close decisions

[kenberg]

Conventions (Lebensohl in this case) are definitely helpful but sometimes it still helps to guess right A recent hand:

Matchpoints, nobody vul, dealer on my right passes. You hold:

5
A32
AKT5
KQJT4

The opponents remain silent.


We have a promising start:
1    1
2    3

Ok, we have agreed to play Lebensohl here, but still, how good is this raise.

I bid 3 , partner bid 3NT, I decided to leave it be. A good choice, as it turned out.


5
A32
AKT5
KQJT4


A764
JT4
Q972
92

The opening lead was the 5.  There is something to be said for rising with the A and starting on clubs. It's unlikely they can take four  tricks  when they are in with the , it would require one person to have a five card suit with both the K and the Q, but partner ducked. The lead was taken by the Q and a came back.  Making 5.

I think partner was maybe  a bit light for 3 , as opposed to the weaker Lebensohl sequence  2NT->3 -> 3 , or preferably 2 ->3 -> 3 if that variation is in use,  but in fact both 3NT and 5 have reasonable chances. Of course that T was a useful back-up to the J. Maybe that justifies the 3 .

After the 3 I gave a bit of thought to a slam. For example, 6 would be a good contract on

5
A32
AKT5
KQJT4


A764
K54
Q972
92

Speculating in the other direction,  5 is likely to go badly and 3NT is iffy with

5
A32
AKT5
KQJT4


A764
J54
Q972
92

This example shows how close things can be. Modest changes in one direction change this to a slam hand, modest changes in the other direction make even game, especially a 5 game, iffy. So we bid, and we hope that the force is with us. Metaphors be with you, as Carrie Fisher liked to say.

[kenberg]

Nobody replied so I will!

I think the follow-up bidding after a reverse is understudied. I invite people to put up hand where it went well or where it did not go well. After a reverse, often but not always the hands belong in game. But sometimes in a part score, sometimes in a slam. Sometimes in NT, sometimes in a suit. It would be good to have a collection of such hands as they actually occurred. Or so I think.

I realize not everyone plays Lebensohl over a reverse but a lot of people do. But whether or not you are playing Leb, reverses come up and it would be nice to see some examples.

[OliverC]

I've been playing Leb over reverses since the mid '80s. Do you treat the reverse into 2 as forcing? There is critical difference between a fast 3 , as here, and a slow 3 depending on whether you do or don't treat 2 as F1.


I treat the fast 3 as essentially weakish but shapely, but the slow 3 as genuinely invitational (but then I don't treat 2!D as forcing here. If you do, then that changes everything)


I must confess that on this particular hand I'd have been bidding 5 over 3 , for sure, because I know Partner probably has a singleton Spade and 3NT is probably dead in the water on a Spade lead (which you're almost certain to get, in my view) (3 is 4SF, for sure, but the rest of the sequence makes it clear Partner is wanting decent Spades from you - if they had a Heart shortage, they'd be bidding 3 over 3 , for sure). Axxx is really not enough to be sure of holding the suit when you can't be reasonably sure of running 8 tricks outside the suit.

[kenberg]

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.

[kenberg]

There is a convenient online write-up by mikeh of Lenensohl.Ingherman over reverses at
http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/18177-a-primer-on-reverse-bidding/

I am not saying that this covers everything, but it covers quite a bit and is easily found.
As to Ingerman: I think of this as a simple and natural variant on Leb when the auction begins 1 - 1M - 2 . Giving it a different name just confuses the issue, imo. But Ingerman seems to be the accepted term so I can bow to that.

Terminology aside,  there are details. mikeh defines himself as a"strong reverser" and perhaps would define me as a "weak reverser", but
 on the hand that I held

5
A32
AKT5
KQJT4

what on Earth would I do if I cannot open 1 and then reverse into 2 ?

But of course that sort of discussion can be useful.  Mikeh says that the approach he recommends is equally useful for the "weak reversers" so if that includes me then fine.

The comments that follow the mikeh post indicate that many players regard his write-up as being standard in the main, perhaps with some variant details.

Here is one detail:
Sometimes after a reverse, responder will have five cards in his own major, a fit fr a minor held by opener, and enough strength to reach game. For example, after 1 - 1 - 2 suppose that responder holds five spades, a club fit, and good values. Rebidding 2 is forcing (playing as mikeh and many do)  so there is no danger of it being passed but it does not show the strength of the hand. Bidding 3 instead of 2 shows the strength and shows the club support, but does not show the fifth spade.  I think the 2 rebid is preferred by many, and maybe they are right, but I have thought that maybe 3 is better. One could have the agreement that after 3 opener can now bid 3 if he happens to have three spades. Usually he won't.

Actually there are quite a few things to clarify, and some of them come up in the discussion after the original mikeh post. 

As I have said, many auctions go off the tracks after a reverse. At least some of the trouble is that different people have different ideas about what the subsequent bids mean. If one partner thinks that 1 - 1 - 2 - 2 is fourth suit forcing to game and the other thinks it is a relay to 3 as a prelude to a sign-off, obviously there will be trouble.

[kenberg]

From  the BB, hand 7 of the fifth set. A close decision of the same sort.
http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=53024

3NT is easier! A lot easier.
But if the Q is onside, 6 has a decent play.
And E might have been stronger.
Flat board.

I could only watch for a short time today, but there were some exciting boards. Depending, I suppose, on what you find exciting.

[OliverC]

The main difference for Precision users is that the Opening bid is limited, so the reverse by Opener doesn't have to be forcing. If you're playing Standard American or 2/1, it effectively does.

[kenberg]

When does a Precision player reverse?  Usually 1 - 1 - 2 is expected t be strong, partly as an agreement but also as practicality since responder has not yet shown much.  I assume that the 15 point reverse is either extra shape or a concentration of all values in the two suits? Playing standard I recently reversed with a 6-5 hand of not such great high card strength hoping the shape would compensate. It worked out, i don't recall the details.

It makes sense that a reverse is not absolutely forcing in Precision. I knew a guy, now long passed, who advocated that reverses should not be forcing in standard either. He was a strong player but he was in the extreme minority on this point. Although Goren agreed, if I remember correctly.

[OliverC]

We probably reverse more often than you might think:


1 - 1
2            is a 14-15 hcp hand with 4-card hearts and longer Diamonds


1 - 1NT(F1)
2                 is 14-15 hcp with 4-card Spades and longer Hearts


1 - 2
2                 is 14-15 with 4-card hearts and longer Diamonds

1 - 2
2 - 2       is game-forcing with 4-card Spades and longer Clubs

When your Opening bid can be 19+ hcp, a reverse by Opener pretty much has to be forcing for one round. A reverse by Responder, of course, is always treated as game-forcing (pretty much universally, I think - certainly I've never come across any system where it isn't).

[kenberg]

I can see how it could work, or at least usually work. I imagine that there would be times when after 1 - 1 - 2   responder doesn't much like any of his choices. That can happen after a stronger reverse as well. The stronger reverse has the comfort of being stronger, but it's much less well defned and it's forcing.  The 14-15 point reverse has the advantage of being non-forcing and pretty well defined.

I don't know just how much is needed in Precision to bid over 1 .  After all, opener is limited to a 15 count so with modest values, say a 7 or 8 count,  responder could presumably pass.

Hypothertical hand:

KJxx
xxx
x
Axxxx

A decent hand, it could be worse. If partner opens 1 in Precision and I respond 1 I will not like my options if partner bids 2 . But I won't all that much like my options if partner has a strong reverse either. At least opposite a 14-15 reverse I can pass, and I would. Opposite a strong reverse I think I would bid 2NT and then, over 3 , sign off in 3 . Partner has a strong hand but the fit is lousy. Maybe it makes 3NT, opposite a strong reverse, but I think it's iffy. With a strong hand he hopefully can scramble some ruffs to bring in 9 tricks in hearts.

I was hoping people would put up some reverse hands from play where things went right and where things went wrong. Nothing works all of the time and i would just like to see how it goes.

[OliverC]

Ken, half the point about Precision is that when I open, for example, 1 , and my Partner bids anything, I can be fairly sure that they have 8+ hcp, because with most 0-7 hcp hands they will normally PASS. One exception might be when they have 6-7, a 6-card Major and a Diamond shortage, but if the bidding goes 1 - 1 - 2 (Rev) - 2 , I know that is "drop dead" and will happily pass, even with a singleton Spade.


Similarly, Over 1 or 1 , the sort of hand that will routinely bid 1NT playing Standard American or 2/1 will almost automatically PASS playing Precision, because when Partner is limited to a maximum of 15 hcp, there's often no incentive to look any further.


That is 50% of the attraction of Precision, right there.


On your hypothetical hand I happily bid 1 . If Partner bids 2 (a reverse), I equally happily PASS 2 , because I have a ruffing value in Diamonds and have absolutely no fear of Moysian fits What I don't have is any need or desire to play in 4 so I've no need to move at all over 2 . Now I am at least 1 trick ahead of the game against all the people who are forced to bid something, because 2 is forcing for 1 round and who probably end up in a hopeless 2NT when Partner is short in Spades or a dodgy 3 where you probably have little scope against a 5-1 Heart split.

[kenberg]

Yes, I have often found that the most difficult part of playing against Precision is that after, say, 1 -P-P the person in the balance position knows far less about what sort of holding lies to his right than is the case in a standard auction. This causes us problems in the auction and perhaps in the play as well if we buy the contract.

[OliverC]