[awm]

It seems weird that there's a debate about this, but apparently there is. So here's the question: in which of the following auctions do you consider the final bid to be a reverse? Note that the question is not whether these bids are forcing; obviously there are strong and/or forcing bids that are not reverses, and depending on your agreements there may be reverses which are not strong or forcing. All of these are four-handed auctions.

1. 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♥ - Pass; 2♠

2. 1♥ - 2♣ - Pass - 2♦; Pass - 2♠

3. 1♠ - 2♣ - Pass - 2♦; Pass - 2♥

4. 1♦ - 1♥ - Pass - 2♥; 2♠

5. 1♥ - Pass - 2♣ - Pass; 2♥ - Pass - 2♠

6. 1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - Pass; 2♠

7. 1♠ - Pass - 2♥ - Pass; 3♦

8. 1♥ - 2♣ - Pass - 2♥; Pass - 2♠

9. 1♥ - Pass - 2♥ - Pass; 2♠

10. 1♦ - Pass - 2♦ - Pass; 2♥ (does it matter if 2♦ is forcing?)

11. 1♣ - Pass - 2♥ - Pass; 2♠ (does it matter if 2♥ was weak or strong?)

12. 2♦ - Pass - 2♥ - Pass; 2♠ (does it matter if 2♥ was forcing?)

[awm]

Jlall, on Nov 9 2006, 11:21 PM, said:

isnt it just semantics?

Sure.. but if we can't agree on what the basic terms mean it's hard to have a sensible conversation about the game. I think agreeing on semantics can be important.

[hrothgar]

I think that you need to differentiate between a bidding sequence and the meaning assigned to that sequence....

The most obvious example is the auction

1♥ - 2♥
2♠

I've played in a number of partnerships where the 2♠ bid doesn't show a Spade suit.
Using a more extreme example, playing MOSCITO the 1♥ opening shows Spades, as does the 2♠ rebid.

I think that discussions about reverses presume that the bids are natural. Its interesting to note that that canape systems like Blue Club also use the concept of a reverse, although the second suit is often longer than the first. Playing Blue Club, the auction

1♥ - 1N
2♠

shows 4+ Hearts and 5+ Spades

[HeartA]

Let me try. First of all, I add brackets to opp's calls.

1. 1♦ - (2♣) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 2♠
This is a forced bid, not a reverse.

2. (1♥) - 2♣ - (Pass) - 2♦ - (Pass) - 2♠
This is not reverse, since 2♣ has limited the hand. But it shows extra (not minimum) unless 2♦ is forcing.

3. (1♠) - 2♣ - (Pass) - 2♦ - (Pass) - 2♥
Same as above.

4. 1♦ - (1♥) - Pass - (2♥) - 2♠
This is a reverse, more offensive (shape) values.

5. 1♥ - (Pass) - 2♣ - (Pass)- 2♥ - (Pass) - 2♠
Certainly, it is a reverse as we discussed in the other thread.

6. 1♣ - (Pass) - 1♥ - (Pass) - 2♠
Usually it is not called "reverse", instead, it called "jump shift". It is certainly strong and forcing

7. 1♠ - (Pass) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 3♦
This is not a reverse. Depending on partnership agreement, it may or may not show extra (Most play it as extra).

8. (1♥) - 2♣ - (Pass) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 2♠
This is not a reverse. It is a forced bid (by pd's cue-bid). 2S doesn't guarantee 4-card (if he has 4 spades, club must be 6+).

9. 1♥ - (Pass) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 2♠
It is not reverse (but shows extra, of course). Since H is agreed, 2♠ is a game try. It may or may not have anything to do with spades, depending on partnership agreement.

10. 1♦ - (Pass) - 2♦ - (Pass) - 2♥ (does it matter if 2♦ is forcing?)
It certainly matters if 2♦ is forcing or not. If 2♦ is forcing, 2♥ shows stoppers in hearts but not in spades (at least I play this way).
If 2♦ is not forcing, I still don't think it is reverse, but certainly shows extra. I am not sure if it is standard or not. I believe it is a general principle that after a suit is agreed, to bid a new suit is invitational (game try).

11. 1♣ - (Pass) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 2♠ (does it matter if 2♥ was weak or strong?)
Again it matters if 2♥ was weak or strong. If 2♥ is weak, 2♠ is reverse, IMO. If 2♥ is strong, 2♠ is just a force (feature) bid.

12. 2♦ - (Pass) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 2♠ (does it matter if 2♥ was forcing?)
Well, I am not sure here. Is 2♦ a weak 2 (I assume)? Still it matters if 2♥ was forcing or not. If it was, 2♠ is feature bid. If 2♥ is not forcing, than I think 2♠ doesn't make sense unless there is special agreement between partnership (shows ♥ support, for example).

[the hog]

Semantics "yes", but AWM is right. The definition used here in Oz is that the second bid is in a higher ranking suit than the first bid. This is applicable to either opener or responder.

Iow 1H 2D 2H 2S is a reverse, as is 1H 2C 2H 3D
The former is called a "low level reverse", the latter is called a high "level reverse". Both are regarded as GF, and both show extra values.
By opener
1H 2C 2S is of course a reverse.

[sceptic]

I am not postiing yet but this is very interesting

[Codo]

IMHO the examples 1 to 5,7 and 8 are clear reverse biddings.
Number 6 is a strong jump shift, so even stronger then a reverse.

The sequences 9-12 have different meanigs but are no reverses.

Reasoning: A reverse is a bid, that shows a real second suit and forces responder to a higher level if he wishs to return to my opened suit. The classical example is something like 1 ♦ 1 ♠ 2 ♥.
The same rule applies in competetive bidding.
The strength for the reverse depends on the bidding system and the situation. In a strong club system or after limiting your hand, this is much weaker then in SAYC f.e.

[helene_t]

A reverse shows extra shape and extra values. So you can better divide the question into two:
- does it show extra shape?
- does it show extra values?

Of course, given a specific interpretation you can ask for the semantics. For example, in 7, it could be that I would call it a reverse if it shows 15+ but not if it shows 14+. Personally, I don't care for semantics. Of course, it's important that semantics is clear, but it's not something I get arroused by.

If it's unclear whether we're discussing the acutal meaning of the auctions or whether we're discussing semantics, the discussion will be murky.

As for the individual auctions, HeartA said it all.

[MickyB]

I disagree with HeartA on hands 7 and 11.

1♠ - (Pass) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 3♦

Before this thread, I had never seen anyone take the position that this wasn't a reverse, but maybe that's a UK thing? It's occasionally referred to as a "high reverse". It makes quite a difference if some people believe it isn't, because I often ask partners who play 2/1 whether reversing shows extras!

1♣ - (Pass) - 2♥ - (Pass) - 2♠

IMO this isn't a reverse, even if 2♠ is showing reversing values.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

First a traditional definition of a reverse, one may
found the following definition e.g. in one of Klingers
text books for beginners:

In an uncontested auction and assuming that opener
opened with 1 in a suit, a reverse by opener / responder
occurs, if either player bids a new suit above the "barriere"
without jumping. A reverse simply shows 5-4 and is forcing,
at least for one round.
It is open to partnership discussion, if a reverse bid shows
add. values or not, in standard it does, how much is again
open for discussion.

5) is a classic reverse bid by responder
7) taking the above definition it is

In all other auction no bid would get classified as a reverse.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

" there may be reverses which are not strong or forcing"

This seems to me to be the starting point for any discussion of semantics.

You hear people say that, in an uncontested 2/1 auction 1H-2C-2S, the 2S bid is "not a reverse". They mean that they don't play it as showing extra values. Of course some do play it as showing extras, and then it is said to be a reverse. It of course is a reverse if by this we mean only that we first bid 1X and then, without jumping, bid 2Y or 3Z, where Y is of higher rank than X and the bid is not a raise of a suit previously named.

I think first it must be decided whether "reverse with minimum values" is an oxymoron. This obviously semantic issue might be resolved by consensus (a miracle) or by appealing to authority (where there is probably not unanimity). Going through your list before having agreement on this basic point seems doomed.

Good luck with this. I'm not optimistic.

[awm]

Well I've seen written in many places things like: "a reverse requires extra values" or "do not reverse unless you have more than a minimum" or "whether reverses in a 2/1 GFing auction show extras is a matter of partnership agreement." All of these kinds of statements indicate (to me anyway) that a reverse is a type of bidding sequence and that such a sequence remains a reverse regardless of what values it shows.

I guess what I mean is, that "it shows a big hand" or "it's forcing" shouldn't be part of the definition of a reverse. Otherwise saying "a reverse requires extra values" is like saying "bidding 1♠ requires bidding 1♠" isn't it?

But apparently this too is open to interpretation. So I guess we can add another sequence:

13. 1♥ - Pass - 2♣ - Pass; 2♠ (does it matter if 2♣ was game forcing and 2♠ does not promise more than a minimum?)

[blackshoe]

Semantics is the study of meaning. As such, it is never "mere" - it is vital. Without agreement as to meaning there can be no communication. So don't dismiss semantics, please.

There are, according to The Encyclopedia of Bridge, two definitions of "reverse", one used in North America, the other, slightly different one in the UK. They are:

1. An unforced bid at the level of two in a higher ranking suit than that bid originally.
2. A bid of a suit in an uncontested auction which prevents responder from returning to the original suit at the level of two.

Implicit in these definitions is that the auction started with a one level bid. Note that neither definition says anything about shape or "extras".

The English "high reverse" (1♥-2♦-3♣) is not a reverse by the North American definition because the second bid is at the 3 level. Clearly, it's important what definition we use - i.e., semantics is not "mere".

Consider the sequence 1♥-2♣-2♠ (opponents passing). Is this a reverse? Let's see... second bid is at the 2 level, check, second bid is in a higher ranking suit than the first bid, check. Is the bid "unforced"? It is, even though responder's 2♣ is forcing, because opener could have bid 2♥. Therefore, 2♠ in this sequence is a reverse. It meets the second definition, too. Responder has to go to the three level to support hearts.

Those who say "we don't play reverses", or "that's not a reverse", meaning that it doesn't show extras or specific shape are speaking from ignorance - or attempting to redefine the meaning of "reverse". A reverse is a specific sequence of bids - it has nothing to do with strength or shape. The strength or shape shown by a reverse is a consequence of other aspects of the bidding system in use. In 2/1, for example, the 2♣ bid in our sample sequence is at least nominally forcing to game, so it is not unreasonable to agree that opener's 2♠ rebid doesn't show extras, or even shape, if you wish. In Standard American, the sequence shows longer hearts than spades because with equal or longer spades, the hand would open 1♠. It also shows extras because the two hands combined need at least 23 HCP to bring the bidding to the 3 level, and responder has only shown 6. But in neither case do shape or strength considerations have anything to do with whether the second bid is a reverse.

[joshs]

awm, on Nov 9 2006, 11:20 PM, said:

It seems weird that there's a debate about this, but apparently there is. So here's the question: in which of the following auctions do you consider the final bid to be a reverse? Note that the question is not whether these bids are forcing; obviously there are strong and/or forcing bids that are not reverses, and depending on your agreements there may be reverses which are not strong or forcing. All of these are four-handed auctions.

1. 1♦ - 2♣ - 2♥ - Pass; 2♠

2. 1♥ - 2♣ - Pass - 2♦; Pass - 2♠

3. 1♠ - 2♣ - Pass - 2♦; Pass - 2♥

4. 1♦ - 1♥ - Pass - 2♥; 2♠

5. 1♥ - Pass - 2♣ - Pass; 2♥ - Pass - 2♠

6. 1♣ - Pass - 1♥ - Pass; 2♠

7. 1♠ - Pass - 2♥ - Pass; 3♦

8. 1♥ - 2♣ - Pass - 2♥; Pass - 2♠

9. 1♥ - Pass - 2♥ - Pass; 2♠

10. 1♦ - Pass - 2♦ - Pass; 2♥ (does it matter if 2♦ is forcing?)

11. 1♣ - Pass - 2♥ - Pass; 2♠ (does it matter if 2♥ was weak or strong?)

12. 2♦ - Pass - 2♥ - Pass; 2♠ (does it matter if 2♥ was forcing?)

A reverse is the cheapist bid of a suit which is higher than then cheapist rebid of that players 1'st suit. A distinction is usually made between "reverse bids" when the partnership is already forced above the cheapist rebid of the partnership first bid, and when its wasn't. Another distinction is whether the 2'nd suit is higher or lwoer ranking than the first (interestingly, if lower it is called a "high reverse"). Its no big deal if you add an extra criteria to definiition of reverses that the second suit is higher ranking than the first and eliminate the high reverses (this is not consistant in the bridge literature). Generally speaking its probably cleaner to to eliminate the high reverses so that reverses have the property that the 2'nd suit is always shorter than the first suit. (Otherwise they may have equal length for high reverses, or even be a 5=6 that was treated as a 5=5).

1. No. The cheapist rebid of Diamonds is 3D diamonds. 2S is lower than 3D. The cheapist possible response to a forcing bid can never be a reverse.

2. No. 2S is lower than 3C.

3. No. The cheapist bid, and lower than 3C.

4. No. The chepaist rebid of diamonds is 3D, this is lwoer than that.

5. No. This is cheaper than 3C

6. No. this is not the cheapist spade bid. This is a jump shift not a reverse.

7. Yes. A "high reverse". Depending on partnership rules, this might not necessarily promise extra values. Liek I said before a high reverse is different than normal reverses in that the suit lengths might be equal

8. No. The cheapist bid and below 3C

9. No. Again the cheapist bid. The cheapist heart bid is 3H this is cheaper than that.

10.No and it doesn't matter. The cheapist diamond bid is 3D, This bid is below 3D.

11. No and it doesn't matter. The cheapsit club bid is 3C. Of course if 2H was weak this hand will have the strength and shape associated with a reverse even though the bid isn't technically a reverse.

12.No and it doesn't matter. 2S is below 3D.

13. Yes. 2H was the cheapist rebid of the first suit. 2S is higher than 2H. Again this euqnce does not necesaarily show extras since you were already forced above 2H anyway.

An example of a reverse by responder is: 1H-P-2C-P-2H-P-3D since 3D is past 3C. Again whether this actually promises any extras is determined by partnership rules. In general, when a reverse bid forces you past the cheapist rebid of your suit when you weren't previouisly forced past it, then the bid promises extras but if it doesn't extend the level of the force (for instance the bid is below the level of the force), it usually doesn't promise extras except by specific partnership agreement.

For instance
1C-P-1H-P
2D=promised extras since before you could have stopped in 2C or below. This is bridge logic.

1S-2H-3D. If 2H only forced to 2S then this definitely showed extras, but otherwise this is just a matter of agreement.

[HeartA]

blackshoe, on Nov 10 2006, 12:55 PM, said:

1. An unforced bid at the level of two in a higher ranking suit than that bid originally.
2. A bid of a suit in an uncontested auction which prevents responder from returning to the original suit at the level of two.

.........

Consider the sequence 1♥-2♣-2♠ (opponents passing). Is this a reverse? Let's see... second bid is at the 2 level, check, second bid is in a higher ranking suit than the first bid, check. Is the bid "unforced"? It is, even though responder's 2♣ is forcing, because opener could have bid 2♥. Therefore, 2♠ in this sequence is a reverse. It meets the second definition, too. Responder has to go to the three level to support hearts.

After pd's 2/1 response, it does not require extra to bid 2S since responder promises to bid again. Say, opener holds ♠KJxx,♥AKxxx ♦xx ♣Qx, the rebid after 2C response is 2S. It not only describes the hand well, but saves space also. If reponder's intending rebid is S (responder's reverse), your 2S bid shows S fit before it goes to pd. If you rebid 2H, pd would have to guess if you hold 6 or 5 (only) hearts. And if you support S after his 2S, he is still in guess if hold 6-3 or 5-4 in the majors. If pd has an hand for NT, your 2S rebid removes his worry about stoppers of spades. Given pd ♠xxx ♥Qx ♦KJx ♣AKxxx, he would be stuck if you rebid 2♥. 2N? no stopper in spades, 2S or 3D? that would natural (reverse). He may be poisoned to bid 3H. Now the ball comes back to you. If you bid 3NT, you found pd's holding of pointed suits are reversed (♠AQx ♥Qx ♦xxx ♣AQxxx); if you bid 4H you find 3N is best spot. Note that if pd's strength of spades and diamonds are switched, he could bid 3D over your 2S. This time 3D is not reverse, it is 4s4 now.

The disadvantage is your range is not clear, but that can be figured out later. To find fit is more important than range if it does not exagerate the strength.

Even if pd would support hearts, 2♥ doesn't save space either. He has to bid 3H anyway.

Finally, as a side note, 2S rebid over pd's 2/1 response (2C) is different from 1NT response. The first major difference is that 1NT response doesn't promise to bid again. If you rebid 2S over pd's 1NT, he would forced to choose hearts at 3 level with a poor hand, which would be too high. The second major difference is that, 1NT denies spade holdings. To find spades fit becomes an impossible task.

This post has been edited by HeartA: 2006-November-10, 16:54