Reverse

[kenberg]

Reverses often lead to undiscussed situations, here is an example.

Imp scoring, everyone vul, partner is the dealer and opens 1 .  You hold:

A975
KJ
42
QT853

So far so good. You respond 1 and partner bids 2 . Make a plan, Stan.

A bid of 2NT would be Leb, asking partner to rebid 3 . "Asking" is the right word, since if he has an unusual hand he might choose not to bid 3 . But normally he will. Often, but again not always, responder is trying to get out short of game when making this Leb call. So: I could bid 2NT even with this strongish hand but then I would want to be clear about the strength at my next call.
As to bidding 3 , this has not been discussed but it is presumably natural in the sense that it shows clubs, although it seems unlikely it would be a suggestion to play in clubs. Possible, I suppose.
If I had held a five card spade suit I could have rebid 2 over 2 without fear of partner passing so I do not really need 3 as an artificial call to check for a 5-3 spade fit. Of course I don't have five spades, but my point is that I am free to use 3 to show clubs.
We have not discussed a 3NT call over 2 but it is presumably natural. How it would differ from 2NT followed by 3NT has not been discussed.

Reversed lead to undiscussed situations. That's true for just about anyone.

So how are you thinking here? Get out? Game? Slam? What do I do now, and what do I anticipate happening next, if anything? And then what?

To borrow from an old song The story is sad, the ending was bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgDtAB9riWs

[jcreech]

My overall thought is game, not slam or partscore.  I am expecting a minimum of 17 HCPs unless there is more distribution than we have seen so far. 

I think of the 2NT followed by 3NT as being a 7+ to 11- type of bid - this hand fits that mold - a bit extra for the extra club, but since it is a QT8xx suit, I am not quite willing to give it a full point, just like hearts being partner's second suit, I am not certain whether to give the HJ full weight either.  However, if we are to play 3NT, I would like to steer the contract into partner's hand.  I have a couple of cards to be led into, but for NT, I am more concerned about spades than clubs, and hopefully partner has JTx or Qx to bolster my A9xx.

I am inclined to bid 3C.  If nothing else, partner will describe their hand further.  With extra length in the red suits, I would expect another red suit bid.  But partner should be able to work out that I do not have a clear preference if they have a minimum 4-5 in the reds, and start thinking about 3NT as an alternative.  What do I hear next, Ken?

[kenberg]

He rebids a red suit. Try it with either.

[Masse24]

Reverses often lead to undiscussed situations, here is an example.

Imp scoring, everyone vul, partner is the dealer and opens 1 .  You hold:

A975
KJ
42
QT853

If I had held a five card spade suit I could have rebid 2 over 2 without fear of partner passing so I do not really need 3 as an artificial call to check for a 5-3 spade fit. Of course I don't have five spades, but my point is that I am free to use 3 to show clubs.
We have not discussed a 3NT call over 2 but it is presumably natural. How it would differ from 2NT followed by 3NT has not been discussed.

Reverses lead to undiscussed situations. That's true for just about anyone.

So how are you thinking here? Get out? Game? Slam? What do I do now, and what do I anticipate happening next, if anything? And then what?

To borrow from an old song The story is sad, the ending was bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgDtAB9riWs

"Undiscussed." Yup, pretty much.

I agree with your "If I had held a five card spade suit I could have rebid 2 over 2 without fear of partner passing" statement. But only because that's what I believe a bog-standard lebensohl treatment of responder rebidding his suit at the 2-level is. To allow opener to pass responder's 2-level rebid (a superior treatment in my opinion) is either Ingberman or Blackout. If I'm playing with a casual pickup partner, and we simply have agreed to "leb," then that particular bid is one I would steer clear of, just to be safe. It's remotely possible my partner plays Ingberman and thinks it's leb. I've seen plenty of forum posts where people flip-flop the two definitions.

Back to your hand . . .

I'm jumping to 3NT, which for me shows about 8-11.

The ball is in partner's court.

[kenberg]

I also jumped to 3NT.

The good news is that 3NT would make easily, the bad news, or potentially bad news,  is that partner did not pass over 3NT.  Suppose, over 3NT, partner bids 4 of a red suit. now what?

I think the jump to 3NT over 2 should probably just show some sort of confidence that 3NT is the right place to play.  My clubs are QTxxx which means that they are not running clubs against me. Partner has good values, I have  useful heart cards, I stop spades. Seems 3NT might make. Maybe no, but there must be a pretty good shot.


Ok, probably time to give the hands.



                    K3
                    AQ854
                    AKJ973
                    ---


T42                                  QJ86
63                                   T972
T85                                  Q6
KJ742                               A96



                  A975
                  KJ
                  42
                  QT853

So: Double dummy you can take 13 tricks in either red suit but realistically playing in hearts is a problem. Opening lead of A is ruffed, cash one high , go over to the KJ and now a finesse, oops. The Q wins and another shortens your trumps.
But 6 requires no special vision. Ruff the , go to the board with the K A  and lead a . Sure, a 4-1 split could be a problem, but 4-1 in is a good deal less likely than 4-2 in and it is a problem only if on the wrong side. If the finesse wins but opponent shows out, another high , give up a , and claim when hearts are no worse than 4-2. .

Anyway, over 3NT pard bid 4 . This seemed like a slam try to me so I cue bid the A and played it in 4 .

I am not fond of the 4 call although I can understand wanting to play in a red suit. He has reversed, my 3NT must be on some sort of decent values, it seems if he pulls 3NT we will be playing in at least game somewhere so if I were to pull, I think I would pull to 4 asking me to choose between hearts and diamonds. Exactly what I would do then? Not sure. I doubt we reach 6 .Probably we play 4 .

The hands fit very well. We have the top two spades, I have the fitting hearts, he has a club void so they cannot cash a club. It's tough to work all of the out. But I think once I bid 3NT we need to be playing in game in NT or one of the red suits, so passing 3NT or bidding 4 to offer a choice of red games seems right to me.

But I was also thinking maybe I should have bid 2NT over the 2 planning to then bid 3NT. Maybe that's a hand where I am thinking I can play in NT but I would not rule out playing in a red suit. Partner, with his club void and expecting weakness from me, would probably bid 3 rather than 3 .

This went very wrong. Bidding over reverses is easy if responder has a dull hand. But often he doesn't. And then I think it gets tricky fast.
 

[jcreech]

I wrote most of this before Todd and Ken added to the conversation.

Never expect Ken to make things easier.

A rebid of 3H, will at least limit the hand shape more.  Partner has at most two black cards, and at least 5-6 in the reds.  It also should be a stronger hand because it forces a choice at the four level.  A minimum hand would be x  AQxxx  AKQxxx  x or -  AQxxx  AKxxxx  Kx.  I would probably continue with 3S and try to get to  a diamond slam, unless partner signs off with 3NT.

A rebid of 3D is more ambiguous.  The shape is less certain, and the minimum strength will depend somewhat on the shape.  I can see the shape varying from a 5-6 with minimum reverse values to 4-5 with a hand that is stronger, but the hand feels wrong for NT or a preference to one of my suits.  If a 5-6, then the hand is weaker, say -  ATxxx  AKxxxx  Kx or x  ATxxx  AQxxxx A, having more uncertainty in the longer suits.  If 4-5, there would be the expectation of normal reverse strength, but other choices may be unsavory, for example x  AQxx  AKxxx  KJx  or Kx  AQxx AQJxx Jx.  I would probably grimace internally, and bid 3NT.

Now for my post-response reaction:

Notice how close Ken's actual reverse is to my minimum 3H rebid.  Swap the spade and club holdings, and they are virtually identical, with one big difference - in my hand, there is a club loser, and in his, there is not.  How can you distinguish between the two?  It is not easy, so I would be happy getting to a red slam with either hand, and grateful that it made and hopeful for a plus team result.

[Masse24]

Having failed to rebid either 2 , or a stronger six-plus card 3 , it seems strange your partner would think you now had long spades.

And I agree that 4 was a poor choice. If I were going to pull 3NT (and it's not a bad idea to do so), then 4 seems to be best showing at least eleven red cards.

Auctions can be hard to choreograph without agreements, but certain "generally accepted" basics (like reverses always promise a longer first suit) would have worked well. Who knows . . . possibly even resulting in a red-suit contract?

[kenberg]

I decided to look around for a brief description of bidding over reverses.
The following is from Larry Cohen
https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/reverses

Start LC
After Opener's Reverse:

As to the follow-ups, after, say 1 -1 -2 , I recommend:

2 = 5+ spades, 1-round force
2NT=Forcing, but could be a weak hand (responder can pass opener's next bid). Denies 5+♠
3 =Natural, GF
3 =Natural, GF (some decent values)
3 =Natural, GF 4 hearts
3 =Natural, good suit, GF
3NT=Natural, some extras, but no real slam interest. 
 

The generic summary of the above treatment would be as follows:
After opener's reverse,
Responder's repeat of his suit=5+, one-round force

2NT=Potentially a weak sign-off type of hand

3-level=values, GF
End LC

As to how this would apply in the current case
Yes, when I do not rebid 2 partner can forget about playing in spades.
And 3NT is described as "Natural, some extras, but no real slam interest." I like that.  I did rebid 3NT and I was not exactly counting high card points. It was more like: Can I stop spades and clubs at least once and then are there likely to be 9 tricks? Of course it was nice that partner had the K, since now I have five heart tricks, two spades and two top diamonds. And nice that he had a five card heart suit. But he did reverse so he has to have something. Since I hold the KJ he has at most 6 points in hearts. this suggests that his diamonds are either to run or within a finesse of running. Few things are certain, but it seemed there should be 9 tricks once I get in. And if opener's diamonds are a bit shaggy, then since his hearts are also shaggy, surely he has help in stopping the other suits. So 3NT sounds like a good bet. This thinking relates to hcps, but it is not exactly just a count of hcps. This seems right to me. Goren popularized (not invented but popularized) hcps but he also stressed that this was an aid to bidding, not completely controlling.

Anyway, this brief summary by LC might help people avoid some of the reversals of fortune that come from reverses in bidding.

[wackojack]

Coming late to the party here I think is a reasonable bidding sequence:
1                                                1
2                                                 3NT   With 10 HCP I show a willingness to play in 3NT opposite a 17 point not too extreme shape reverse
4  (I have 5  + 6  +)            4 ( Ace Spades slam interest)
6  ( void and therefore 2560)        6  (prefer 6-2 to 5-2) 
pass

I was considering 5NT instead of 6  as saying pick a slam.  But 6  must be saying the same and is more informative)

On reverses in general they fortunately occur quite rarely and so becomes the domain of experts who want the "marginal gains".  The sequence 1  -1 - - 2 , I believe would be considered to be passable by more than 90% of iac ers even if they had Leb on their profile.  Steer clear of potential accidents. 

[Masse24]

Start LC
After Opener's Reverse:

As to the follow-ups, after, say 1 -1 -2 , I recommend:

2 = 5+ spades, 1-round force
2NT=Forcing, but could be a weak hand (responder can pass opener's next bid). Denies 5+♠
3 =Natural, GF
3 =Natural, GF (some decent values)
3 =Natural, GF 4 hearts
3 =Natural, good suit, GF
3NT=Natural, some extras, but no real slam interest. 
 

The generic summary of the above treatment would be as follows:
After opener's reverse,
Responder's repeat of his suit=5+, one-round force

2NT=Potentially a weak sign-off type of hand

3-level=values, GF
End LC

That's a painfully simple explanation of followups after a reverse. Very similar to lebensohl, except for the 2NT relay to 3 .

I have a friend whose partner refuses to play leb, which I can understand if it's leb over notrump interference (can be a bit complicated). If it's above his head, don't play it. But this method, espoused by Larry Cohen, is basically leb without the relay. And it's workable. And simple.

And for my friends partner, who has a severe case of lebensohlphobia, it never mentions that "L" word!

[kenberg]

Yes, the LC is simple enough. I think some add-ons could be added on.

A. After 1m-1 !s-2 the only bids that are not game forcing are 2 (natural and forcing for one round) and 2NT. Thus, a responder who wants to get out short of game and does not hold five spades will be bidding 2NT. Since this 2NT will thus be made on a broad variety of weak hands it seems logical enough for opener to bid 3 regardless of his cub holding simply to see what responder has in mind. This makes sense whether we use the L word or not. Under some circumstances, say a club void and 6-5 in the reds, maybe he can depart from this 3 route. Just when could be discussed. But it makes snes for 3 to be the usual, or default, response to the 2NT.

B. After 1 - 1M - 2   there is an opportunity to alter agreements using the other major, OM,  as the general artificial route to getting out short of game. So 1 - 1M - 2 - 2M is still a five card suit and a one round force, but 2 OM can be a potentially weak hand trying to get out. This is especially useful for 1 - 1S - 2 - 2 so that now opener can bid 2 naturally on a suitable hand. And if he doesn't and if 2NT seems crazy, he can bid 3 and see what responder has in mind. Often responder will be passing or correcting to 3 .

So one can start with LC and then, with discussion, adjust as above. With or without using the I word.

Another thing needs discussion is a reverse after responder bids 1NT over 1m. Eg 1 - 1NT - 2 . In this case responder is unlikely to hold 4 hearts and, more importantly, responder's strength is known within a narrow range. It would be good to have a simple write-up from an expert, but imo a rebid of 2NT should be passable here. Basically it's: Glad to here about your strength and shape but I have this 6 count and would be happy to get out wherever you think is best. 

[kenberg]

Coming late to the party here I think is a reasonable bidding sequence:
1                                                1
2                                                 3NT   With 10 HCP I show a willingness to play in 3NT opposite a 17 point not too extreme shape reverse
4  (I have 5  + 6  +)            4 ( Ace Spades slam interest)
6  ( void and therefore 2560)        6  (prefer 6-2 to 5-2) 
pass

I was considering 5NT instead of 6  as saying pick a slam.  But 6  must be saying the same and is more informative)

On reverses in general they fortunately occur quite rarely and so becomes the domain of experts who want the "marginal gains".  The sequence 1  -1 - - 2 , I believe would be considered to be passable by more than 90% of iac ers even if they had Leb on their profile.  Steer clear of potential accidents.

Reverses are infrequent but not really rare, and that's where the trouble comes in.  LC quotes "As my friend Marty Bergen says, he advises students to pray that reverses don't come up." Well, one can hope.  But in a 24 board session there is a fair chance, maybe 1 in 4, that it will come up. And when it does, often it goes wrong. I see this at the table, and it happens, and just happened, to me at the table.

We  probably don't need the ultimate tools, but we do need to know if 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 is forcing. I agree that many in iac and elsewhere think it is not. but others think that it is. And there we are.  At one time I had a pard who liked a lot of conventions and had her own way of playing many of them. It was exhausting, and I often just agreed to play them and hoped that they would not come up since I would have to not only recall we were playing it but recall her way of playing it.

If the LC route after a reverse could be popularized, that would help. It's short enough and simple enough that we could just go with it. It does not have to be optimal, but being explicit and clear are desirable features.