I have a hand for you

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&n=s9ha863da3cakq987&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1sp?]133|200[/hv]

 

IMPS, 2/1 Forums std gadgets.

[smerriman]

Well, 2♥ seems obvious..? I'm guessing this is another progressive post and you haven't actually gotten to your question yet :)

[mikeh]

I wouldn’t reverse, on this auction, with all 17 counts and a stiff spade, but this hands is far too strong for anything else. 3C hides the hearts and, if partner has a fit for either clubs or hearts, it’s an underbid as well.

 

 

So 2H.....and await the response.

[Cyberyeti]

With the parameters in the OP, 2♥ seems obvious.

 

This is another hand where a GF unbalanced 2N of the type I play are really useful.

[LBengtsson]

Well, 2♥ seems obvious..? I'm guessing this is another progressive post and you haven't actually gotten to your question yet :)

 

yes! my guess partner now bids 2♠, then what do you bid? if p. bids any other bid the auction is better. only 2♠ bid and opener with this big hand >22k+r should bid again. I play reverse 1♣ - (1♠) - 2[hearts as not gf and one round force only. but if opener now bids 3♣ or 2nt (not good bid) that for me can be passed. maybe cyberyeti system 2nt rebid as gf here work better.

[jillybean]

The rebid was definitely in question, some rebid 2♥, others 1nt (15-17).

Those who rebid 1nt stopped in 3nt. This was the auction at my table;

 

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq42hqjdq875c62&w=sjt753ht54dkt96c5&n=s9ha863da3cakq987&e=s86hk972dj42cjt43&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1sp2hp3dp4cp4np5cp6nppp]399|300[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

Judging a hand where 6♣/6N(S) are great contracts but go off because clubs are 4-1 is not that helpful, reasonable auction.

[mikeh]

Rebidding 1N, to show a balanced 15-17 reveals a basic lack of understanding of the game. No competent bridge player would do that. It’s wrong on strength and shape...the two basic criteria for making bidding decisions.

 

I really, really don’t like 3D either. What on earth was the point?

 

Qxxx is not a suit that ought to be shown. There is zero chance that diamonds should ever be trump. And zero reason to pretend that that spade suit is 4 cards long.

 

Bid 2S. It’s forcing...the reverse promised another bid.

 

Now opener rebids 3C, to show a 4-6 hand. This is passable....picture responder as KQxxx Jxx xxx xx

 

Over 3C, now is the time to bid a temporizing 3D, since the hand is (a) too strong to bid 3N, (b) too weak to drive to slam (picture x KQJx Kx AKQxxx), © not sure 3N is best (picture Jx AKxx x AKQxxx)

 

Opener bids 3N

 

Now responder bids 4N...partner showing at most a stiff spade makes driving to slam dubious but th3 hand is far too strong to pass 3N

 

Whether south bids slam now is an interesting question that I don’t think I can answer objectively, knowing that, as it happens, slam fails. If gopher were to bid, I think 6C is a better call than 6N, since it’s easy to construct hands where ruffing power adds a trick.

 

Bidding over reverses is a difficult bidding issue and probably, in my experience, one of the weakest parts of non-expert bridge.

[AL78]

Rebidding 1N, to show a balanced 15-17 reveals a basic lack of understanding of the game. No competent bridge player would do that. It’s wrong on strength and shape...the two basic criteria for making bidding decisions.

 

I really, really don’t like 3D either. What on earth was the point?

 

Qxxx is not a suit that ought to be shown. There is zero chance that diamonds should ever be trump. And zero reason to pretend that that spade suit is 4 cards long.

 

Bid 2S. It’s forcing...the reverse promised another bid.

 

Some partnerships might not agree. Can responder with six spades and a drop dead minimum never sign off in 2♠? I thought that responder rebidding their suit shows weakness and a long suit, and opener can pass with a minimum reverse and a misfit. Hence with a long spade suit and strength there has to be another way to force the bidding and locate a 5-3 fit, so that, I think, is the idea of going through FSF, to find out if opener has three card support. If you are playing Lebehsohl over reverses things are a bit different.

[mikeh]

Some partnerships might not agree. Can responder with six spades and a drop dead minimum never sign off in 2♠? I thought that responder rebidding their suit shows weakness and a long suit, and opener can pass with a minimum reverse and a misfit. Hence with a long spade suit and strength there has to be another way to force the bidding and locate a 5-3 fit, so that, I think, is the idea of going through FSF, to find out if opener has three card support. If you are playing Lebehsohl over reverses things are a bit different.

‘Some partnerships might not agree’

 

True

 

There are a great many more bad players than good, hence we see a lot of bad agreements.

 

I’m not going to claim that NO good pairs play 2S here as passable, but I’ve never seen any good player espouse that idea, never played against any good pair that played it, never seen it advised by any good writer, and think, for a number of cogent reasons, that it is fundamentally unplayable. FWIW, I’ve read a LOT of bridge books, and literally more than 70 years worth of Bridge Worlds, and played probably more high level bridge than any other current regular poster.

 

Btw, not playing a form of ingberman or lebensohl here is a pretty bad idea, but I don’t see it as germane to the argument. If you really want to cater to responder holding a weak hand with 6+ spades, use weak jumpshifts. I don’t, by the way, and am very comfortable with playing 2S as ambiguous...it says nothing at all other than that responder had a 1 level response and has 5+ spades.

[Stephen Tu]

Some partnerships might not agree. Can responder with six spades and a drop dead minimum never sign off in 2♠?

 

Historically some people have played that way, but it's really disfavored these days by most good players. The problem is space consumption; having to bid 3d often is really awkward and constrains opener's options a lot compared to 2s (opener really shouldn't want to be bypassing 3nt very often when no fit has been established, you've cut his bidding options in half), in an auction where the reverse itself has already consumed a lot of space. Also the population of hands where 2S is the optimal last making contract is rather small so you don't win very often for having a NF 2S available in exchange for making your other auctions way more awkward.

[Cyberyeti]

Some partnerships might not agree. Can responder with six spades and a drop dead minimum never sign off in 2♠? I thought that responder rebidding their suit shows weakness and a long suit, and opener can pass with a minimum reverse and a misfit. Hence with a long spade suit and strength there has to be another way to force the bidding and locate a 5-3 fit, so that, I think, is the idea of going through FSF, to find out if opener has three card support. If you are playing Lebehsohl over reverses things are a bit different.

 

Some partnerships will have bid a WJS on the drop dead hand already.

[mycroft]

I'm confused, and this may be "off-topic"; But I play that 2♠, while not necessarily minimum, is passable by a minimum reverser; to invite, go through 2NT/fourth suit, whichever is lower.

 

I don't see a great deal of difference between that and 2♠ forcing (but not necessarily GF), and 2NT, then 3♠ being the drop-dead.

 

Several people whose opinions I trust think this is 100% wrong, but I don't see why.

 

(Note: this really is Asking for Opinions, not disagreeing for points.)

 

I do like WJS m-M (only); but I only play them with one person.

[Stephen Tu]

I'm confused, and this may be "off-topic"; But I play that 2♠, while not necessarily minimum, is passable by a minimum reverser; to invite, go through 2NT/fourth suit, whichever is lower.

 

I don't see a great deal of difference between that and 2♠ forcing (but not necessarily GF), and 2NT, then 3♠ being the drop-dead.

 

Several people whose opinions I trust think this is 100% wrong, but I don't see why.

 

Being able to bid 2S F1 with the stronger hands gains you a step and thus a more descriptive rebid by opener. 3c shows usually extra length, both 2nt/3nt available for range differentiation. Also if 2nt mostly denies 5 cd spades (except the weak 5-4 hands trying to signoff in hearts), opener with 3415 can just rebid 3c and play there opposite responder's weak 4xx3/4xx4 hands that want to sign off in clubs, and not get to the 4 level. Whereas if 2nt can include strong hands with 5 you really kind of have to be able to bid 3s to complete the description. Plus if 2s can be strong, then you can utilize sequence like 1c-1s-2h-2s-3s-4c as cue bid in clubs, whereas you are bidding 1c-1s-2h-2nt!-3s-? now responder needs to be able to sign off in 4c?

 

2S NF just makes a lot of auctions considerably more awkward, for infrequent gain.

 

Now when 4th suit happens to be available and cheaper than 2M, like 1c-1s-2d-2h!, it's way more playable to have 2S be NF, but few do different things based on this due to memory load issues.

[nige1]

I'm confused, and this may be "off-topic"; But I play that 2♠, while not necessarily minimum, is passable by a minimum reverser; to invite, go through 2NT/fourth suit, whichever is lower. I don't see a great deal of difference between that and 2♠ forcing (but not necessarily GF), and 2NT, then 3♠ being the drop-dead. Several people whose opinions I trust think this is 100% wrong, but I don't see why. (Note: this really is Asking for Opinions, not disagreeing for points.) I do like WJS m-M (only); but I only play them with one person.

Not playing weak jump shifts, IMO, there's a strong case for simple Lebensohl after a reverse auction, like 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦ i.e.

• 2♥ = NAT N/F MIN misfit. e.g. ♠ Jxxxxx ♥ Qxxxx ♦ xx ♣ -
• 2♠ = NAT N/F MIN misfit. e.g. ♠ Qxxxxxx ♥ xxx ♦ xx ♣ x
• 2N = ART Lebensohl suggests that partner bid 3♣; you can pass or bid 3♦. Rebids above 3♦ are at least INV.
• 3♣... = F/G.

Although shunned by experts, for us, this has the advantage of simplicity and consistency.

[jillybean]

South bid 3♦ asking for a diamond stopper, intending to bid on after 3nt.

I don't know if it was in fear that partner would pass 2S or a step on the way to Ace asking.

[mikeh]

Btw, I think it is a misnomer, and can cause confused thinking, to say that 2S here, over 2H, is ‘forcing’. That implies that it shows values.

 

It is ‘forcing’ but only because, as commonly played in non big club methods, the reverse promises another bid. Since opener has said that he will not pass a non-game bid by responder, ANY non game bid by responder is ‘forcing’.

 

Get away from thinking that bidding 2S is a force, and maybe understanding why 2S is really a stalling tactic, albeit showing 5+ spades, may become easier.

[jillybean]

1♣ 1♠

2♥* 2♠

 

I think of the 2♠ bid here as a waiting bid, much like 2♣ 2♦ waiting.

We play 2N Leb as a weak relay to 3C, partner has stretched to bid at the 1 level and wants to stop in 3x.

I know this isn't perhaps how it is intended or how others play it, and use 3S as invitational after 2N but for our memory constraints, it suits us.

I am still interested in transfer leb, but that will have to wait.

[AL78]

I'm glad I asked the question andc got some good responses about continuations after a reverse, as it has exposed something I need to discuss with my regular partners. One or two things I thought were the case are evidently not. I confess to never studying reverse auctions much as they hardly ever come up.

 

I can see why there might be some confusion: This page states that after a reverse, rebidding your own long suit shows a very weak hand (5-7 HCP) and at least five in the suit. Larry Cohen's page says the same bid is a one round force. It looks to me like something that needs to be discussed within a partnership.

[jillybean]

I can see why there might be some confusion: This page states that after a reverse, rebidding your own long suit shows a very weak hand (5-7 HCP) and at least five in the suit. Larry Cohen's page says the same bid is a one round force. It looks to me like something that needs to be discussed within a partnership.

 

This could be the difference between the kbbridge reverse showing 16+, and Cohen's 17-18+

[smerriman]

I'm glad I asked the question andc got some good responses about continuations after a reverse, as it has exposed something I need to discuss with my regular partners. One or two things I thought were the case are evidently not. I confess to never studying reverse auctions much as they hardly ever come up.

 

I can see why there might be some confusion: This page states that after a reverse, rebidding your own long suit shows a very weak hand (5-7 HCP) and at least five in the suit. Larry Cohen's page says the same bid is a one round force. It looks to me like something that needs to be discussed within a partnership.

Read mikeh's 14 year old post here and ignore all other sources :)

[mikeh]

Karen Walker has written a lot of articles in the ACBL Bulletin. AFAIK, her articles are always/usually aimed at very inexperienced players, and her discussion of reverses falls (imo) into that category.

 

I wouldn’t teach ingberman or lebensohl, etc, to beginners, and I have no concern with a beginner being taught that a rebid, here 2S, is weak and can be passed...IFF the beginners were told that they may need to change this once they acquire more knowledge

[jillybean]

IF the beginners were told that they may need to change this once they acquire more knowledge

 

This is the crucial part that is missing from all beginner lessons.

[Winstonm]

Beginners tend to think only of their own bids but the issue here is that opener - because he reversed - has promised another bid.

 

2S in this sequence is neither weak nor strong but descriptive

[Zelandakh]

There are a great many more bad players than good, hence we see a lot of bad agreements.

Here's a "bad agreement" with 2♠ non-forcing:-

 

1♣ - 1♠; 2♥

==

2♠ = to play

2NT = to play 3♣ or GF with 3+♣

3♣ = GF exactly 5♠

3♦ = to play 3♥ or GF with 4+♥

3♥ = GF with 6+♠

3♠ = GF looking for a ♦ stop (or GF with 6+♠ and no ♦ stop if you are happy using a different sequence with 4342 and ♦xxxx)

3NT = to play (typically 4342)

--

 

I very much agree that bidding over reverses is one of the weakest areas of bidding for most players. But I also think that there are system advances to be had in this area even for top players above and beyond the Blackout/Lebensohl/Ingberman schemes that are typically espoused.