Raise, rebid, or reverse?

[miamijd]

The problem with a reverse is you cannot stop at 3 diamonds---there is no trouble converting heart to spades. If you rebid 3 diamonds over 2nt(NF) then I think 2 hearts is clear. If you do not have that agreement you make your best guess. I would be aggressive at imps but that is just me.

 

If you play reverses as forcing to game, you are limiting their use too much. 3D over 2S or 2NT ought to be NF.

[miamijd]

All in all, I think it's very close between 2D and 2H. The time it matters most is when partner has a good 7 to 9 or so. If partner has 4 spades, you are better off bidding 2D, which should make easily enough. If you bid 2H, you will likely go set in 3NT. However, if partner has 5 spades, you are likely better off bidding 2H, because now 4S rates to be a good spot.

 

BY the way, for those who think 2H is a lie, it's pretty standard expert treatment in the USA that 2H on this auction may or may not show hearts.

 

In IMPs, I would take the high road with 2H. At MPs, because 4 spades is slightly more likely than 5, I think I would wimp out with 2D.

 

Cheers,

mike

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq842h63d72ck8432]133|100[/hv]

 

You are all getting too excited. Partner may well have scraped together a response. He can bid again with a decent hand. Here he can pass 2♦ and get an easy top in this room.

 

this hand is interesting and for what it's worth i'm not sure between 2h and 3d, but think 2d is an underbid.

 

but this post is just total rubbish that is one of a million hands partner could have ffs

[dsLawsd]

Very good discussion that highlights the need to have an agreement with partner. My first impression was to bid 3 Diamonds, but holding only KQx of hearts could be a problem. Bidding 2 Spades seems like an underbid but partner also knows we are playing IMPs and should make another move with an invitational hand with:

a) 5 spades; b) diamond values or length; or c)a potential double stopper in clubs.

So is your partner an overbidder or underbidder?

 

3 Diamonds or 2 Hearts aims more for 3 NT it seems when your actual

KTx of spades is not bad even in a Moysian fit.

 

With a new partner I'll stick to 2 Spades- but in a firm partnership it might depend on what a had for my last meal.

[marklaf]

One comment regarding imps---it is not frequency that determines what you should bid--but expected value--matchpoints is a game of frequency. At imps vul if you are bidding game is 40/60 you should bid it.

[gordontd]

I wonder what would be the rebid for those who have elected to reverse into 2H, if instead the major suits had been the other way around and partner's response had been 1H?

[Tramticket]

I wonder what would be the rebid for those who have elected to reverse into 2H, if instead the major suits had been the other way around and partner's response had been 1H?

 

Good question. I would rebid 2♥ on the original OP hand - but reluctantly because it is a bit under-strength. The problem is more tricky if partner responds 1♥ as you suggest.

 

I am too strong to raise to 2♥

I can't bid spades for two reasons: (i) because hearts is lower ranking I haven't got the luxury of correcting as spade raise back to hearts and (ii) a 1♥ respnse and a spade raise is consistent with 4-4 in the majors whereas a 1♠ response and a heart raise will show a five-card spade suit.

I am left with a choice between 2♦ and 3♦ when I value it as worth 2½♦. I would probably go low and raise to 2♦.

[Stephen Tu]

If the majors are reversed it is much tougher, without special gadgets. I do like in principle a 2S jump shift semi-artificial (showing values in spades, but not an actual suit) gadget that includes this sort of hand along with others, with a 1S by opener being forcing in principle, though I haven't had much success in finding partners willing to play it.

[sfi]

I wonder what would be the rebid for those who have elected to reverse into 2H, if instead the major suits had been the other way around and partner's response had been 1H?

 

Now the choices are less satisfying, and this is exactly why the Bridge World included these hands in their bidding problems for so many years. My choice would be 3D.

 

This is one of the benefits of playing something with limited openings. 2NT is no longer needed to show a strong balanced hand, so I frequently use it for these hands.

[steve2005]

We play 2♦ opening as 18-19 balanced. So a natural jump to 2NT is no longer needed.

So 1♦-1♠-2NT shows hand worth a jump to 3♦ also with 3♠

[nullve]

This is one reason I like clubs or balanced / split-range balanced systems, so 2NT is freed up to show the good 3-6 hand.

This is one of the benefits of playing something with limited openings. 2NT is no longer needed to show a strong balanced hand, so I frequently use it for these hands.

We play 2♦ opening as 18-19 balanced. So a natural jump to 2NT is no longer needed.

There's strictly no need to free up the 2N rebid in order to solve this problem. I used to play something close to

 

1♣ = NAT or 12-14 BAL (w/ transfer responses)

1♦ = NAT, never 12-14 BAL

 

with (1-under) transfer rebids by Opener over 1♣-1R(transfer), 1♦-1M and 1♥-1♠, e.g.

 

1♦-1♠; ?:

 

1N = (3)4+ C. 3 S possible only if good-MIN or GF

...2♣ = same as Pass over 1♦-1♠; 2♣ in standard except that it may contain a standard "courtesy raise" (now superfluous)

......P = MIN, 2- S

......(...)

......2♠ = good-MIN, 3 S

......(...)

...(...)

2♣ = (5)6+ D. 3 S possible only if good-MIN or GF

...2♦ = same as Pass over 1♦-1♠; 2♦ in standard

......P = MIN, 2- S

......(...)

......2♠ = good-MIN, 3 S

......(...)

...(...)

2♦ = H reverse,

2♥ = 3c S raise, either with bad-MIN or INV

...2♠ = to play opposite bad-MIN

......P = bad-MIN

......2N = 18-19 BAL, 3 S

......3♣+ = INV, 4+ C

......3♦ = INV, 6+ D

......(...)

2♠ = bad MIN, 4+ S

2N = 18-19 BAL, usually 2 S only

(...)

 

and, similarly,

 

1♣-1♥(=4+ S); ?:

 

1♠ = 5+ C. 3 S possible only if good-MIN or GF.

...1N/2♣ = replacing Pass over 1♣-1♠; 2♣ in standard

......P/2♣ = MIN, 2- S

......(...)

......2♠ = good-MIN, 3 S

......(...)

...(...)

1N = 12-14 BAL, 2-3 S

2♣ = D reverse

2♦ = H reverse

2♥ = 3c S raise, either with bad-MIN or INV

...2♠ = to play opposite bad-MIN

......P = bad-MIN

......2N = 18-19 BAL, 3 S

......3♣ = INV, 6+ C

......(...)

2♠ = bad-MIN, 4+ S

2N = 18-19 BAL, usually 2 S only

(...).

 

So the auction could go either

 

1♦-1♠

2♣-2♦

2♠ (good-MIN, 3 S)

 

or

 

1♦-1♠

2♥-2♠

3♦ (INV, 3S6+D),

 

depending on how much Opener thinks his ♠KTx ♥KQx ♦AKT9xx ♣x is worth after 1♦-1♠.

 

Super simple!

[RD350LC]

I don't really understand anyone who prefers 3d to 2H. I feel like these should be same strength range at the bottom, given that you are forcing to the same level, 2H is cheaper than 3d, if I can bid 3d NF I should be able to bid 2h than 3d NF also if partner is weak. If I have GF hand instead I can bid 2h then something else (3c) with GF, or game in spades.

 

I also don't understand what disaster will unfold by "lying" about heart length. Partner with 4+ cd hearts also has 5+ spades. As long as he has ever heard of the concept of a reverse into a fragment to solve bidding problems such as these, he won't keep correcting your correction to spades back into hearts at a higher level. If he doesn't raise hearts then there's also no problem. It's also not a lie about strength if your partner is also of the view that it's OK to make light reverses with intermediate hands like these and that you aren't waiting for GF hands to reverse.

 

It does get too high opposite a weak misfit. So 2d is going to win vs reversing some of the time. But 2d will also miss some light games that make in spades and 3nt.

Call me conservative, but I would likely bid 2♦. With 15 hcp, I do not consider it strong enough to bid 3♦, and certainly I do not have enough to reverse into 2♥. I don't like the idea of raising to 2♠ with only three card support, when I do have a viable alternative.

So I would bid 2♦.

[ahydra]

Note mikeh mentioned 3 cd reverse at the end of his article.

 

He wrote about a reverse into a minor, which is much less of a risk, and also qualified it with "I am not encouraging these fake reverses" :)

 

Honestly, there shouldn't ever be a need for opener to fake a suit. Responder might do so on the second round (3SF/4SF are very standard), but opener can always describe his strength and broad shape accurately in his first two bids.

 

ahydra

[Stephen Tu]

He wrote about a reverse into a minor, which is much less of a risk, and also qualified it with "I am not encouraging these fake reverses" :)

 

Honestly, there shouldn't ever be a need for opener to fake a suit. Responder might do so on the second round (3SF/4SF are very standard), but opener can always describe his strength and broad shape accurately in his first two bids.

 

Add the spade ace, so opener is AKx KQx AKxxxx x, and both 3d and 2d are clearly underbids. WTF are you going to do? Or AJx AKx AQJxxxx -?

 

Std bidding doesn't have a way to describe the entirety of a ~11-21 hcp range on the second round without at least some semi-artificiality.

 

Like I said before, it's only a risk vs. a beginner/int who doesn't know what they are doing. Or I suppose an advanced player with a hole in their knowledge. A hole I would want to plug if it were my partnership. Your only logical argument against the bid is that partner won't understand it when you correct back to spades. That doesn't make it a bad bid, it makes partner a bad bidder (at least in this situation). People with a limited knowledge of bidding tend to be at a disadvantage to those who have more tools in their arsenal that they fully understand and utilize. If you forgo ever reversing into a fragment, you are fighting with an arm tied behind your back on these sequences.

[Winstonm]

Add the spade ace, so opener is AKx KQx AKxxxx x, and both 3d and 2d are clearly underbids. WTF are you going to do? Or AJx AKx AQJxxxx -?

 

Std bidding doesn't have a way to describe the entirety of a ~11-21 hcp range on the second round without at least some semi-artificiality.

 

Like I said before, it's only a risk vs. a beginner/int who doesn't know what they are doing. Or I suppose an advanced player with a hole in their knowledge. A hole I would want to plug if it were my partnership. Your only logical argument against the bid is that partner won't understand it when you correct back to spades. That doesn't make it a bad bid, it makes partner a bad bidder (at least in this situation). People with a limited knowledge of bidding tend to be at a disadvantage to those who have more tools in their arsenal that they fully understand and utilize. If you forgo ever reversing into a fragment, you are fighting with an arm tied behind your back on these sequences.

 

The stronger hand is one that I would reverse into 2H, FWIW. I agree with the problem you hit upon - it is not about the rightness or wrongness of 2H but of the bidding system employed. Approach-forcing systems are not as accurate as forcing club systems. When playing something like 2/1, though, you have to make decisions on how to bid these in-between and too strong hands.

 

I don't mind the fake reverse - it is just not my favored solution.

[Stephen Tu]

The stronger hand is one that I would reverse into 2H, FWIW. I agree with the problem you hit upon - it is not about the rightness or wrongness of 2H but of the bidding system employed. Approach-forcing systems are not as accurate as forcing club systems. When playing something like 2/1, though, you have to make decisions on how to bid these in-between and too strong hands.

 

This is inconsistent with your initial objection though; you said that reversing into 3 cd major is impossible to undo, presumably because you are afraid of the hearts corrected to spades and corrected again to hearts issue. Why would this be any less of a problem with the stronger hand?

 

If you are willing to reverse with the stronger hand, then to me you *AREN'T* worried about H->S->H. So if that is not the objection, then it's really a question of how much strength you are showing with the reverse. My position is if you are waiting for the GF hands to reverse, you are underutilizing the reverse sequence. You aren't going to gain anything significant on the GF hands, and you lose substantially on the more common intermediate hands because you are forcing partner to guess whether you have spade fit. So moderate responding hands don't know whether to go on over 3d facing fit or not, also stronger hands may get to wrong game (guessing 3nt instead of rebidding a moderate 5 cd spade suit, thinking 3S should be 6 or strong 5), or miss slam because you haven't shown short clubs and the hands fit really well. For hands with 4 spades only, you also create guessing games about the heart/club stopper situation unless you are playing sophisticated gadgetry after 1d-1s-3d to sort it out (responder tries 3nt, opps run clubs, if responder bids 3h is that showing H and asking for club stop, or the other way around, or is it groping for spade fit, etc.).

 

I understand people who want to be like say a point stronger than original hand to reverse, and bid 2d only. I think it a tad conservative but whatever, it'll definitely win some of the hands where reversing is an overbid or partner pushes too high subsequently, thin 3nt fail etc. But I really just don't get the people who want to bid 3d with this hand or a point or two stronger, unless they are playing with a walrus partner who will always correct spades to hearts holding 5s/4+H. The question to you is *what set of hands do you think you get to a winning position* by bidding 3d in preference to 2H on this hand shape?

[nullve]

Like I said before, it's only a risk vs. a beginner/int who doesn't know what they are doing. Or I suppose an advanced player with a hole in their knowledge.

Opener:

 

a) AKx KQx AKxxxx x

b) A KQxx AKxxx Kxx

 

Responder:

 

Qxxxx xxx x Jxxx.

 

Good luck reaching a sensible contract in both cases!

 

(IMO the 2♥ reverse is NF opposite a sub-positive Responder (who primarily wanted to get out of 1♦), but then it's impossible to reach 4♠ with a) while stopping in 2♥ (the last playable partial?) with b).)

[Cyberyeti]

Add the spade ace, so opener is AKx KQx AKxxxx x, and both 3d and 2d are clearly underbids. WTF are you going to do? Or AJx AKx AQJxxxx -?

 

Std bidding doesn't have a way to describe the entirety of a ~11-21 hcp range on the second round without at least some semi-artificiality.

 

Like I said before, it's only a risk vs. a beginner/int who doesn't know what they are doing. Or I suppose an advanced player with a hole in their knowledge. A hole I would want to plug if it were my partnership. Your only logical argument against the bid is that partner won't understand it when you correct back to spades. That doesn't make it a bad bid, it makes partner a bad bidder (at least in this situation). People with a limited knowledge of bidding tend to be at a disadvantage to those who have more tools in their arsenal that they fully understand and utilize. If you forgo ever reversing into a fragment, you are fighting with an arm tied behind your back on these sequences.

 

We at least partially fix this in a weak NT context by playing a wide range 1N rebid and an artificial GF unbalanced 2N rebid, so a simple reverse is limited. This is much more difficult to do playing a strong NT without a mexican 2♦ or similar.

 

To Nullve, your 3 count we play in 1♦ unless rescued by opps, but our 1♦ is at least a 4 card suit.

[Stephen Tu]

Nullve, of course if one responds on sub-min there are going to be issues. If you pass allegedly forcing bids because sub-min 1st response you are going to miss game also when opener has classical reverse hands with 3451 GF shape, if you are of the 2H must be 4 school. The question is whether you try 2S and get to the 4S games that make, and go set in hopeless 2nt/3nt when partner doesn't have fit, or pass 2H which may or not make in the 4-3 (or 3-3 for those of us in the reverse school). For me I am an optimist, I will bid 2S and find my 4S games, and when I go down in 2nt/3nt hope I only lose 1-3 imps rather than 6-8 when 2H fails also. And what the hell else are you going to do playing std (not your unbal diamond system) with the first hand anyway, if you only have std bids available?

 

Of course artificial strong club or unbalanced diamond systems with a bunch of artificiality on the second round can tackle some of these corner cases better. But most people on this forum do not have that option, they are asking what's the best call in the context of a standard natural system with only the common std adv/expert treatments available. It is unrealistic to recommend they change their entire system to transfer walsh/unbalanced diamond, only a small percentage of partners tend to be willing to go down that road and if they had partners who were willing to go to such lengths they probably don't post the problem in the first place. Your system does look pretty decent, but I'd only have the opportunity to play it if I could clone myself and play with my clone. 90+% of the partners I play with have no interest in playing anything other than std natural systems with very common gadgets. It's very hard to get them to want to optimize even within that. Non-pro players generally don't have the appetite/time to devote to this. Especially since such system optimizations only have a small effect on your results anyway, since results are dominated more by just raw bidding judgment/evaluation and avoiding stupidities in card play.

 

In the context of std systems, I think allowing reverse on 3 cds is vastly superior than not allowing it. Sub-min responding hands are quite a bit less common than the stronger ones, and finding right games/slams swing more IMPS than finding the partial that is down the least. When partner is really sub-min, there is also a decent chance the opponents come into the auction somehow and the problem is avoided that way.

[Winstonm]

This is inconsistent with your initial objection though; you said that reversing into 3 cd major is impossible to undo, presumably because you are afraid of the hearts corrected to spades and corrected again to hearts issue. Why would this be any less of a problem with the stronger hand?

 

If you are willing to reverse with the stronger hand, then to me you *AREN'T* worried about H->S->H. So if that is not the objection, then it's really a question of how much strength you are showing with the reverse. My position is if you are waiting for the GF hands to reverse, you are underutilizing the reverse sequence. You aren't going to gain anything significant on the GF hands, and you lose substantially on the more common intermediate hands because you are forcing partner to guess whether you have spade fit. So moderate responding hands don't know whether to go on over 3d facing fit or not, also stronger hands may get to wrong game (guessing 3nt instead of rebidding a moderate 5 cd spade suit, thinking 3S should be 6 or strong 5), or miss slam because you haven't shown short clubs and the hands fit really well. For hands with 4 spades only, you also create guessing games about the heart/club stopper situation unless you are playing sophisticated gadgetry after 1d-1s-3d to sort it out (responder tries 3nt, opps run clubs, if responder bids 3h is that showing H and asking for club stop, or the other way around, or is it groping for spade fit, etc.).

 

I understand people who want to be like say a point stronger than original hand to reverse, and bid 2d only. I think it a tad conservative but whatever, it'll definitely win some of the hands where reversing is an overbid or partner pushes too high subsequently, thin 3nt fail etc. But I really just don't get the people who want to bid 3d with this hand or a point or two stronger, unless they are playing with a walrus partner who will always correct spades to hearts holding 5s/4+H. The question to you is *what set of hands do you think you get to a winning position* by bidding 3d in preference to 2H on this hand shape?

 

 

There is a difference between having no bid and choosing among bids. With the strong hand, you must create a force, and 3D is not forcing. So, you must invent.

 

There is nothing inconsistent with the argument that you should avoid invention unless required to do so by your inadequate system; in fact, that is the essence of my position then and now, although I can see some usefulness in an approach where reverses are more an artificial force than a suit. But if you do that, why are you playing approach-forcing in the first place?

[Stephen Tu]

There is a difference between having no bid and choosing among bids. With the strong hand, you must create a force, and 3D is not forcing. So, you must invent.

 

Your objection to the reverse previously was that it was impossible to undo, that partner would correct spades back to hearts. This is inconsistent with being willing to invent a reverse with a stronger hand. You are going to run into the exact same problem. Once you realize that your system forces you into invented 3 cd reverses when stronger, this implies that partner ought to learn not to correct spades back to hearts. So your initial argument was invalid.

 

Then once you have that, you can start to see the advantages of reversing even when you are not completely forced to either. If you have say 16 hcp and this 3361, tell me how you expect to get better results on average by bidding 3d instead of 2H. What hands do you expect to win with, to counter your losses on the 5 spade hands where us reversers are going to be more accurate on?

 

Why play natural approach-forcing? Mainly because that's what most people play. My partners play with a variety of partners and aren't willing to play a ton of artificiality in the basic opening structure. Artificial systems require a lot of time investment and agreement, and then you only get payoff in one of your partnerships for this. But most players playing natural play a crap-ton of conventional treatments on latter rounds of the auction out of necessity for accuracy. XYZ/NMF/2-way checkback, fourth suit forcing, Ingberman/blackout, Bourke relay sometimes, splinters, etc. Don't you?

 

Reverses on 3 cds are just basically a convention that you get for free, are semi-natural and that work well as long as partner doesn't go crazy and keep on pulling back to the reverse suit at higher level. They are forced by system when you aren't playing strong club type of things. So you may as well use them when available, and not just when you feel forced to do so, your results will be better on average than if you think they cause inevitable disaster and must be avoided at all costs.

[Winstonm]

Your objection to the reverse previously was that it was impossible to undo, that partner would correct spades back to hearts. This is inconsistent with being willing to invent a reverse with a stronger hand. You are going to run into the exact same problem. Once you realize that your system forces you into invented 3 cd reverses when stronger, this implies that partner ought to learn not to correct spades back to hearts. So your initial argument was invalid.

 

Then once you have that, you can start to see the advantages of reversing even when you are not completely forced to either. If you have say 16 hcp and this 3361, tell me how you expect to get better results on average by bidding 3d instead of 2H. What hands do you expect to win with, to counter your losses on the 5 spade hands where us reversers are going to be more accurate on?

 

Why play natural approach-forcing? Mainly because that's what most people play. My partners play with a variety of partners and aren't willing to play a ton of artificiality in the basic opening structure. Artificial systems require a lot of time investment and agreement, and then you only get payoff in one of your partnerships for this. But most players playing natural play a crap-ton of conventional treatments on latter rounds of the auction out of necessity for accuracy. XYZ/NMF/2-way checkback, fourth suit forcing, Ingberman/blackout, Bourke relay sometimes, splinters, etc. Don't you?

 

Reverses on 3 cds are just basically a convention that you get for free, are semi-natural and that work well as long as partner doesn't go crazy and keep on pulling back to the reverse suit at higher level. They are forced by system when you aren't playing strong club type of things. So you may as well use them when available, and not just when you feel forced to do so, your results will be better on average than if you think they cause inevitable disaster and must be avoided at all costs.

 

I know you are a fine player, so I won't insult you. This quote:

Reverses on 3 cds are just basically a convention that you get for free, are semi-natural and that work well as long as partner doesn't go crazy and keep on pulling back to the reverse suit at higher level

encapsulates the entire decision, though. Both players must be on the same page. Agreed.

 

My personal take on this situation is that approach-forcing is the so-called "natural" method, meaning it is easier to remember for most and not as complicated; however, its simplicity is also its limitation.

 

In bidding, every change you make has a ripple effect.

 

Short version: a natural bid cannot mean two different things. If the choice is that 2H may not be a 4-card suit, that is fine, but that will change the following auction: 1D-1S-2H-3H (or 4H) because now you are compelled to play a spade bid as support rather than a cue bid. That may be fine. It may be better. But whatever it is, it is different.

 

Personally, I have always liked to be able to bid 3S with KQ or Kx as a mild slam try in these auctions where partner has shown 5 spades and heart support. That may not be the best method. I've always kept myself open to change when shown a better way.

[Stephen Tu]

I know you are a fine player, so I won't insult you. My personal take on this situation is that approach-forcing is the so-called "natural" method, meaning it is easier to remember for most and not as complicated; however, its simplicity is also its limitation.

 

I have said this over and over in many threads but here goes once again - in bidding, every change you make has a ripple effect. Sure, you can reverse into a 3-card suit if you want, but you give up something in return - how much the give-up is worth is up to you - as long as you understand that the auctions mean entirely different things depending on the nature of your agreement about the reverse suit.

 

Short version: it cannot mean two different things. Choose, one or the other.

 

I'm saying you aren't losing anything in this sequence, you are still using a "natural" method, just taking advantage of the natural flow of the auction and your existing methods. 3cd reverses are forced by system on stronger hands. So you might as well use them on slightly weaker hands also and gain the benefits when partner has a 5 cd spade suit, and also identify the club weakness when he doesn't, and has diamond fit looking for 3nt instead. There's no downside I can see.

 

You claim you are giving up something in return. When are you going to win? Reversers have demonstrated hands where we win. Where is the win for your approach?

 

"Natural" partners are bidding 3 cd club suit opening bids all the damn time. Rebidding 3cd club suits after 1M-1nt forcing all the damn time.

 

Given that, why is an occasional 3 cd reverse such a departure from natural bidding that you think it such an aberration that it's incompatible with playing natural? How is keeping 2H 4 cds *HELPING* you, when you are already bidding it on 3 cds on the 19+ hands? What is the give-up?

[Stephen Tu]

If the choice is that 2H may not be a 4-card suit, that is fine, but that will change the following auction: 1D-1S-2H-3H (or 4H) because now you are compelled to play a spade bid as support rather than a cue bid. That may be fine. It may be better. But whatever it is, it is different.

 

Personally, I have always liked to be able to bid 3S with KQ or Kx as a mild slam try in these auctions where partner has shown 5 spades and heart support. That may not be the best method. I've always kept myself open to change when shown a better way.

 

OK you've finally found an example. In my view, this auction is not a problem.

1. Partner really shouldn't blast 4H if there is any slam interest opposite your maxes. I actually never bid 4H on these auctions. If partner bids 4H I think you can safely correct with the 3 cd reverse and pass with the 20/21 point 24(52/61) hands. And given that you've admitted that you bid reverse on 19ct 3361 partner really can't afford to play 4S as a cue.

 

2. On the 1d-1s-2h-3h-3s auction. You can get around trump/cue ambiguity by say using 3nt as spade cue bid, among other possibilities.

[Winstonm]

I'm saying you aren't losing anything in this sequence, you are still using a "natural" method, just taking advantage of the natural flow of the auction and your existing methods. 3cd reverses are forced by system on stronger hands. So you might as well use them on slightly weaker hands also and gain the benefits when partner has a 5 cd spade suit, and also identify the club weakness when he doesn't, and has diamond fit looking for 3nt instead. There's no downside I can see.

 

You claim you are giving up something in return. When are you going to win? Reversers have demonstrated hands where we win. Where is the win for your approach?

 

"Natural" partners are bidding 3 cd club suit opening bids all the damn time. Rebidding 3cd club suits after 1M-1nt forcing all the damn time.

 

Given that, why is an occasional 3 cd reverse such a departure from natural bidding that you think it such an aberration that it's incompatible with playing natural? How is keeping 2H 4 cds *HELPING* you, when you are already bidding it on 3 cds on the 19+ hands? What is the give-up?

 

I wrote out the auction that changes. 1D-1S-2H-3H(or 4H)-3S/4s.

 

In your method, 3S is support for spades. If the heart raises are based on real 4/4 fits, then the spade bid can be either a cue, secondary support (Ax, Kx, KQ) or patterning out to show shortness in clubs.

 

My personal taste is when partner has shown a 5-card suit, for slam purposes being able to cue filler card for his suit is of greater value than anything else.