For those who play sound reverses

[helene_t]

Q-KQxx-AKxxx-Qxx

 

The pips are all small.

 

When presenting hands like this to a beginners' class I first asked what partner will respond to your 1d opening, especially if you play with your spouse :)

 

Anyway, what's your rebid? Are you happy to bid 2h? If not, do you do it anyway? If not, do you open 1nt? Or rebid 2c? Or something else?

 

Cyberyeti has, of course, an easy 1nt rebid, but ...

[mycroft]

Nothing is good. I could argue everything, including 1NT (for me 15-17, too, but I hate it, because we play in a strong NT world and if I do, partner will bid 2♠ with 5 assuming the room is doing it). I'd probably hope that the ♠Q is worth it's full amount and bid 2♥, but I think "rule 1 of playing with my spouse" applies ("if I step out, whatever happens, it's my fault.")

[TylerE]

I'd rather open 1NT with that than reverse.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sqhkq42dak642cq42&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dp1sp]133|200| Helene_T 'For those who play sound reverses, what's your rebid?'

++++++++++++++++++++

I rank

1. 2♦ = NAT underbid

2. 1N = NAT underbid. Might result in playing a 5-1 ♠ fit (not all that bad).

3. 2♥ = NAT but an exaggeration.

4. Open 1N. But partner is likely to transfer.

5. 2♣ = NAT but might lose a 4-4 ♥ fit -- Partner can introduce 2♥ over 1 or 2.

[/hv]

[shyams]

I'd bid 2♥ and not worry about it too much. Like mycroft says upthread I'll pretend that the ♠Q is worth its full value.

[sfi]

2D from me - that's just normal on this shape and a minimum hand. Here I have some extras but not enough to be worried about missing anything if partner passes.

[hrothgar]

Ceyberyeti might have an easy 1NT rebid, but I have an easy 1NT opening

[nullve]

I consider this an essentially solved problem in my (vaguely 2/1-like) system:

 

1♦(1)-1♥(2)

1♠(3)

 

(1) "10+, NAT(ish) unBAL" OR "20-22 BAL"

(2) "0+, (3)4+ S, may have longer H unless GF"

(3) "10-21, 4+ H, unBAL " or 10-15, 13(54)

 

This is also how I would bid with

 

Q

KQ42

Q42

AK642.

 

There is no analogous problem with

 

KQ42

Q

Q42

AK642

 

or

 

KQ42

Q

AK642

Q42

 

when Responder has hearts, because then the bidding would go

 

1♣(1)-1♦(2)

1♠(3)

 

(1) "10, NAT(ish) unBAL" or "11-13/17-19/23+ BAL"

(2) "0+, 4+ H, may have longer S unless GF"

(3) "10-21, 4+ S, unBAL" or 10-15, 31(54).

 

1♣-1♦; 1♠ and 1♦-1♥; 1♠ are probably among the most underused sequences in standard systems and it seems to me that there is enough space to sort the important things out after those.

 

A nige1ian ranking of alternatives in standard 2/1:

 

1. open 1N (OK even in the ACBL as long as the stiff is the A, K or Q)

2. open 1♦, then rebid 2♣ over 1♠ (hoping partner doesn't have a weak hand with 5413 shape)

3. open 1♦, then rebid 2♦ over 1♠ (I'd really want 2♦ to promise 6)

4. open 1♦, then rebid 2♥ over 1♠ (only lying one point or so, but this sequence is already quite bad)

[smerriman]

I'm in the 2♦ camp. We're not going to miss a 4-4 heart fit that way, and without that I'm happy going low. Opening 1NT would be my second choice.

[gordontd]

I'm in the 2♦ camp. We're not going to miss a 4-4 heart fit that way,

 

You will miss one if partner has a weak 5-4. Unless you also play 2H now as non-forcing.

[DavidKok]

I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♥. If you want a systematic solution, Gazzilli over 1♦-1M solves all.

[nullve]

Gazzilli over 1♦-1M solves all.

Not by itself.

[pescetom]

A nige1ian ranking of alternatives in standard 2/1:

 

1. open 1N (OK even in the ACBL as long as the stiff is the A, K or Q)

2. open 1♦, then rebid 2♣ over 1♠ (hoping partner doesn't have a weak hand with 5413 shape)

3. open 1♦, then rebid 2♦ over 1♠ (I'd really want 2♦ to promise 6)

4. open 1♦, then rebid 2♥ over 1♠ (only lying one point or so, but this sequence is already quite bad)

 

My ranking also.

[apollo1201]

Agree with NULLVE ranking.

 

With black suits reversed, I’d be more tempted to reverse (!), although I play them a bit sounder. But here a non-prime 16 HCP w/o intermediates in the suits and a stiff Q in partner’s suit...

 

I also play reverse-Flannery for responder so the likelihood of missing 4-4 H fit is quite low, either partner doesn’t have H, or if she does, she should have values to bid again.

 

Options are therefore a 1NT opening, or now we’ve chosen 1D, 2C or 2D. But with a Q less, 1NT rebid w/o 2nd thoughts (a bit nervous w/ a small S, though). Small preference for 2C as it leaves options open for partner to chose the « better » minor (if she passes, C fit will be at least as long as D unless she is very weak 4234, and she’s 5413 she has values for another call).

[Douglas43]

If opening a weak NT, I would rebid 1NT=15-17. If we have a heart fit, we'll find it by checkback. Worst case outcome is partner bids 2S with 5 of them.

[TMorris]

Playing a weak NT I am also a 1nt rebidder. If partner is 5323 I expect her to pass. We also of course never miss a heart fit this way.

[nige1]

I would open 1♦ and rebid 2♥. If you want a systematic solution, Gazzilli over 1♦-1M solves all.

Please DavidKok,

• Would you explain how Gazilli works after 1♦ - 1M?
• Do you also play it after 1♣ - 1M?

[nige1]

You will miss one if partner has a weak 5-4. Unless you also play 2H now as non-forcing.

Some partnerships would rather brave the dizzy heights of 3♥ with an 8-card fit rather than play 2♠ (a level lower) in a 5-1 fit.

[DavidKok]

Please DavidKok,

• Would you explain how Gazilli works after 1♦ - 1M?
• Do you also play it after 1♣ - 1M?

I don't actually play Gazzilli after 1♦-1M, on the grounds that my system is already more than sufficiently complicated. I'm convinced it is very good with an unbalanced diamond (which is what I play) though. My source is Yuan Shen's article, where 1♦-1M; 1NT* shows either 16+ any or 11-15 with 6(+) diamonds, and any other bid denies reverse strength (so 2♣ is 11-15 with 5-4 minors, partnership preference if it shows exactly 5(+)=4(+) or also contains 4=5, and 2♦ shows 11-15 with exactly 4 hearts!).

Of course this particular hand is still troublesome, my comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek. But since you can now systematically distinguish between 11-15 with exactly 4 hearts, by bidding 1♦-1♠; 2♦, and 16+ ('sound reverse') with hearts by bidding 1♦-1♠; 1NT*-2♣; 2♥ you are in a much better spot than many other players would be. I would strongly consider downgrading this particular hand to 15 or so and rebidding 2♦, showing the heart suit.

Something to keep in mind here is that since the 1♦ in this system is 'unbalanced', the 1NT is not needed as a natural rebid. I currently play this rebid as 11-15, exactly 4=5 in the minors (which we do not open 1♣ based on some probabilistic argument), and frankly it is far from ideal. We even considered leaving the sequence meaningless!

 

I don't see any reason to play something like this over 1♣-1M. For starters both the 1NT and 2♣ rebids are extremely useful as natural bids, and after partner 'accepts' the Gazzilli bid by making the cheapest call available it is too late to stop in your long suit. Also, I have no idea how it would work.

[TylerE]

You will miss one if partner has a weak 5-4. Unless you also play 2H now as non-forcing.

 

Or play reverse flannery, so responder is guaranteed to have a good hand if 5-4.

[nige1]

I don't actually play Gazzilli after 1♦-1M, on the grounds that my system is already more than sufficiently complicated. I'm convinced it is very good with an unbalanced diamond (which is what I play) though. My source is Yuan Shen's article, where 1♦-1M; 1NT* shows either 16+ any or 11-15 with 6(+) diamonds, and any other bid denies reverse strength (so 2♣ is 11-15 with 5-4 minors, partnership preference if it shows exactly 5(+)=4(+) or also contains 4=5, and 2♦ shows 11-15 with exactly 4 hearts!).

Of course this particular hand is still troublesome, my comment was slightly tongue-in-cheek. But since you can now systematically distinguish between 11-15 with exactly 4 hearts, by bidding 1♦-1♠; 2♦, and 16+ ('sound reverse') with hearts by bidding 1♦-1♠; 1NT*-2♣; 2♥ you are in a much better spot than many other players would be. I would strongly consider downgrading this particular hand to 15 or so and rebidding 2♦, showing the heart suit.

Something to keep in mind here is that since the 1♦ in this system is 'unbalanced', the 1NT is not needed as a natural rebid. I currently play this rebid as 11-15, exactly 4=5 in the minors (which we do not open 1♣ based on some probabilistic argument), and frankly it is far from ideal. We even considered leaving the sequence meaningless!

 

I don't see any reason to play something like this over 1♣-1M. For starters both the 1NT and 2♣ rebids are extremely useful as natural bids, and after partner 'accepts' the Gazzilli bid by making the cheapest call available it is too late to stop in your long suit. Also, I have no idea how it would work.

I asked because, for a while, with Steve Male, I played that, for any suit x. 1x- 1N - 2♣ and 1x - 1y - 2♣ is always "Gazilli", showing either 16+ HCP or 6+ x.

Reverses showed shape not power. We didn't explore all the ramifications but our main problem was that we kept forgetting the system.

[nullve]

I don't see any reason to play something like this over 1♣-1M. For starters both the 1NT and 2♣ rebids are extremely useful as natural bids, and after partner 'accepts' the Gazzilli bid by making the cheapest call available it is too late to stop in your long suit. Also, I have no idea how it would work.

IMO the important thing is that the 1N rebid includes balanced hands in a certain range (and possibly some weaker unbalanced hands) and is NF, not that it shows a balanced hand in that range

 

I play a Gazzilli-like (but NF!) 1N rebid over 1♣-1R(T-Walsh) (an illustration of which can be found in a parallel thread) and some typical sequences are

 

1♣(1)-1♥(2)

1N(3)-P(4)

 

1♣(1)-1♥(2)

1N(3)-2♣(5)

P(6)

 

1♣(1)-1♥(2)

1N(3)-2♣(5)

2♥(7)-P(8)

 

1♣(1)-1♥(2)

1N(3)-2♣(5)

2♠(9)-P(10)

 

(1) "10+, NAT(ish) unBAL" OR "11-13/17-19/23+ BAL"

(2) "0+, 4+ S, less than 4 H unless GF"

(3) a) "10-12", 2-S6+C b) 13-15, 22(54) c) "16-18, 2-S5+C, unBAL" d) "17-19 BAL", 2-3 S

(4) wants to play 1N opposite d) (then it's usually ok if Opener instead has a), b) or c). I certainly can't remember the last time it wasn't.)

(5) does not want to play 1N opposite d), wants to play 2♣ opposite a)

(6) a)

(7) c) with 4+ H (Here 2♥ is like a standard reverse over 1♣-1♠ but limited upwards to about 18 hcp and NF)

(8) weak hand with H preference

(9) d)

(10) weak hand with 5(+) S

[DavidKok]

Thank you for sharing. If I understand correctly the NF 1NT 'Gazzilli' bid shows some weak unbalanced hands (10-12 long clubs or 13-15 both minors) or some well-defined strong hands (17-19 BAL or 16-18 with 5+ clubs, which might as well be considered almost the same). Responder assumes the strong version until opener shows otherwise. Compared to T-Walsh where 1NT always shows 17-19 BAL you get more definition in your strong versus weak long club hands, but you might end in a suboptimal spot if opener is weak and unbalanced (for example hand type b might present issues, responder has no way to give preference to diamonds on the 2-level). With hand type c and no second suit (so let's say 6 clubs) do you raise 2♣ to 3♣?

Personally I don't play T-Walsh, but one of the issues I ran into when trying to figure out what T-Walsh would look like is the best methods after 1♣*-1R; 1NT (17-19 BAL). Ordinary NMF/Checkback/XYZ seems adequate but not ideal. Do you run into any issues with responder having both majors on this sequence in your system, or a weak hand with a single major? When, if ever, does responder break the Gazzilli bid with 2♦ and up?

[Vampyr]

We weak notrumpers have it much easier on hands like this. But also I would open 1NT on a similar hand in range.

[gordontd]

Some partnerships would rather brave the dizzy heights of 3♥ with an 8-card fit rather than play 2♠ (a level lower) in on a 5-1 fit.

 

It might be the dizzy heights of 4H or 5H if you do it on a much weaker hand than partner will expect.