Opener's reverse: Definition

[wackojack]

When opener's rebid is above the same suit simple rebid it is called a reverse.  It says nothing about extra strength or length but has definite implications. 

Take 1 - 1 - 2 in a natural sequence.  Opener's "same suit rebid barrier" is 2 .  The rebid of 2 is above this barrier and so is a reverse.  The implications of this reverse is that opener needs extra strength to find the right contract if responder has 5 or 6 points.  Another general implication is that the first bid suit will be longer than the 2nd bid suit.  It seems (from the opinions given by kibs in Donnas iac session) that this 2nd implication is disputed for a 1-4-4-4 distribution.  Nevertheless the fact that it is a reverse has to be indisputable.

Take again 1 - 1 - 2 but this time you are playing transfer responses to 1 whereby 1 shows  !Hs; 1 shows  s; and 1 shows  !Ds.  This is still a reverse of course.  However, the implications are totally different.  The 2 bid implies a minimum opener with 5  !Cs + 4 s and of course is not forcing.  Responder will pass with most hands with fewer than 12 points. 

Ofcourse if you are playing 5542 then the 2 rebid would not imply 5 +4 .  This hand could have 4 and only 2  !Cs.  Nevertheless it is by definition a reverse. 

[kenberg]

I see it as follows, pretty much as you do:
There are two questions
1. What is the definition of a reverse?
2. What does it show?


Bridge World Standard appears to take the same view:
"Opener's reverse of the form one diamond — two clubs — two of a major does not promise extra values and is ambiguous as to diamond length."

Thus 1 - 2 - 2 is a reverse because 2 goes beyond 2 , but, for BWS anyway, it does not show extra strength. This came up in the Donna hands and it is true that not everyone plays this the same way.

Here is the hand from Donna's session:


  AQT6
  AQ85
  KQ43
  J




  K743
  764
  T
  AKQ87

I gave this hand to the robots and the auction began 1 - 2 - 2 .

The robots tell you what their bids mean. The 2 was described as
"3+ diamonds, 4+ hearts, 16-22 total points" (total points include points for shape and fit).

Otoh, I took a look at the computer disc I have where Mike Lawrence gives his views on 2/1. His views are closer to BWS (and to mine). I'll summarize from memory:
A. After 1 -2 , opener should prioritize clarifying diamond length since 1 is often on four cards and can be on three. ML says that if opener has 5+ diamonds his rebid should be 2 . But one of the things I like (maybe others hate) is that he feels free to violate his own rules. He later gives a hand where despite having five diamonds he regards a rebid of 2NT as preferable. But usually with 5+ diamonds his choice is to bid 2
B. As with BWS, for ML the auction 1 - 2 - 2 does not show extras. But he also plays that 1 - 2 - 2NT does not deny a major.  I think of ML as very practical. If it begins 1 - 2 and opener has four hearts he looks at his hand to see if, from what he can see, NT might be a good spot. If so, he is free to skip over the heart suit and bid 2NT. Responder, holding four hears, can still bid 3 . So the general idea is: After 1 - 2 we look for where we belong. Bidding 2 says "I have four hearts and I am wary of NT) while bidding 2NT says "I might or might not have a four card major but if we don't have a major suit fit I think NT should be fine".


The full robt auction on the Donna hand went 1 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 4NT - 5 - 6 .
I am not so fond of the 4NT. It seems to me that there could be a hand where opener lacks four spades but want to bid an invitational 4NT. Why not raise 2 to 3 , setting trump, and then next time bid a clear RKC bid of 4NT? In fact, one could make the argument that since opener had the option of setting trump with 3 and he chose not to do that, therefore the 4NT is not RKC for spades. But 4NT was the bid by opener robot and understood by responder robot.


I chose the maybe not so good rebid of 2NT over 2 , Blu bid his spades, we got to 6 , but maybe I should have bid 2 over 2 . If I do, I really think the next bid by opener should be 3 .


PS This idea that 1 - 2 - 2 does not show extra values reflects the fact that the 2 call already showed that responder has good values. If the auction begins 1 - 1 then responder might have very little. So surely 2 has to be on extras. How much extra gets debated, and what happens next gets debated, but definitely 1 - 1 - 2 shows extras. It is after  1 - 2   that many, including me, play that 2 does not show extras.

 

[Masse24]

Yup . . . Pretty much what Ken wrote.

Mike Lawrence has a nice summary on his CD, as Ken described. I believe the phrase that he uses, when describing opener's 2 (with 5+) rebid in a GF 1 - 2 auction is: "opener's first priority." In doing so, you never lose a major fit since you do not deny a four card major. Responder, knowing this, will bid a major if he has one.

Is this (rebid of 2 with 5+) universal? No, but I believe it to be common enough that I would call it standard. Or, at least more standard than other methods. I recall researching this auction for hours about ten years ago. In doing so I ran across one of Steve Robinson's articles where he polls about two dozen world class players. Many of them agreed. Lawrence, Katz, Cohen, Bergen come to mind from memory. There were others as well. Unfortunately, these articles have been removed, but can be found using the Wayback Machine.

As to the question, is 1 - 2 - 2 a reverse? Sure it is. The important question, however, is: what does it show? Shape? Extras?
Similar to the auction 1 - 2 - 2 being a reverse or not. Of course it is. The questions to answer though, are: What does it show? Shape? Extras? I think far more 2/1 players would answer "no" to the question of extras or not. But again, not universal.

Gavin Wolpert, who was mentioned briefly yesterday, also espouses this method. A four slide recap of this is below.

[kenberg]

Donna's sessions can lead to good discussions.

I think Mike Lawrence and Gavin Wolpert would disagree about the hand in the lower left corner of that four slide recap. If I understood ML correctly that's the sort of hand where ML would skip over the hearts and bid 2NT. Nothing to stop them from finding hearts on the next round, but NT looks like a fine strain whenever there is not a major suit fit available.


These are subtle points, not everyone agrees. But while it is not universal to play that 1 - 2 !c - 2 can be done with nothing extra, just showing the hearts, I do believe that it's pretty widespread to play it that way.


I repeat: Donna's hands can lead to good discussions.

[Masse24]

I think Mike Lawrence and Gavin Wolpert would disagree about the hand in the lower left corner of that four slide recap. If I understood ML correctly that's the sort of hand where ML would skip over the hearts and bid 2NT. Nothing to stop them from finding hearts on the next round, but NT looks like a fine strain whenever there is not a major suit fit available.

Possibly. I seem to recall, as you wrote above, that Lawrence permits one to ski off-piste with the right hand. I believe the words he chose were along the lines of, "if it feels like no-trump, bid no trump."

[kenberg]

Another thing from BWS. As noted above, after 1 - 2 , opener's rebid of 2M does not show extras.
After 1 -2m however, BWS does play 2 as showing extras. Here is a quote, in the section where they discuss the auction after opening 1 of a major. :
"After a two-over-one response, a two-level reverse or a non-jump three-level new-suit bid shows extra strength, but two notrump or a single raise may be based on a minimum hand."
This is also the way I have played it. 1 - 2 - 2 shows extras. If opener, holding four spades, lacks extras he can rebid 2 . If responder has four spades then responder can bid 2 and opener will raise.

I know some play that 1 - 2 - 2 also does not show extras but for BWS, and for the way I have long played, it shows about a K extra. Or more, of course. And Mike Lawrence agrees. Great minds and all that jazz.

[wackojack]

Glad there is unanimity in this thread that 1 -2 -2 is a reverse.  At the table in Donnas session I did get a constant assertion from some kibbers that it was not a reverse.  I beleieve that there is a confusion among some that just because this particular  "reverse" does not show extras then they argue that it is not a reverse.

Onto the hand and Gavin Wolpert.


  AQT6
  AQ85
  KQ43
  J




  K743
  764
  T
  AKQ87

Having watched many of his Robot sessions with Rob Barrington.  I have seen him rebid 2N on a practically identical hand.

I am certain that the auction would go:
1      2
2NT     3
So they find their 4-4 spade fit and now opener knows that responder has 5+ s and 4  !Ss
I often see that they have no inhibitions about opening or rebidding in no trumps with a singleton minor and I see sense in this approach.

The sequence 1 -2 - 2 looks ugly and contrived  and if as Todd maintains that this rebid could be made with only 4 s then then you cannot bid out your shape which is self destructive. 

Also the debate that 1 -2  -2 not showing extras but 1 -2 - 2 as showing extras.  I think that few would have the patience hold this view.  I will stick to the understanding that after a 2/1 game force a low reverse does not guarantee extras but a high reverse does.   And we all know what a high reverse is don't we? 

[kenberg]

Continuing with citing various experts, long ago I heard a lecture by Steve Robinson where he said that what bridge really needs is a bidding system where the auction would never begin 1 - 2

What Todd said is in fact stronger than saying opener, after  1 - 2 - 2 might not have five diamonds. I'll skip from Todd to Mike Lawrence. ML is saying that 1 - 2 - 2 denies, or almost certainly denies, five diamonds. With five diamonds and four hearts it would begin 1 - 2 - 2 .

Like it or not, this approach is very common, I would say common enough that if I were responder and it began 1 - 2 - 2 I would assume that five diamonds have been shown and now I should bid a major if I have one. since partner very well might.

This discussion shows why Donna's hands are so useful. The key here is not to decide who is going at this correctly, the key is to agree with your partner about what means what.

I was playing with Blu, to began 1 - 2 - 2 . I assumed he had four hearts, which he did, I made no assumption about his diamonds but if he and I agreed on what ML says then I would assume he hand at most four diamonds.

I think I should have bid 2 . My think was that most likely pard does not have four spades and so maybe I should conceal them but no, I think I should have bid 2 .

Now I also think we need to be cautious about making too much of that 2 bid. Perhaps I am just marking time to see what pard does next. Maybe marking time is not a great idea. But anyway, if I bid 2 partner can raise to 3 . If by any chance my 2 was a bit of a fake I could now bid 3nT. But in this case I have spades, I know partner has spades, I know he is 4=4=4=1 or 4=4=5=0.  We have room to get things settled.

My experience is that on a great many hands it matters very little which system you are playing. Of course it matters on some or we would not have all these systems. But far more often the key is whether both partners are playing the same system.

Anyway, I plan to do a bit more with Donna's hands. Next weekend we play the acols. If I screw up a hand then I do, that happens, but I hope we minimize the chance of afterwards saying "Oh, I thought your bid showed X, I never dreamed it showed Y".

[Masse24]

Onto the hand and Gavin Wolpert.

  AQT6
  AQ85
  KQ43
  J

  K743
  764
  T
  AKQ87

I am certain that the auction would go:
1      2
2NT     3
So they find their 4-4 spade fit and now opener knows that responder has 5+ s and 4  !Ss
I often see that they have no inhibitions about opening or rebidding in no trumps with a singleton minor and I see sense in this approach.

The sequence 1 -2 - 2 looks ugly and contrived  and if as Todd maintains that this rebid could be made with only 4 s then then you cannot bid out your shape which is self destructive. 

Except that there is a problem with the proposed auction above. See it?

The problem is that opener knows there is a fit, responder does not. So you "find" the fit not at the three level, but at the four level. So I disagree that you cannot bid out your shape. You can, and do.

In my proposed auction, the fit is identified at the three level:
1 - 2
2 - 2
3

In the other auction, a space eating 4 would be needed to "agree" spades and show slam interest. The reason for this is that 4 would be a sign-off. Also, 4NT would be . . . what? If you are always using it as RKCB for the last bid suit (not ideal) then what does opener do with a 19 HCP and no spade fit?
 
All of this is part of the reason for the rebid of 2 over a GF 2 when holding 5+ diamonds.

As far as what Gavin would bid. I don't know with certainty. I can only point to the slide above (Gavin's) in the upper right hand corner.

As long as a partnership is in agreement, that's what is important. Like Ken wrote, it's a common method.

[kenberg]

It just occured to me that as the hand went at Donna's table, starting 1 - 2 - 2 - 2NT, my 2NT call was "brilliant", with the quotes expressing humorous intent.  Over 2NT Blu bid 3 , making him the declarer.
The hands are


  AQT6
  AQ85
  KQ43
  J

  K743
  764
  T
  AKQ87

We have arranged it so that the hand with the AQ85 is declarer, so he would welcome a heart lead. If I were declaring I would be less enthusiastic abut seeing a heart from LHo as the AQ85 hit the table. Assuming a non-heart lead at T1, declarer gets to lead a toward the KQ43. If the A is well-placed, as it is, then Lho is faced with a tough choice. If he goes up with the A then two losing hearts get pitched on the KQ. If he does don't go up then the K scores a trick and declarer holds no more . Probably ducking is right.

The cards lie nicely so 6 is coming in. But just looking at this pair of hands I am not so sure we should think of reaching 6 as a great success. It makes, true enough.

[blubayou]

It makes from either side, if only the 5th club had set up,  although if trumps are not 3-2 we will still need the heart finesse, so brilliantly getting north to declare may have come in handy

[kenberg]

Yes, the hand makes from either side as the cards lie. However, there are more chances with N as declarer.

  AQT6
  AQ85
  KQ43
  J

  K743
  764
  T
  AKQ87

Played by N, a heart lead from E would be great but of course that doesn't happen. However, that provides the opportunity tosoon lead that stiff from the board, as you did. If W holds the A and hops up, you have 4 tricks plus 1 ruff,  together with 2 tricks,  4 tricks and 1 trick. So you don't have to care how clubs split or where the K is. It's true that W does best to duck when the stiff is led but that play is not easy to see. If he does duck then there is still the reasonable possibility of a 4-3 split in clubs and that gives 4+1+1+5=11 plus a ruff for 12. When the clubs don't split you fall back on the working finesse. So the options are a lot better. Played by S, on an opening lead from W, I have to choose at T1. If are 4-3 and are 3-2 then I don't need the finesse (5 clubs, 4 spades, 1 heart, 1 diamond, 1 ruff) so probably I won't take the finesse at T1. Oops. Played by N, you get to try everything else before you go for the finesse as your last hope.

However, that was not my thinking as I skipped over my spades. I considered my hand as minimal for my 2 call, I was thinking 3NT might play better from my side on a spade lead. Again, that's bridge for you.