[GreenMan]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-10, 06:35, said:

It seems entirely sensible to not say anything about reverses and strength requirements to absolute beginners. Let them (mis)bid the hands and get on with the play. First teach them to show their distribution, locate a fit, etc.

The next step will be to teach them that you need to decide at some point when you stop showing your suits (because otherwise you will get too high).

I believe that what is happening is that people will turn up for the first part of the course, then decide to go it alone after that and skip the next set of lessons. They are doing as they were taught, possibly not knowing that their education was incomplete.

[aguahombre]

I have a problem with the term "deliberate". I have been ranting to all who will listen against "deliberately" creating a reverse by distorting the relative lengths of the two suits in order to show extra strength. If that is what is meant by deliberate reverses, then they can't become obsolete fast enough, IMO.

Opening 1C with 5-5 in clubs and diamonds within a natural system because we have a 17 count would be an example of what I thought was a deliberate reverse.

[bberris]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-12, 17:53, said:

I have a problem with the term "deliberate". I have been ranting to all who will listen against "deliberately" creating a reverse by distorting the relative lengths of the two suits in order to show extra strength. If that is what is meant by deliberate reverses, then they can't become obsolete fast enough, IMO.

Opening 1C with 5-5 in clubs and diamonds within a natural system because we have a 17 count would be an example of what I thought was a deliberate reverse.

Oh, you mean a perverse reverse?

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-11, 20:16, said:

Right, but what is/is not forcing?

Heheh. Of course. However, I expect the answer often is "I don't know".

[blackshoe]

GreenMan, on 2013-January-12, 15:07, said:

I believe that what is happening is that people will turn up for the first part of the course, then decide to go it alone after that and skip the next set of lessons. They are doing as they were taught, possibly not knowing that their education was incomplete.

Let me get this straight. I sign up for an eight week course on how to bid, I attend two weeks of it, and I don't know that my education was incomplete? Just exactly how stupid am I?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-12, 22:22, said:

Let me get this straight. I sign up for an eight week course on how to bid, I attend two weeks of it, and I don't know that my education was incomplete? Just exactly how stupid am I?

Eight weeks on a cruise ship?

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-11, 20:16, said:

Right, but what is/is not forcing?

Nothing is forcing, except for bids in the fourth suit, jumps to 4m and Blackwood.

Rik

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-January-12, 22:25, said:

Eight weeks on a cruise ship?

Bah. Pick some other numbers then. Two of four lessons, whatever.

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-12, 22:22, said:

Let me get this straight. I sign up for an eight week course on how to bid, I attend two weeks of it, and I don't know that my education was incomplete? Just exactly how stupid am I?

Four weeks of Basic Bridge Bidding, four more weeks of Bridge Bidding II, and not everyone in the first class goes ahead and joins the second.

[gwnn]

Trinidad, on 2013-January-13, 02:00, said:

Nothing is forcing, except for bids in the fourth suit, jumps to 4m and Blackwood.

Rik

And when is 4NT Blackwood? And what is it for?

[mgoetze]

gwnn, on 2013-January-14, 02:51, said:

And when is 4NT Blackwood? And what is it for?

What do you mean "for"? It's for aces of course!

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2013-January-14, 02:51, said:

And when is 4NT Blackwood?

Always.

We are talking about a simple default standard system to deal with reverses. My biggest problem was whether a jump to 3M would be forcing (1♦-1♠; 2♥-3♠). I guess that you can have different opinions there (influenced by the question whether you play weak jump shifts).

Maybe I should have said: "Nothing is forcing, except: fourth suit and jumps below and beyond game."

Rik

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-12, 17:53, said:

Opening 1C with 5-5 in clubs and diamonds within a natural system because we have a 17 count would be an example of what I thought was a deliberate reverse.

Funny you should say that....

This hand came up in a county match yesterday:

---

I had to give a ruling on the hand after 1♣ was opened and a Ghestem 2♦ overcall was not alerted. While trying to think about how the auction might have gone with an alert, I asked the person holding this hand why he had opened 1♣. "So I could reverse into diamonds to show a strong hand." I see, I said, hopefully without any of the surprise I felt at hearing this argument used by a county (second-team) player. (He then felt a bit stuck on the next round after the apparently natural 2♦ overcall was raised to 3♦....)

[spaderaise]

WellSpyder, on 2013-January-14, 04:39, said:

Funny you should say that....

This hand came up in a county match yesterday:

---

I had to give a ruling on the hand after 1♣ was opened and a Ghestem 2♦ overcall was not alerted. While trying to think about how the auction might have gone with an alert, I asked the person holding this hand why he had opened 1♣. "So I could reverse into diamonds to show a strong hand." I see, I said, hopefully without any of the surprise I felt at hearing this argument used by a county (second-team) player.

It sounds like you (and aguahombre) disagree with his logic, but what's the problem? Is it particularly worse to put strong 5-5 hands through 1C-..-2D rather than through 1D-..-3C? Of course, the 1C-..-2D sequence becomes less well defined, but in compensation the 1D-..-3C sequence becomes better defined. Arguably this is better since it keeps the auction lower on more hands, and increases the definition of the auction that has reached the 3-level at the cost of reducing the definition of the one that has reached only the 2-level. Am I missing something obvious?

[Vampyr]

spaderaise, on 2013-January-14, 08:44, said:

Is it particularly worse to put strong 5-5 hands through 1C-..-2D rather than through 1D-..-3C?

Yes, the first sequence distorts the shape. When a reverse is made the second suit is always shorter than the first one. Also, in most "normal" systems, the higher of two 5-card suits is opened (some people make exceptions at certain strengths when the two suits are the blacks).

[MickyB]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-14, 09:05, said:

Yes, the first sequence distorts the shape. When a reverse is made the second suit is always shorter than the first one. Also, in most "normal" systems, the higher of two 5-card suits is opened (some people make exceptions at certain strengths when the two suits are the blacks).

This doesn't feel like an answer to the question asked. If you agree that 1C then 2D can be 5-5, then bidding this way isn't distorting the shape of the hand.

Spaderaise -

1D then 3C is GF. If partner responds 1H, the hand that WellSpyder gave isn't worth 3C, it is a mere 2C bid. If partner passes, we'll occasionally miss a game, but more likely is that we've done well to stop low. If partner gives preference to 2D, then I'll bid 3C, natural and invitational, 5-5. Now I've described my hand perfectly at a lower level than I ever could by reversing.

You could argue that 5-5 GFs should bid 1C..2D...3D or so, rather than 1D...3C which could be 5-4 [or, for some, 6-3], but that would be ignoring contested auctions. For example, 1C-4H-P-P; I want 4NT now to show clubs with a shorter diamond suit, I don't want it to potentially be 5-5. After 1D-4S-P-P, I have 4NT to show D+C, 6-4 or so, and 5C to show 5-5 or 6-5.

Regardless of the strength of the hand, reversing is never something you are ecstatic to be doing - hence my veiled brag earlier in this thread about having eliminated all reverses from my system

[TylerE]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-14, 09:05, said:

Yes, the first sequence distorts the shape. When a reverse is made the second suit is always shorter than the first one. Also, in most "normal" systems, the higher of two 5-card suits is opened (some people make exceptions at certain strengths when the two suits are the blacks).

The more I play the less I understand this. 1♣-Banana-2♦ containing an extra ♦ maybe 10% of the time is worth being almost a full level lower 100% of the time.

[aguahombre]

It is not helpful to compare a distorted reverse to a jump shift and decide the extra room is valuable. Reverses can be less than game-forcing. The example WellSpyder provided above is not worth a game-forcing jump-shift anyway; 1 higher, then 2 of a lower is wide ranging; but there is no real need to give up the value of showing longer in the first suit to manuafacture a reverse and cut down the range.

[q0987]

mgoetze, on 2013-January-09, 22:50, said:

There are obviously some misunderstandings here. First of all, "reverse bid" is not the name of a convention. It is simply the technical name for what you are doing when you rebid at the 2-level in a higher suit than the one you opened in. Some examples:

1♥-1NT-2♦: This is not a reverse
1♦-1NT-2♥: This is a reverse
1♥-1NT-3♦: This is not a reverse, it's a jump shift.

Now, what is so special about the reverse bid? Well, let's see what happens when responder shows preference for opener's first suit:

1♥-1NT-2♦-2♥: Everything is wonderful
1♦-1NT-2♥-3♦: Oops, we're at the 3-level

This simple bit of bridge logic is the primary reason why reverse bids require extra strength. It's not just something people thought up as a fancy convention. If you bid 1♦-1NT-2♥ on 12 HCP, you will get into a lot of trouble. There are also a lot of other reasons why this would be a bad idea (notably, you will have a lot of trouble bidding the hands which do have extra strength properly).


"New suits forcing" was surely one of the great inventions of the early 20th century. Having e.g. 1♥-1♠ be forcing laid the foundation for modern bidding systems. Extending this to bids such as 1♥-1♠-1NT-2♣ did wonders for bidding accuracy.

That said, the concept has been known for a long time, yet no serious player plays 1♥-1NT-2♦ (in the context of a natural system) as forcing. Why not? Well, because you could very well be in the highest makeable contract already! If opener has 12 HCP and responder has 6 HCP, being at the 2 level is plenty high already. And if you have a 5-1 heart fit and a 4-4 diamond fit, do you really want to be forced to play in hearts?


This is not common practice anywhere. You have been thoroughly misinformed.

Thanks I had forgotten a lot about reverses and this helped. Very well written!