reverses

[mike777]

This hand is not worth reversing IMO.

 

 

what would you do with it, and I agree with you Mauro, but it is 16 hcp some think this is good enough to reverse with, but against a 1NT good 8 or 9 hcp you may have a game

 

My usual plug that all of the below will not be that important of an issue. The big bridge issue is to learn to count out shape and hcp in opponents' hands!

 

 

The modern trend is for many expert partnerships to respond very light in 2/1.

 

If you decide to play this style, then 1H=1nt=2h=p should be fine with your example hand.

1)If you have a long minor and 8-10 hcp then you can decide whether to bid a nonforcing 3 of a minor over 2H or pass 2h. Yes, partner will think you have 6 hearts often, so what?

3) With decent 8-10 hcp and doubleton heart raise to 3H.

4) With a bit more hcp and stiff heart think of bidding 2nt.

5) Does that mean 1h=1nt=2h=3minor is a wide range from very weak to stronger but not a hand you want to bid 2nt with. Yes......In general expect partner to pass your 3 of a minor hand, so if you want to make an aggressive game try bid 2nt. Welcome to one of the big problems with 2/1 with an invite in a minor after one heart openings. After 1 spade openings, BART can help a bit.

6) There are some solutions to this 1H ......minor invite but they create other major system problems so I just choose to live with this one. I want to be able to respond light, I want to be able to open light, I want 2/1=100% game force. The problem hand becomes invite in a long minor with no NT interest.

[sceptic]

The modern trend is for many expert partnerships to respond very light in 2/1.

 

If you decide to play this style, then 1H=1nt=2h=p should be fine with your example hand.

 

2H promises 6 cards NO exceptions I thought?

[helene_t]

The modern trend is for many expert partnerships to respond very light in 2/1.

 

If you decide to play this style, then 1H=1nt=2h=p should be fine with your example hand.

 

2H promises 6 cards NO exceptions I thought?

No exception. If you can't open 1NT and you can't open 2♦ and you can't pass 1NT and you can't rebid 2♠, then the fifth choice would be 2♣. Open 1♠ is sixth choice. Rebid 2NT is seventh choice. Rebid 2♥ is eighth choice.

[sceptic]

Mike Lawrence says if you have to bid 2!C with just two of them , so be it

[Chamaco]

The problem hand becomes invite in a long minor with no NT interest.

This can be solved but needs some small complications to the system.

 

The solution I came up with was the following:

 

1) after 1NT forcing and opener's minimum rebid,

....1a- invitational single suiter bid a direct 3X, natural

....1b- weak singlesuiter bid 2NT lebensohl, puppet to 2C, then pass/correct. This 2NT lebensohl MIGHT be a GF balanced hand

....1c- obviously, since 2NT is forcing 1R, we need to find another way to show balanced hands invitational (see point below)

 

2) If responder has a 11 balanced hand, invitational in NT, he will go via a 2/1 response (whatever your scheme to show balanced hands).

 

Basically the idea, for balanced responder, is to exchange the way you used to show a GF hand and an invitational hand:

- the GF balanced hand goes via 1NT forcing and then 2NT lebensohl

- the inv balanced hand is shown the way you used to show the GF balanced hand (whatever sequence you used to adopt)

[Double !]

K10xx KQJxx Ax kx

This hand is not worth reversing IMO.

Isn't this one of the types of hands that were the basis for discussion during the thread about Gazilli or Ritong2C? Not good enough to rebid 2NT/1NT, but too good to pass?

[awm]

I recommend passing 1♥ holding:

 

Ax xx xxxxx xxxx

 

Partner will not normally open at the one level when one trick short of a game in a major, and if he does it's probably a freak hand without many points and the opponents will balance. The problem with this responding hand is that you have flat shape and no possible major fit, so you're very likely to take ONE trick and no more. In contrast, I would always respond to 1♥ holding:

 

Axxx x xxxx xxxx

xx Axx xxxx xxxx

 

These hands are likely to take two (or more!) tricks in a fit.

 

As for the reverse on the hand in question, it's pretty borderline between reversing and not. Will you make 3NT on 24-25 high with no major fit? Well maybe, but I'd as soon stop at the two level. Note that there are many cases where you do get in trouble when both partners have a dead minimum for their bidding (i.e. you open a balanced 12, partner responds with 5-6 points, you get to 1NT and go down several tricks).

[mike777]

The problem hand becomes invite in a long minor with no NT interest.

This can be solved but needs some small complications to the system.

 

The solution I came up with was the following:

 

1) after 1NT forcing and opener's minimum rebid,

....1a- invitational single suiter bid a direct 3X, natural

....1b- weak singlesuiter bid 2NT lebensohl, puppet to 2C, then pass/correct. This 2NT lebensohl MIGHT be a GF balanced hand

....1c- obviously, since 2NT is forcing 1R, we need to find another way to show balanced hands invitational (see point below)

 

2) If responder has a 11 balanced hand, invitational in NT, he will go via a 2/1 response (whatever your scheme to show balanced hands).

 

Basically the idea, for balanced responder, is to exchange the way you used to show a GF hand and an invitational hand:

- the GF balanced hand goes via 1NT forcing and then 2NT lebensohl

- the inv balanced hand is shown the way you used to show the GF balanced hand (whatever sequence you used to adopt)

This would cause a bunch of problems for me.

1) 1nt=semi force not forcing. In plain English that means opener will pass often with a junky 11-12 hcp and 5332 shape. With your style I will end up in too many lousy 2nt contracts with junky hand across from junky hand ;).

2) 2/1=100% game force no exceptions.

3) 1nt semi force for me can be 13 hcp in many cases..not just 11 hcp :).

 

I must live with rebid of 3 of minor is weak, not invite.

[mike777]

The modern trend is for many expert partnerships to respond very light in 2/1.

 

If you decide to play this style, then 1H=1nt=2h=p should be fine with your example hand.

 

2H promises 6 cards NO exceptions I thought?

Ok if you do not want to rebid 2h then playing 14-16 nt openings.

 

1h=1nt

?

 

Rebid 2nt if responder play the hands very well or rebid 2clubs on 4522 if they they play them as poorly as myself.

 

btw I respond 1nt with a bullet and try and keep the hand alive but passing is reasonable

[hrothgar]

I'm sure there are more elegant solutions for 4441-shapes, I don't know any though.

 

Now Richard is going to tell me and I will have learned something today.

Three suited hands (4441 and 5440s) are evil...

No ifs, ands or buts..

 

They have been presenting problems ofr bidding systems since the dawn of man. They will continue to do so long after our moldering bodies return to the grave.

 

There are two solutions to this problem, neither of which is elegant.

 

Solution 1: Allocate specialized bids to show 3 suited hands. This used to be quite popular (think of the Roman 2D opening), however, in recent years, people have shyed away from using valuable real estate to hand rare incidents.

 

Solution 2: Lie about your shape. Your proposed solution (reversing with 4 cards in your first suit) is just such a lie. Personally, I am a memeber of the liar's camp. However, we differ about what lie is preferable. I'd rather shade part of my NT ladder (I don't see much difference between xx and x) while preserving the integrity of my reverses. Your milage may differ.

[helene_t]

[.....]

Solution 2: Lie about your shape. Your proposed solution (reversing with 4 cards in your first suit) is just such a lie. Personally, I am a memeber of the liar's camp. However, we differ about what lie is preferable. I'd rather shade part of my NT ladder (I don't see much difference between xx and x) while preserving the integrity of my reverses. Your milage may differ.

Depends. With regular pds I like to have the agreement that we rather rebid 1NT with a singleton in partner's suit than rebid a 5-card or describe a 4441 as a two-suiter. Maybe the same should apply to a jump rebid of 2NT.

 

But I dislike opening 1NT with a singleton, especially a major suit singleton. If it's a king or an ace I might open 1NT anyway.

[coyot]

Threesuiters are a pain - but if you're prepared for them.

I am in the "NT is sacred" camp. If you lie a doubleton in your partner's suit, he will NEVER give you a ruff :-)

 

If the responder bears in mind that the opener can be 4441 after the first rebid, things are usually easy... I would see the only problem with really strong hands (where you simply have to open 2♣ or equivalent). We solve this by embedding this into 2♦ multi, which covers weak majors, 24-25 bal or 22+ threesuiters. But it requires a lot of debating and agreements, especially when it comes to competitive bidding...

[Gerben42]

Three suited hands (4441 and 5440s) are evil...

No ifs, ands or buts..

 

They have been presenting problems ofr bidding systems since the dawn of man. They will continue to do so long after our moldering bodies return to the grave.

 

Only for natural bidders - I am sure Free will tell you Moscito has no problems with them.

[Fluffy]

Also be aware that some 2/1 players play an abomination that reverses do not show extra strength. How they define their values is beyond my ken; I guess they don't when I see some of the "wonderful" slams the bid.

I suggest you try reading Hardy's book on 2/1.

 

I have and I stand by my comment. I suggest you read Lawrence's views.

 

Quote Mike:

"After a 2/1 no a reverse does not show extra, but 2/1 does promises 14+ very often, not junky 12. This allows you to bid out your shape, where your HCP are."

 

I disagree vehemently; this may be the style you play, it may also be the style recommended by Hardy. I think to play this way is awful. We have been through this debate before and the posted views are not just my own, but also those of most of the players I know whom I would regard as worth listening to who play a 2/1 structure. I stand by my comments but am not going to bother posting more on this as it has already been done to death.

Very nicelly said Ron, I'm afraid this 2 have fallen into the dark side, and cannot be reconverted anymore. We better keep our efforts for those who can be saved :)

[Fluffy]

Ingerman, ,or '2NT moderateur' as called in france, or whoever you want to say, its a very good way to handle reverses. Why?, basically because it handles the less probable bids (that is 6-7 ones) in 1 bid (2NT), while the rest just bid natural. It also helps beginners to avoid playing part scores with 30 HCP combined, since everything is GF.

[Double !]

Ingerman, ,or '2NT moderateur' as called in france, or whoever you want to say, its a very good way to handle reverses. Why?, basically because it handles the less probable bids (that is 6-7 ones) in 1 bid (2NT), while the rest just bid natural. It also helps beginners to avoid playing part scores with 30 HCP combined, since everything is GF.

As I once did when playing with a topflight partner in a regional eons ago when I was learning, interpreting a preference back to my first suit by responder after my reverse as just that, a simple preference without enough to make game. WRONG!!!!!

[han]

Perhaps your topflight partner should have told you about this beforehand, or not made this bid. I've heard good players complain to their beginning partners very often about exactly this problem. I find it very foolish. (not of the eons-ago you, but of the topflight player of course)

[Double !]

Perhaps your topflight partner should have told you about this beforehand, or not made this bid. I've heard good players complain to their beginning partners very often about exactly this problem. I find it very foolish. (not of the eons-ago you, but of the topflight player of course)

Thanx for the support, but I own this one, not my partner. I had been incorrectly taught or had incorrectly interpreted what I had read about responder's rebids after reverses, and had this agreement with my regular face-to-face P at the time. I was at least intermediate level at the time: I just had it wrong. And we were relying too much on 4th suit forcing. I suspect that my expert P just assumed after having known me that I knew how to bid. Not! Part of the learning process. Not ashamed to admit it.

[helene_t]

Three suited hands (4441 and 5440s) are evil...

No ifs, ands or buts..

 

They have been presenting problems ofr bidding systems since the dawn of man. They will continue to do so long after our moldering bodies return to the grave.

 

Only for natural bidders - I am sure Free will tell you Moscito has no problems with them.

Playing Moscito 2005, you hold 4414, 12 HCPs. You open 1♦ (hearts). Partner bids 2♦ (natural, forcing for one round, mildly constructive). Isn't this a problem?

[the hog]

Three suited hands (4441 and 5440s) are evil...

No ifs, ands or buts..

 

They have been presenting problems ofr bidding systems since the dawn of man. They will continue to do so long after our moldering bodies return to the grave.

 

Only for natural bidders - I am sure Free will tell you Moscito has no problems with them.

Playing Moscito 2005, you hold 4414, 12 HCPs. You open 1♦ (hearts). Partner bids 2♦ (natural, forcing for one round, mildly constructive). Isn't this a problem?

Why? Bid 2NT.