Your bid?

[Poky]

Expert partner, 2/1 agreed.

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=skxhq9xdakqxxcjxx]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♥ 2♦

2♠ 3♥

4♥ ???[/hv]

What do you expect from your partner?

[whereagles]

It would be nice to know if 1H-2D-2S shows extras. But in any case I think I try 4S. Surely pard must realize I have a club problem.

[mike777]

P

 

Expect first Unanimous poll

 

QJXX

AKXXX

X

XXX

[luis]

Pass this should be universal.

Pd has something like:

 

AQxx

AKxxx

xx

xx

 

Or something like that.

He doesn't have a club control and he is not interested in slam, he could have bid 3NT with slam interest and lacking the club control.

[P_Marlowe]

This is not an 2/1 problem.

 

Playing Serious 3NT or not, but especially if playing,

partner denied a club control, I dont have one, so

that's it.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mcphee]

Pass, I fail to see the problem

[inquiry]

Pass... I expect no club control (ace or king) and no slam ambition. Yes, I heard the "reverse", but even if I play the reverse shows extra values after 2/1, he had a chance to cue-bid 3S and/or 4C. His failure to do so is definative (not to mention use serious 3NT).

 

I expect him to have something akin to ...

 

S-QJxx

H-AKJxx

D-x

C-QTx

 

I hope they can't cash two clubs, ruff a club and the ace of spades to beat me in 4♥.

[Double !]

I'll tell you what I don't expect from partner: a club control.

 

DHL

[luke warm]

i so much want to bid something other than pass, just to be contrary :) but i can't... partner *had* to make a move via a club cue if he had a control... he didn't, dass all folx

[Fluffy]

partner has 4513 with everything concentrated in ♠ and ♣, something like:

 

♠AQJx

♥Axxxx

♦x

♣KQx

[Guest Jlall]

agree easy pass.

[the hog]

Fluffy's hand is the only one posted that comes close to describing opener's stength. These 10-13 hands that some posted are not consistent with the reverse.

 

However, partner has denied a C control and has also technically denied both a S control - failure to bid 3S - and substantial extra reversing values - failure to bid serious 3NT. Taking all of that into account, his bidding does not really make sense; how can he have 15+ points and all of the above?

 

QJxx

AKJxx

x

QJx

 

This is NOT a reverse!

[mike777]

Fluffy's hand is the only one posted that comes close to describing opener's stength. These 10-13 hands that some posted are not consistent with the reverse.

 

However, partner has denied a C control and has also technically denied both a S control - failure to bid 3S - and substantial extra reversing values - failure to bid serious 3NT. Taking all of that into account, his bidding does not really make sense; how can he have 15+ points and all of the above?

 

QJxx

AKJxx

x

QJx

 

This is NOT a reverse!

I have written about reverses many times but here it is again;

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, 6th Edition, page 386.

 

"Reverse. An unforced rebid at the level of two or more in a higher ranking suit than that bid originally-usually a strength-showing bid"

 

Note the word usually not always!

 

"There has been a change of thinking concerning reverses when the Two-Over-One forcing to game system is used. 1H=2C=2S Since the Two-level response to the opening bid already created a situation that called for reaching game under most circumstances, some play that the reverse by opener does not necessarily show any additional strength beyond the opening bid."

 

Posters continue to confuse what a reverse is with a strength showing bid, they are not the same. In plain english a reverse does not promise strength. That is matter of partnership agreement not definition.

[the hog]

Quote Mike777

 

"Reverse. An unforced rebid at the level of two or more in a higher ranking suit than that bid originally-usually a strength-showing bid"

 

Note the word usually not always!

 

"There has been a change of thinking concerning reverses when the Two-Over-One forcing to game system is used. 1H=2C=2S Since the Two-level response to the opening bid already created a situation that called for reaching game under most circumstances, some play that the reverse by opener does not necessarily show any additional strength beyond the opening bid."

 

Posters continue to confuse what a reverse is with a strength showing bid, they are not the same. In plain english a reverse does not promise strength. That is matter of partnership agreement not definition. "

 

Mike,

I have also written many times on reverses, and I well know this aspect of bidding theory. The fact of the matter however, is that a very large number of 2/1 players regard reverses as showing extra strength. Personally I cannot understand how you can bid sensibly if it does not show extra strength. Yes, those players who just bid their shape still get to slams on strength, but generally it is with a lot of hesitations and pauses and UI.

 

Hardy's style is not conducive to sensible bidding imo. Lawrence who also advocates a largely 2/1 system, has reverses showing extra strength - this has been posted MANY times. Washington standard and Eastern Scientific also advocate extra strength.

 

Posters continue to confuse what a reverse is with a strength showing bid, they are not the same. In plain english a reverse DOES promise strength. If it does NOT, that is matter of partnership agreement.

 

Interestingly when I have played 2/1 online, I have found that it is generally the stronger players who play that reverses show extra strength. I do think that Poky said he was playing with an expert....

[awm]

Mike,

I have also written many times on reverses, and I well know this aspect of bidding theory. The fact of the matter however, is that a very large number of 2/1 players regard reverses as showing extra strength. Personally I cannot understand how you can bid sensibly if it does not show extra strength. Yes, those players who just bid their shape still get to slams on strength, but generally it is with a lot of hesitations and pauses and UI.

 

Hardy's style is not conducive to sensible bidding imo. Lawrence who also advocates a largely 2/1 system, has reverses showing extra strength - this has been posted MANY times. Washington standard and Eastern Scientific also advocate extra strength.

 

Posters continue to confuse what a reverse is with a strength showing bid, they are not the same. In plain english a reverse DOES promise strength. If it does NOT, that is matter of partnership agreement.

 

Interestingly when I have played 2/1 online, I have found that it is generally the stronger players who play that reverses show extra strength. I do think that Poky said he was playing with an expert....

Oh come on, this is taking things a bit far.

 

A substantial number of players use reverses showing extras, or not showing extras. It's a matter of style and you can play what you want. This suggestion that Max Hardy (and those who use his style of 2/1) are not playing bridge is way out of line.

 

As for ethics, I have certainly noticed players who use reverses to show extras, who rebid their major in tempo when they have a six card suit (descriptive bid) and use a lot of hesitations and pauses when they really wish they could raise or reverse but that would show extras. Or in the auction 1♠-2♦-2♠-2NT, where a fast 2NT shows a balanced responder and a slow 2NT is just a temporizing call trying to get opener to pattern out.

 

Of course, I would never make a sweeping generality that people who play this style or that style are unethical. The only general statement of that sort that I can make is:

 

People who are abusive and insulting, and accuse others of cheating with absolutely NO justification, tend to be unethical themselves. At the very least, they make poor partners.

[the hog]

"Of course, I would never make a sweeping generality that people who play this style or that style are unethical. "

 

I did not say that everyone who uses one style or another is unethical - that is YOUR interpretation. Nor did I say "that Max Hardy (and those who use his style of 2/1) are not playing bridge". If you read correctly, I said "not conducive to sensible bidding imo". So if you are going to comment please comment on what is posted, not what you think is posted.

[awm]

Evidently you need me to point out specifically where your post is offensive. Fine.

 

"Yes those players who just bid their shape still get to slams on strength, but generally it is with a lot of hesitations and pauses and UI."

 

This suggests that those who bid out shape are unethical. You accuse them of reaching slams only because of hesitations and pauses and UI. This is tantamount to accusing all who attain good results by bidding out shape of cheating.

 

"Hardy's style is not conducive to sensible bidding in my opinion."

 

Okay, this is just your opinion. But your opinion is not that Lawrence's style is better, or that it is difficult to reach the best contract with Hardy's style. It is that Hardy's style is not sensible bidding. Evidently those who use it are... what.. idiots? Certainly not sensible people?

 

"In plain english a reverse DOES promise strength. If it does NOT, that is a matter of partnership agreement."

 

Since when did Lawrence's book become the bible of 2/1? Last I heard the two competing variants were considered equally valid. But evidently according to you, Lawrence is the standard and Hardy is just an agreement that isn't even conducive to sensible bidding. This too seems insulting to those who learned 2/1 in the Hardy style.

 

"Interestingly when I have played 2/1 online, I have found that it is generally the stronger players who play that reverses show extra strength."

 

Okay, so it's not enough to say that those who play reverses not showing extras are cheating, that they are not bidding sensibly, and that they are not playing a standard style. In addition, they are not among the stronger players. But even THIS is not the end...

 

"I do think that Poky said he was playing with an expert..."

 

So evidently Max Hardy is not an expert. As if you haven't already made it blatantly clear that you consider people who play his methods substandard players.

 

----------

 

Sorry if my first post didn't have enough direct quotations with explanation. If you want to retract some of these points, please be my guest... but I think the general idea came across loud and clear the first time.

[beatrix45]

:)

I am an old fashioned, non-expert (at least now) player who has yet to learn the finer points of 2/1 (I dropped out of serious bridge before it became popular), but, I do know something about bidding theory. There is no NEED to play 2♠ in this game forcing auction as showing extra values. It is like the old K-S auction 1♦ - P - 2♣ - P - 2♥ or 2♠.

 

Weak 4-5 hands will outnumber strong ones by 3 or 4 to one (where, by the by, is the dividing line between strong 4-5's and the other 4-5's? You see my point, there is no longer any logic as to where to put it.). How do the 'strong 4-5 er's' bid those more numerous weaker hands without distorting something?

 

This 'does a 4-5 reverse promise extras' issue also highlights something that irritates me about 2/1. Having insisted on game (or 4 of a minor) with the initial response (which is a good thing in and of itself), the partnership still has multiple objectives - which strain and slam or no? When, who and how does one quit being descriptive (which strain) and start setting an objective (slam or no)? The old fashioned strong jump shift does the latter beautifully, but 2/1 players say they don't need it.

 

It seems to me that space conserving reverses like 1♥ - P - 2♦ - P - 2♠ are better used to show shape rather than extra values (which is not, by the way, the same thing as a 'slam or no?' query). This leaves bidding room for any number of 'impossible' or relay bids like the 'Serious 3NT' to set the table for a slam investigatory auction. Bridge has always combined natural bids and relay bids in the same auction. Easley Blackwood was a pioneer.

 

As usual, your hand postings are provacative and to the point. The quality of the game is going to take a quantum leap as a result.

[Chamaco]

  There is no NEED to play 2♠ in this game forcing auction as showing extra values.

 

Put this way, this claim seems quite strong.

Another player may as well say that "There is NO NEED of exact shape description if you can't limit the hand first".

Who's right or wrong ? It depends if you get the "right" hand for your approach.

In any cases, in most hands it won't make a difference.

 

I understand that a good shape description has advantages and that many players have switched to shape first, but there are quite many good players who think that in a 2/1 auction, it is very important to limit the hand early in the bidding.

 

In some auctions, it will turn out that responder would really love to know early on if opener has extras or not.

In some others, shape-first will be a winner instead.

 

I suppose this also depends from the gadgets we are used to play in order to cater for the pitfalls of one approach or the other.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Back to the question hand: regardless of whether it's a reverse or NOT, pard has denied club controls, so I just pass quickly

[whereagles]

I am one of the players who believe opener MUST limit his strenght after a 2/1. Playing a reverse showing 15-20 is already hard enough, so think of what can happen if the reverse covers the whole 11-20 range. I simply do not believe sensible bidding can be acheived if you play like this.

 

One of the claims above is that weak hands (11-14) outnumber strong hands (15+) by 3-to-1, so it is best to show shape and have responder assume opener has a min. Well, if this is so, then there IS merit in the following: have reverses show NO extra strenght and use the catch-all 1M-2x-2M to show EXTRA strenght.

 

In any case, opener must limit himself in some way. Otherwise you're just losing the main advantage in playing 2/1, which is the ability to use ALL the extra steps below game to describe what you have. After all, if you're "bidding shape" just for the sake of it, what will be the difference between these two auctions?

 

1H 2D

2S

 

1H 2D

2H 2S

3S

 

In the 2nd auction opener denied 4 spades, so is he making a propose to play in the moysian fit? Gimme a break... Isn't it much more sensible to play the 1st auction as 4-5 with extras and the 2nd 4-5 and a min? (Or the other way around if you prefer.)

 

That "showing shape" or "showing strenght" is purely a matter of style isn't true. Every major championship I see (even in the Bermuda Bowl) there is some bidding disaster of a slam being missed (or a hopeless one reached) after a 2/1 sequence. Usually the comment is "Is this the sort of hand that gives 2/1 a bad reputation?" If partnerships don't agree on how to show extras, the same disasters will happen over and over again.

 

As for the hand that started this tread, I personally have agreed with pard to play opener's final bid of 4H as a sort of picture bid - points concentrated in the long suits, little else outside, no useful singleton, e.g.

 

1H 2D

2S 3H

4H

 

AQJx

AKJxx

xx

xx

 

(Just about a min for a strenght-showing reverse, which we do play.)

[Echognome]

Right. There is certainly another thread entirely on whether reverses in 2/1 should show extra strength. All I'll add here is that if you play limited opening bids and 2/1 (which is very playable), then reverses showing extra strength (i.e. top of range) are quite silly.

[Chamaco]

Right.  There is certainly another thread entirely on whether reverses in 2/1 should show extra strength.  All I'll add here is that if you play limited opening bids and 2/1 (which is very playable), then reverses showing extra strength (i.e. top of range) are quite silly.

 

I do not agree completely.

Playing precision, I want to open 1 spade at the 1 level with both

 

a. x-AKxxx-xx- AKxxx

 

and

 

b. x-KQxxx-xx- ATxxx

(No, I will not open this hand at the 2-level :-) )

 

Playing a 2/1 scheme I want to be able to show a distributional reverse with hand 1 and NOT show the ditributional reverse with hand 2.

 

So, EVEN in a limited-opening context, bidding goes:

 

hand a.

1S-2D-?

3C = this shows extras

 

hand b.

1S-2D-?

I cannot bid clubs, it would show a 5-5.5 losers hand.

So I rebid spades.

 

The point is: EVEN IN A LIMITED OPENING CONTEXT, 1-level openings have a wide range of playing strength and it is important to limit further the hand anyways.

[whereagles]

I kinda agree with Mauro that even limited openers benefit from reverses showing extras.

[Echognome]

I'm not so concerned about the one "true" reverse of 1♥ - 2X - 2♠, what seems to have been the most important is getting across 5-5 hands. So we play 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ as showing 5-5 in the blacks with no promise of extra strength. Having to rebid the catch-all seems wasted in my book. Since we have no other reverses (as 1♣, 1♦ are artificial), no need to worry about them.

[Chamaco]

So we play 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ as showing 5-5 in the blacks with no promise of extra strength.  Having to rebid the catch-all seems wasted in my book.  Since we have no other reverses (as 1♣, 1♦ are artificial), no need to worry about them.

In my opinion this is sound if you have direct 2-level openings for the 8-11 55+ hands.

 

This takes care of subminimum 2-suiters, so that when you do show a 55, it is a full opener.

 

If you do not have 2-suiter weak 2s for 55 8-11, then I prefer to be able to discriminate the strength of the 55 if I decide to open 1M.