said your partner has nowhere near the requirements for a forcing bid and had a 3 ♣ rebid at the time that he bid 2 ♦. My feeling is that he had spent very little or no time thinking about these types of hands and the problem they can create in the bidding and rebidding. In any case in the second round of bidding he had no idea how strong you were and should have rebid his hand and not projected specific cards into your hand that would complement his own. At the time of his rebid you had promised at least 6 points in playing strength and that is it. If he had rebid 3 ♣ you could reevaluate your hand with the strength you actually had and compare it to what you had promised in your first bid.

 

You would also have known that your partner didn't have a second suit or else he would have had a different rebid, another suit or NT or even opening NT with a bit offshape. He basically lied to you in his playing strength and in his shape so it is understandable that you insisted on ♦ as the trump suit with your hand shape.

 

I would have much more sympathy with your partner if the K ♥ and J ♠ points where in ♦, even with the same card points and hand shape as in AQJ ♦. Notice that the playing strength of his hand goes up astronomically in this case.

 

Good luck