[dwar0123]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-25, 11:15, said:

No. The 2♥ bid is what disabled playing in 2 of opener's first suit, not the 2♠ bid. Timo's definition still stands. I like the term "non-jump" to be in there also, but that's not relevant to his point.

That might disable Timo's 2nd definition, but it is just as disabled by the RHO overcall in the OP, hence if the answer to the 2nd definition means it is not a reverse then the OP problem is still not a reverse.

[aguahombre]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-25, 11:23, said:

That might disable Timo's 2nd definition, but it is just as disabled by the RHO overcall in the OP, hence if the answer to the 2nd definition means it is not a reverse then the OP problem is still not a reverse.

The difference is that you don't have to bid at all in the OP auction, but in your example 2H is forcing for one round.

[dwar0123]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-25, 11:26, said:

The difference is that you don't have to bid at all in the OP auction, but in your example 2H is forcing for one round.

That is a difference, not sure how that relates to it being a reverse or not with the given definitions.

What would you bid with you being dealer
ajxx
x
xxx
akqjx

1♣ (p) 1♥ (2♦) ?

[akwoo]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-25, 11:34, said:

That is a difference, not sure how that relates to it being a reverse or not with the given definitions.

What would you bid with you being dealer
ajxx
x
xxx
akqjx

1♣ (p) 1♥ (2♦) ?

I would bid 2♠, but this might not be the example you're looking for, since I consider this hand good enough for a reverse. (Make either ace a low card in the same suit and I would still open (except maybe 2nd seat red vs white).)

Change the spade suit to Qxxx and now you have a real question.

[MrAce]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-25, 11:34, said:

That is a difference, not sure how that relates to it being a reverse or not with the given definitions.

What would you bid with you being dealer
ajxx
x
xxx
akqjx

1♣ (p) 1♥ (2♦) ?

Aguaman tried to explain you but you seem to not understand it.

First of all if you are going to give a hand, try something that is not as strong as this one...or perhaps change your hand evaluation, or both. This is a very good hand and can reverse. With anything less you have an easy pass. Trust me even the worst partners will know you are allowed to hold spades and a minimum hand for passing over this 2♦. You are not in pass out seat either and everyone heard you opened.

I just also recognized that you seem to ignore the difference between a 'free bid' and a 'forced bid' I know you are good enough to tell the diference between

1♦-(2♣)-2♥-(pass)
2♠

and

1♦-(pass)-1♥-(2♣)
2♠

As Aguaman said, in the first one opener did not disable us from playing 2♦, responder did. You may be as weak as 4-4 and 11 hcp w/o stopper and support for pd. After all you have to bid something.

On the second one you are bidding when you are not forced to and you are bidding vs pds possible nothing without any known fit. I expect you to hold at least 6-4 hand even if you dont have too many hcps such as AQTx xx KQJxxx x and i can argue with anyone that this hand is stronger than most 5422 17 hcp hands. So yes, i call it a reverse eventhough i bid it less than textbook reverse bean count.

[mycroft]

Just adding the one (seemingly obvious, but I know several local Intermediates who just don't see it) point:

MrAce, on 2012-September-26, 06:49, said:

I just also recognized that you seem to ignore the difference between a 'free bid' and a 'forced bid' I know you are good enough to tell the difference between

1♦-(2♣)-2♥-(pass)
2♠

and

1♦-(pass)-1♥-(2♣)
2♠

As Aguaman said, in the first one opener did not disable us from playing 2♦, responder did.

and, because of that, responder's 2♥ has shown enough strength to play at the 3 level opposite a minimum opener; so

Quote

You may be as weak as 4-4 and 11 hcp w/o stopper and support for pd. After all you have to bid something.

On the second one you are bidding when you are not forced to and you are bidding vs pds possible nothing without any known fit.

Edit: just realized that there are several who play this as an NFB auction; for them 2♥ has denied extra strength (and likely more shape), so you'd better have your stuff to bid 2♠; but for them 2♥ is passable (partner expects opener to pass, frankly, because she's a pessimist). But we're talking normal bidding.

[dwar0123]

MrAce, on 2012-September-26, 06:49, said:

Aguaman tried to explain you but you seem to not understand it.

I understand just fine, you don't understand what we are talking about.

Quote

First of all if you are going to give a hand, try something that is not as strong as this one...or perhaps change your hand evaluation, or both. This is a very good hand and can reverse. With anything less you have an easy pass.

This is laughable, I am clearly trying to give a hand that can bid 2♠ yet your suggestion to me is to make it not so strong and then you follow that up by stating that with anything less you have an easy pass.

Quote

Trust me even the worst partners will know you are allowed to hold spades and a minimum hand for passing over this 2♦. You are not in pass out seat either and everyone heard you opened.

I'll explain what we are talking about.

We are talking about the definition of a reverse.
We are not talking about hand evaluation, on that we seem to agree, despite your semantic gymnastics to make it seem like we don't.

If you don't like my definition of a reverse, take it up with the Bridge world, you are free to make up what ever silly definitions you want for a reverse. It is rather immaterial as long as your hand evaluation is good, which obviously it is. Though if you are going to try to help newer players, I suggest you clean up your definition some to cover some of the obvious holes in it.

[aguahombre]

I think we need to digress to a definition of "we".

[dwar0123]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-26, 11:01, said:

I think we need to digress to a definition of "we".

I've been pretty clear about what I am talking about and you two have been pretty clear about to whom you are talking too.

[MrAce]

.

dwar0123, on 2012-September-26, 11:53, said:

I've been pretty clear about what I am talking about and you two have been pretty clear about to whom you are talking too.

MrAce, on 2012-September-26, 06:49, said:

I know you are good enough to tell the diference between....

Sorry, i was wrong..obviously.

Having said that, i never made a definition of reverse. I wrote a simple an easy method to spot if a bid is reverse or not. Since it looks like some of us are lost while trying to figure whether a bid was reverse or not by reading definitions, and can claim that this bid is not reverse while it clearly is. ( **But please read the final part of this post to be clear about what i mean by reverse)

If a lot of players who are way better than me said that this bid is a reverse, in this example Gwnn, Timg, Arty, Aguaman, Rmnka, Mycroft then i would think twice before i keep on defending something for the sake of defending. You are not even aware what is being discussed here, ironically you think that i dont, lol. The question was if this bid is a reverse or not, you took your stand and tried to support it with the definition of reverse, which then Arty tried to help you by writing it, but (no surprise to me anymore) you kept on reading it the way you want to read even when everyone else said otherwise.

Another advice, when you are in a hole, STOP digging ! While you try to recover from your comments, you now showed that you are also stranger to the concept of a forced and a free bid. All this i believe is due to not having a good grasp of bidding logic. Which would be ok if one was willing to understand instead of arguing for the sake of arguing. Or it could be due to a brain fart, which is ok too since we all have it now and then, however i would be seriously concerned if my recover time from that brain fart took that long (of course that is if one ever recovers, but i dont see any sign of it yet)

If you tell me that, in a contested auction like this, the word "Reverse" is a little misleading, i couldn't agree with you more. Since it can be made also with a lot of playing potential and shape rather hcp strength. That is why i gave you an example of a 6-4 hand and 12 hcp in previous post. But we definetely don't do it with 4-4 or 5-4 minimum hands, even when they are unbalanced. Of course a persistent poster can construct an exceptional hand, but exceptions exists in all parts of the life and it is still correct to put the rules as if they dont exist for the sake of consistency and simplicity and let the common sense or logic override the rules when need to be imo.

[dwar0123]

MrAce, on 2012-September-26, 16:56, said:

Having said that, i never made a definition of reverse.

You said flat out I was wrong, that was the first thing you said in this thread. As the only thing I did was give a definition of a reverse that is almost a definition by negation.

Quote

I wrote a simple an easy method to spot if a bid is reverse or not.

That sounds like a synonym for defining a reverse.

Quote

Since it looks like some of us are lost while trying to figure whether a bid was reverse or not by reading definitions, and can claim that this bid is not reverse while it clearly is. ( **But please read the final part of this post to be clear about what i mean by reverse)

If a lot of players who are way better than me said that this bid is a reverse, in this example Gwnn, Timg, Arty, Aguaman, Rmnka, Mycroft then i would think twice before i keep on defending something for the sake of defending.

This is no doubt worrying and if someone points out to me how my reading of the bridge world definition of a reverse is in error I will have to acknowledge having egg on my face. Though to be fair, I originally asked in a humble manner and was flatly told I was wrong without anyone bothering to tell me how my reading of that quote is in error.

Quote

You are not even aware what is being discussed here, ironically you think that i dont, lol.

You have been discussing with me hand evaluation, a topic which I did not bring up nor have ever really bothered to debate with you. Others have all agreed, including me, that the op hand has a simple pass.

Quote

The question was if this bid is a reverse or not, you took your stand and tried to support it with the definition of reverse, which then Arty tried to help you by writing it, but (no surprise to me anymore) you kept on reading it the way you want to read even when everyone else said otherwise.

I said I thought it was such and such and then got quoted a definition which matched my understanding.

Bridge world, "a non-jump bid in a new suit that bypasses a bid in a lower-ranking suit already bid by the same"
I read the 'bypasses a bid' as in the lower-ranking suit was bypassed when the higher ranking suit was bid. Why else use the word bypassed.

Quote

you now showed that you are also stranger to the concept of a forced and a free bid.

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. If you respond to nothing else, please at least do this.
The only thing I can think of you referring to is my example hand/auction in which I constructed a hand strong enough to bid 2♠ in a free bid position. Which of course shows extra's, how you can possible take this to mean I don't understand the difference between a free bid and a forced bid is beyond me. If I tried to construct a hand that was to weak to bid there, then you would have a point, but as I didn't make that mistake it seems you are the one making a mistake about me.

Quote

Another advice, when you are in a hole, STOP digging !

I like to think that I am very good about the stop digging part of it when I am actually aware that I am in the hole. Some people will keep digging even when they know they are wrong, I don't. But first someone has to convince me I am wrong and I am not saying it is impossible, given the weight of the opinion against me I am not even suggesting it is likely I am right. But I will be damned if I give up just because a lot of people say I am wrong without providing any evidence. I also like to debate and debating the meaning of definitions is not off topic for this forum.

[MrAce]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-26, 17:42, said:

You said flat out I was wrong, that was the first thing you said in this thread. As the only thing I did was give a definition of a reverse that is almost a definition by negation.

I was trying to say you are wrong about this bid not being reverse. Did not mean to say you are wrong about what the definition says.

If you noticed i didn't get much into definition debate, since English is not my native language and there are a lot of things in English language that i still have very hard time to understand why they write or say things the way they do. So you may as well be right about the definition and that it led you to believe that it was not reverse, i will leave it to others whether the definition of wikipedia was clearly stating or capable of defining what a reverse is or not. If you also noticed i started my post saying "don't let the definitions confuse you..." because assuming that it is your native language, you may have a point that i can not see why this definition makes you think it is not reverse, and tried to give you a simple formula which made me have no problem figuring if a bid was reverse or not in my humble bridge life

[lycier]

120248, on 2012-September-23, 08:57, said:

ME
1♣ 1♦ 1♥ 2♦
?

My hand : ♠ KQ93 ♥ Q2 ♦ KQ3 ♣ 10742

Is 2♠ a reverse here ?

If no, SDhould i bid 2 spades ?

Ty all

yes,it is reverse,pass is an option for this hand. if you rebid 2s,it will show:
1.you have strong hand with 18hcp at least
2.bidding 2s depend on your 4-6 pattern with 15-18hcp,even if oposite to pd's minimum hand,you rebid 2s promise you can able to afford 3 of level as final comtract.

[Zelandakh]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-26, 17:42, said:

Bridge world, "a non-jump bid in a new suit that bypasses a bid in a lower-ranking suit already bid by the same"
I read the 'bypasses a bid' as in the lower-ranking suit was bypassed when the higher ranking suit was bid. Why else use the word bypassed.

I think I understand the problem now. The BW definition is fine for a non-competitive auction. For a competitive auction it would be clearer to add "for our side" to the end. In the OP auction partner did not bypass 1♠, we have done so for our side. In the other auction being discussed it is partner that bypassed spades. Does this make it clearer what MrAce et al are writing?

[gwnn]

By the way, what is this debate supposed to accomplish? Whether this is a reverse depends of what you mean by a reverse. Isn't it a better idea to try to think about whether it promises extras and if so, how much?

A better example might be

1C-1D-1S-2D
2H

and compare the minimum hands where opener bids 2H with hands where opener would bid

1C-p-1S-p
2H

with (note that 1C-1H; 2S would be GF thus stronger than a minimum reverse). Of course, with some of those hands he would have made a support double....

I guess in competition opener might want to reverse a bit lighter but maybe by a jack or so. Also with most 5422s and the likes opener can just double.

[ArtK78]

I don't want to get into the middle of this debate, but it seems clear to me that the Bridge World definition of a reverse is being misapplied.

Restating the quote, the definition of a reverse is "a non-jump bid in a new suit that bypasses a bid in a lower-ranking suit already bid by the same player".

Note the last two words - same player.

The basic definition of a reverse applies in an uncontested auction. Clearly, in a contested auction, a player may want to insert a bid before the bidding gets out of hand. In gwnn's competitive auction example:

1♣-1♦-1♠-2♦
2♥

the 2♥ bid by opener might be thought of as a reverse based upon the classic definitions; however, given that responder can no longer give a preference to clubs at the 2 level due to the opponents' intervention, the situation is much different. The 2♥ bid is still forcing, but I don't believe that most players would expect the same values for opener as if the same auction (1♣-1♠-2♥) had occurred in an uncontested auction.

Note that gwnn's example is the same as the example in the original post except that the major suits are reversed. The 2♥ call in gwyn's example allows responder to rebid his spade suit at the 2 level. The 2♠ bid in the example in the original post prevents responder from rebidding his suit at the 2 level, and, therefore, shows significant extra values.

[Codo]

Art, I don't know whether you example is well taken.
My partner bid 1 ♠ and he did not double.
So for which holding do I cater to make this reverse "lighter" then my usual reverse biddings? Which are the hands, where I need to introduce my second suit right now?

[billw55]

rmnka447, on 2012-September-24, 00:20, said:

By passing, you do two things, you convey to partner that you have a minimum opener and leave room for partner to take the initiative.

Three things: pass clearly denies four hearts. Or three and a half things: pass does not exactly deny six clubs but the chance of that is much reduced. Furthermore, is this a support double situation? If so then failure to do that also carries information.

Pass can say quite a lot in competitive auctions.

[gwnn]

Codo, on 2012-September-27, 07:06, said:

Art, I don't know whether you example is well taken.
My partner bid 1 ♠ and he did not double.
So for which holding do I cater to make this reverse "lighter" then my usual reverse biddings? Which are the hands, where I need to introduce my second suit right now?

Maybe I'm wrong about this but I think it's common to bid 1S with 5S/4H hands even if they're minimum. If you play it that way (I guess you don't), then we might get shut out after something like 1C-1D-1S-2D; p-3D-p-p.

[ArtK78]

Codo, on 2012-September-27, 07:06, said:

Art, I don't know whether you example is well taken.
My partner bid 1 ♠ and he did not double.
So for which holding do I cater to make this reverse "lighter" then my usual reverse biddings? Which are the hands, where I need to introduce my second suit right now?

First of all, no one said anything about a double. Second, as stated by billw and gwnn, responder could have 5 spades and 4 hearts. So opener, with 4 hearts, might bid 2♥ in gwnn's suggested auction with much less than classic reverse values. To pass would risk getting shut out of the auction. The 2♥ bid, while forcing, does not necessarily commit the partnership to the 3 level, as it may be possible to get out in either 2♠ or 2NT.

In the auction in the OP, bidding 2♠ is far riskier, as it forces the partnership to the 3 level (I don't see any way the partnership can stop in 2NT). Furthermore, with 5 hearts and 4 spades and a weak hand, responder might have doubled to show both majors. He is more likely to bid spades with 5 spades and 4 hearts since he will be able to bid again to show hearts without increasing the level of the auction. Even then, he might have doubled 1♦ with 5-4 in the majors (in either order) and a weak hand fearing that he needs to be able to show both suits immediately. So, opener's rebid of 2♠ commits the partnership to the three level without having found a fit. This is risky.

The bottom line is that the values promised by a bid are related to how high the bid commits the partnership. In the OP, responder's 1♥ response promised minimal values (traditionally 6 HCP, but as a practical matter it could be less). If opener bids 2♠ over 2♦, the partnership is committed to the 3 level opposite what could be a weak resonding hand. Therefore, the 2♠ rebid promises significant extra values.

In gwnn's auction, the 2♥ rebid by opener does not commit the partnership beyond 2♠. Therefore, the 2♥ rebid does not promise significant extra values.