I will treat agreements and values separately here.
Agreements: We treat the reverse into 2
as a one round force, and then the immediate 3
over 2
as a game force. Or at least as a strong bid, whether there is any exit we could discuss. I held the big hand and after the raise to 3
I was considering 6
. The 3
was planned as a move in that direction. The 3NT over 3
caused me to rethink. If partner's values are mostly in the majors then I think I will settle for 3NT. As the cards lie, 3NT cannot be beaten since the diamonds are 5-3 and the
A is in the hand with the short diamonds. But 5
is a good deal safer. With diamonds 3-2 and split heart honors, both were the case, it's easy, and there are at least possibilities with other holdings.
Is this "standard'. say on my side of the Atlantic? I think so. From Bridge World Standard:
"Opener's reverse after a one-notrump response is forcing. Opener's reverse after a one-level suit response is forcing and promises a rebid below game. "
Here is Larry Cohen:
https://www.larryco.com/bridge-learning-center/detail/562"Reverses are forcing one round--the responder can not pass. However, reverses are not forcing to game. Opener's jumpshift (a different topic), is game forcing."
This was not always the case, but over here reverses have been a one round force for at least 30 years I think.
So this is a difference in agreements.
Moving on to Lebensohl.
I will take from Ron Andereson's "The Lebensohl Convention Complete"
The "complete" may be a bit of an overstatement but it has a lot. He also plays the reverse as forcing for one round. On page 81 he gives the auction 1
- 1
- 2
-3
, where responder supports opener directly instead of going through the 2NT, as game forcing. On the next page he starts a starts a section on the reverse into 2
, viua 1
- 1M -2
and I though uh oh, but no, the exception he is talking about is that now the weak Lebensohl sequence begins with 2 of the other major rather than with 2NT. On page 84 he gives examples: After 1
- 1
- 2
a 2
call relays to 3
after which 3
is a sign off, while bidding 3
directly over 2
is described as a slam try.
What is really clear from this is that bidding over reverses is apt to lead to misunderstandings if the meanings have not been discussed. This has been my experience. I am confident that playing the reverse as a one round force is very standard over here, but the details of Lebensohl vary a bit from person to person.
On to values:
Values: No matter what is being played over the reverse, there is still the issue of values. Assuming that, after 1
- 1M - 2
the methods allow both a strong way and a weak way to show the
fit then where is the line to be drawn? As mentioned, with mild variants in either direction, these hands might be good for a slam, a game, or a part score. If we simply change the heart T to a small spot then neither 3NT nor 5
is odds on, but if we change the
J to the
K then 6
is a good bet. Of course this has to do with my solid but aceless
suit. I expect I would have reverses even if the
J were the
2, although that would be a minimum.
Anderson appears to regard a raise of either of opener's suits, directly after the reverse, as game forcing. Leb is used to suggest getting out in a prat score. I believe this to be pretty standard, again my experience is on this side of the Atlantic. I thought partner was light, but only slightly light, for his immediate 3
.
I think this all demonstrates a great need for discussion of who plays what after a reverse. It is absolutely clear that trusting a partner to understand your intentions is highly risky without discussion.
If I get ambitious I may do a bit of a literature search. But others are very welcome to weigh in.