[kenberg]

Conditions:
You have agreed to play that, after a reverse such as 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ , a rebid of 2♠ cannot be passed but could be the beginning of a sign-off in 3♣ or 3♥. Responder can show that signing off is not his plan by not following up with either passing 3♣ or converting to 3♥. I of course am willing to hear that such an agreement is not the best, but I am asking about bids assuming that the above is being played. In particular, 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3♣ 3♠ is not passable.

If you buy into this set of agreements, please comment on the difference between

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 2♠
3♣ 3♠

and the more direct

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 3♠

Partner and I are discussing such things and I am inclined toward making the latter the sort of suit that could play comfortably opposite a stiff.


As a side comment, it is my view that the two most difficult common situations for which it is difficult to find extensive discussion in the literature are bidding over reverses and defending against the weak NT (Yes, I know, a double is penalty. It's what happens nest that needs more study.) Authors? There is a market out there!

[Dirk Kuijt]

Clarification wanted: Do you have any way of playing in a spade partscore after 1♣-1♠-2♥? It seems like all the spade bids are forcing.

[hanp]

If the BBO forums count as literature (and why not!) then there is plenty to be found on this topic.

[eyhung]

The bridge forums are a great resource, but they need to be better indexed before they meet the standards of "literature". Right now it is difficult for the average user (not the search mavens like gwnn) to quickly look up a specific discussion area.

[kenberg]

Dirk Kuijt, on Sep 1 2010, 12:03 PM, said:

Clarification wanted:  Do you have any way of playing in a spade partscore after 1♣-1♠-2♥?  It seems like all the spade bids are forcing.

True, it is tough to get out in spades after this beginning but that may not be a big problem.

We are playing weak jump shifts. Not my preferred style but we are. So if spades are 6-2 it is likely that responder has a good enough hand that 4♠ is playable. If spades are 5-3 then opener will have a stiff to go with his three spades and again we may well want to be in game.

Partner has suggested that after 1♣-1♠-2♥-2♠ that a raise by opener to 3♠ be passable to cover the cases where this could be right. I agree it might be right although I think that the number of times that I, as responder, would actually pass knowing pard has three spades, a stiff, and a big hand are not that numerous. Not never, but not often either. Six points, two of them the Qxxx of diamonds, would qualify!

Anyway, yes, it is tough to get out in spades. If not playing weak jump shifts it is probably more likely that a responder with six spades might want to do so.

[kenberg]

hanp, on Sep 1 2010, 12:31 PM, said:

If the BBO forums count as literature (and why not!) then there is plenty to be found on this topic.

Agreed. I make considerable use of the forum discussions. With my comment I am thinking more of a thirty or forty page discussion of various agreements, various problems that have arisen in practice, how/if they were solved and so on. Something ready made for us lazy folks.

At times I have had agreements with partners along the lines of "Let's play 2/1 as it it is written in Lawrence's workbook, or Robinson's Washington Standard. or so-and-so s such and such." For those of us who wish to take the game reasonably seriously but not devote our lives to it, this can be very efficient. Reverses often get a couple of pages. It isn't enough.

[hanp]

I can't give you a 30-40 page book but I can lead you to a primer on reverse bidding by mikeh:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=18177

[kenberg]

hanp, on Sep 1 2010, 01:36 PM, said:

I can't give you a 30-40 page book but I can lead you to a primer on reverse bidding by mikeh:

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=18177

It is an interesting thread. I have not yet totally digested it but in many ways it illustrates the problems I am referring to. I am familiar with the general structure of reverses. i am aware of using the fourth suit as the beginning of a sign-off or perhaps a potential sign-off. I say potential because after the reverse into diamonds, the only reverse where the fourth suit is conveniently available, it is certainly possible for responder to have a major two-suiter to display before he just gives up and bids 3NT: 1[♣-1♠-2♦-2♥-3♣-3♥ is presumably a strong hand, at least 5-5.


As the thread goes forth, it is clear that some very good players have some very different ideas as to what means what. mikeh wrote a very good introduction for a very clear purpose. It was addressed to the B/I community and should be a good guide in many auctions. I am neither Meck nor Well, nor Hamman nor Zia. More to the point, my partnerships do not have their level of agreements. But I (partners may dispute this) claim not to be B/I either.

Anyway, I swear there is a market for someone in this area. And for the defense against the weak NT also. 1NT-X-2H(natural)-X. I have seen vugraph players screw this up as to whether this is TO or penalty. And weak NT auctions have been known to get more complex than this one. We really do not need another book on squeezes. Reverses. Defense against the weak NT. Go for it.

[mikeh]

Here's my take on defending against a weak notrump:

First: definitions. My rule is that if the range includes 15, I use a strong nt defence, so 13-15, 14-16 are treated as if they were the more standard 15-17. I am not saying that this is optimum: I am saying that you need an easy rule such that you don't need to check the opps' range before every round and then agree how to treat it.

There are a number of defences that will work against a weak notrump, but in my view it is imperative that the structure maximize the ability to make them pay on the not-infrequent occasions when they have a flat 12 opposite a flat 1-4 count. So direct doubles by an unpassed hand are value-shwing and suggest defence.

The other main difference in philosophy, compared to defending a strong notrump, is that the intervening side is far more likely to 'own' the hand against weak than against strong, so bidding should have more emphasis on constructive as opposed to destructive goals.

Having said that, there is clearly room for differences of opinion on the appropriate strength-ranges for various actions.

My preference is for a direct double to show the equivalent of a strong notrump...if balanced, then 15+...but this can be reduced to 14 if we have a good lead.

I have played against a number of pairs, usually not strong, who announce that their double shows the top of the opposition range....this at a time when I usually played 10-12....and my experience strongly suggests that this approach is very bad.

The problem is that 4th chair (advancer) needs to know when to sit and when to run...and the lower the range for the double, the more advancer needs to sit...if double may deliver only 12 hcp and advancer is looking at 5 or 6....he's going to have to run or risk a (often redoubled) make or overtrick. And, of course, some of the time he runs, doubler had a real hand. In other words, too low a threshold for the direct double turns too many hands into a guessing game, with uncertain results.

My rules for double are:

A double sets a force to 2♥: the opps cannot play 2minor undoubled. They can play 2M undoubled.

If advancer has a chance to show strength, or responder bids 2m, then the first double by either hand is takeout, but with some defence...since it will often be converted.

If the opps start running from a takeout double converted to penalty, forcing passes are in effect through 2♦, and all doubles are penalty.

it is important to have agreements on what happens over various calls by responder.

Responder passes:

I believe advancer should run immediately with 0-4 hcp, altho at red v white, with a truly horrible hand, adancer may choose to pretend to have values (or hope doubler has him covered) and play for -180 or 380 rather than 200 or 500 respectively. This is less attractive when pass forces redouble...if pass forces redouble, this actually makes running both more needed and safer. More needed because they are going to be playing a 7 trick contract for game, and the overtricks can be truly costly, and safer because most 'pass forces redouble' schemes use the pass on both good and some varieties of weak hands and thus opener can't double the run out for penalty very often, if at all.

Responder bids 2 suit, either natural or two-suited, including that suit:

double in direct seat is takeout. Pass is forcing if the level is 2♦ or lower.

Once a forcing pass is made, partner's double is also takeout, but will often be left in.

A problem sequence for this method is when responder bids 2M....double by advancer is takeout oriented, but with some defence, and pass is non-forcing. This non-forcing usage creates a problem when doubler is loaded in the suit bid. However, unless responder has psyched, the fact that advancer passed limits his hand and doubler will often be well-advised to settle for an undoubled small plus (if available...it may be a small minus when they make).

An alternative scheme uses direct doubles as penalty. This can make some penalties easier to collect, and makes psyching responses to 1N x more dangerous. However, most opps don't psyche, in my experience, and advancer will more often have the negative/takeout sort of hand than he will the pure penalty type.

I think both approaches are playable.

If responder runs, I think it is quite playable to play whatever lebensohl variant you espouse in your (strong) 1N auctions. Doubler will sometimes simply have a big hand with his own suit, and he then has to use judgement about when to show it and when to accept whatever transfer or puppet advancer used (thus, if playing transfer lebensohl, does doubler accept the transfer or, if convenient, show his own suit?)

Assume that doubler has a strong notrump and, in competition, bid accordingly. This meshes well, for me, with my preferred double is takeout scheme, since I prefer negative doubles when the opps overcall against my notrump openers.

By Passed Hand or in Balancing Seat.

It is possible for 4th chair to hold a hand on which the best result is to start doubling and keep on doubling. However, this is more dangerous than in direct seat:

1) some weak notrump pairs tend to bail out of 1N with all very weak hands...should they be alerting the pass? I dunno...depends, I think, on whether they almost always bail or just often bail. Even those with no agreement will sometimes make it up...I once bid 2♠ in response to a 10-12 1N with xxxx xxx xxx xxx....in a first time partnership where there was no possibility of implicit agreements. If your opps may do this kind of thing, then there is reason to construe responder's pass as dangerous for you.

2) to the extent that the remaining points are evenly distributed, most of the opps' values are over yours, and yours under their's. Thus your cards won't pull as much weight as you'd like.

3) In direct seat, you will often have a good lead along with your values....when partner, with a scattering of cards is on lead, there is an increased risk of a loss of tempo from an ineffective lead.

So my preference is to play double in balancing seat or by a passed hand as showing near-opening (passed hand) to roughly opening (may be a little weaker) values (unpassed balancing seat) with a minor suit. This can still be passed for penalties by partner.

As for bidding, I like a scheme that maximizes the chances of overcaller being able to bid twice on appropriate hands. In addition, a scheme that has the 1N bidder on lead seems to me to have some merit. Both of these objectives can be accomplished by using a transfer type of approach.

For me:

2♣: both majors. Advancer can pass, bid 2♦ (which can be played as natural, forcing or nf...I'd use nf...or 'you pick partner...I have no preference...my choice is natural, nf)

2♦: hearts. May have a second suit, in which case I intend to show it if feasible over a 2♥ acceptance.

2♥: spades

2♠: both minors

2N: a single minor, good hand

3suit: semi-premptive

As for values: I see a lot of players who seem to think that the best defence to a weak notrump is to overcall on hands that are weaker than one would have to overcall a strong 1N. In my view, this is entirely mistaken.

A strong 1N raises a strong inference that this hand probably belongs to the opps. Moreover, all but the most basic beginner can bid most responding hands to the right contract most of the time, if left alone. Thus it behooves intervenor to get in there as much as is possible consistent with preceived risk. Methods that create ambiguity are very effective....while the ambiguity can harm the intervening side, the odds are that it will harm the most the side with the most assets...the openiing side.

A weak notrump barely raises any inference at all, especially if 10-12 or 11-13. You should see some of the 11 counts my Grand Life Master partner opens red v white! Slam isn't out of the question....for the intervening side

However, what the weak 1N does, and does effectively, is rob the intervening side of a level of bidding. The intervening side has to start at the 2-level, and this leaves relatively little room for exploration. This means that for effective constructive bidding, an overcall should bear some reasonable assurance of strength, so that advancer with, say, a 10 count and some fit can invite game and not discover that overcaller held a 5 card suit with 8 hcp.

While the parallels are not exact, my approach is that a single suited overcall with minimum hcp will be a decent 6 card suit with a hand on which I would overcall a strong 1N, while 2-suiters will be, again, of a type that I would overcall a strong 1N.


Advancing the overcall:

If you play a stayman or transfer sort of scheme, as outlined above, and you find a fit, you can bid quantitatively and easily enough.

But there will be hands on which you have no fit and either enough hcp to warrant bidding anyway or a suit of your own and reason to believe that playing, say, 2♠ will be better than, say, accepting the transfer to 2♥.

My view is that 2N is natural and non-forcing: shows about a minimum opening bid with no real fit. A new suit is constructivre but nf. A jumpshift is forcing....not a flower bid.


I don't know if this is enough detail, Ken....but I'm not writing 30-40 pages unless I get paid, and I have a very high hourly rate...and am a sloooooooow typer

[kenberg]

It's very helpful, Mike, as your posts are. I think, with some thought and some discussion, a partner and I could get pretty much on the same page based on this. I have forgotten who it was, but I was not joking about watching a vugraph with household names screwing up a bidding sequence over the wk nt by not being in sync. One needs a decent set of agreements, and a pair needs to be sure they know them, then, while nothing works all the time, there should be a decent shot.

I of course was not thinking that you (or anyone) will type up a short book just for me, and for free. I do think that if someone does such a booklet, and does a good job of it, the sales might be pretty decent. But I hereby let that issue drop.

Thanks much. Errors in the execution will be mine.

K

[lexlogan]

kenberg, on Sep 1 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Conditions:
You have agreed to play that, after a reverse such as  1♣ 1♠ 2♥ , a rebid of 2♠ cannot be passed but could be the beginning of a sign-off in 3♣ or 3♥. Responder can show that signing off is not his plan by not following up with either passing 3♣ or converting to 3♥. I of course am willing to hear that such an agreement is not the best, but I am asking about bids assuming that the above is being played. In particular, 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3♣ 3♠ is not passable.

If you buy into this set of agreements, please comment on the difference between

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 2♠
3♣ 3♠

and the more direct

1♣ 1♠
2♥  3♠

Partner and I are discussing such things and I am inclined toward making the latter the sort of suit that could play comfortably opposite a stiff.


As  a side comment, it is my view that the two most difficult common situations for which it is difficult to find extensive discussion in the literature are bidding over reverses and defending against the weak NT (Yes, I know, a double is penalty.  It's what happens nest that needs more study.) Authors? There is a market out there!

What is the advantage of using 2S artificially rather than 2NT? I normally play that showing a 5 cad spade suit is the first priority, and that any bid at the three level is forcing to game. Perhaps you play that if opener bids 2NT rather than 3C, it shows extras and creates a game force. But without extras, I don't see how to sort out
Kxx AQxx x AKxxx or Kx AQxx xx AKJxx opposite Axxxx xxx Qxx xx or Axxx xxx Qxxx xx .

Anyway, I would agree the immediate jump suggests a stronger suit than the delayed sequence.

[y66]

kenberg, on Sep 1 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

If you buy into this set of agreements, please comment on the difference between

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 2♠
3♣ 3♠

and the more direct

1♣ 1♠
2♥  3♠

Partner and I are discussing such things and I am inclined toward making the latter the sort of suit that could play comfortably opposite a stiff.

Mike Lawrence published a 24 pager on reverses in 1990 in which he suggests playing the direct 3S as KQJTxx or better spades, 10+ HCPs and a queen or more outside spades. AQJTxx xxx xxx x rebids 2S and jumps to 4S over 3C. I guess that leaves other hands with 6 spades that want to be in game opposite a minimum reverse taking the indirect route to 3S and hands that want to stop in 3S going through an artificial sequence (alluded to as an improvement by Mike but not discussed and, he says, possibly not worth the complexity which I think he intended for improving B/Is)

I remember once looking around for more discussions in print on reverses. Did not see anything as helpful as the thread hanp posted.

[Zelandakh]

This scheme is clearly inferior to both
a: 2S = natural;
2N = lebensohl-like, usually to sign off....or
b: 2S = (semi-)puppet to 2N, to play or make some constructive bids;
2N = (semi-)puppet to 3C, to play or sign off somewhere


Edit: software doesn't like b + )

[kenberg]

lexlogan, on Sep 1 2010, 09:40 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 1 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

Conditions:
You have agreed to play that, after a reverse such as  1♣ 1♠ 2♥ , a rebid of 2♠ cannot be passed but could be the beginning of a sign-off in 3♣ or 3♥. Responder can show that signing off is not his plan by not following up with either passing 3♣ or converting to 3♥. I of course am willing to hear that such an agreement is not the best, but I am asking about bids assuming that the above is being played. In particular, 1♣ 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 3♣ 3♠ is not passable.

If you buy into this set of agreements, please comment on the difference between

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 2♠
3♣ 3♠

and the more direct

1♣ 1♠
2♥  3♠

Partner and I are discussing such things and I am inclined toward making the latter the sort of suit that could play comfortably opposite a stiff.


As  a side comment, it is my view that the two most difficult common situations for which it is difficult to find extensive discussion in the literature are bidding over reverses and defending against the weak NT (Yes, I know, a double is penalty.  It's what happens nest that needs more study.) Authors? There is a market out there!

What is the advantage of using 2S artificially rather than 2NT? I normally play that showing a 5 cad spade suit is the first priority, and that any bid at the three level is forcing to game. Perhaps you play that if opener bids 2NT rather than 3C, it shows extras and creates a game force. But without extras, I don't see how to sort out
Kxx AQxx x AKxxx or Kx AQxx xx AKJxx opposite Axxxx xxx Qxx xx or Axxx xxx Qxxx xx .

Anyway, I would agree the immediate jump suggests a stronger suit than the delayed sequence.

I did not mean to imply that the 2♠ bid was artificial, only that it could not be passed. After the reverse, responder with a weak hand can rebid 2[S] if he has five. Opener might have three and then, with partner's suggested agreement, can invite with a simple raise. Or one can say that an eight card major suit fit, reverse strength, and a stiff in the fourth suit renders invitatinos superfluous and use 3♠ in other ways.

After the major suit rebid, if opener does not have three (surely the usual case) then he has to be aware that responder may wish to get out. If opener has a hand that wants to be in game opposite any hand that can respond to his opening bid, he has to rebid something beyond 3 of his first bid suit. If his first bid suit is clubs, that is not tough. If it is diamonds, well, that's more of a problem. We have agreed that 1♦-1♠2♥- 2♠-3♣ is allowed on a three card holding and if responder has clubs (he might) and wants out (often he does) then he can pass.

After the reverse, 2NT is artificial, and presumably denies five cards in responder's major.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would use the seq. to show different strength types.

In the seq. you descibed, neither side started to limit its hand.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kenberg]

y66, on Sep 1 2010, 10:42 PM, said:

kenberg, on Sep 1 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

If you buy into this set of agreements, please comment on the difference between

1♣ 1♠
2♥ 2♠
3♣ 3♠

and the more direct

1♣ 1♠
2♥  3♠

Partner and I are discussing such things and I am inclined toward making the latter the sort of suit that could play comfortably opposite a stiff.

Mike Lawrence published a 24 pager on reverses in 1990 in which he suggests playing the direct 3S as KQJTxx or better spades, 10+ HCPs and a queen or more outside spades. AQJTxx xxx xxx x rebids 2S and jumps to 4S over 3C. I guess that leaves other hands with 6 spades that want to be in game opposite a minimum reverse taking the indirect route to 3S and hands that want to stop in 3S going through an artificial sequence (alluded to as an improvement by Mike but not discussed and, he says, possibly not worth the complexity which I think he intended for improving B/Is)

I remember once looking around for more discussions in print on reverses. Did not see anything as helpful as the thread hanp posted.

Mike's my Man. I was unaware of this booklet (I guess this casts doubt on my assertion that such an item would sell well) but 24 pages sounds like just what I have in mind. I often see ML as a guy with a sensible practical approach.

Thanks, I will see if it still exists.

[bluecalm]

I think 2♠ should be non-forcing.
I mean, what are you going to do with:

KQTxx xx xx xxxx ?

I see forcing 2♠ as masterminding a system which is both inferior and require artificiality. Not for me.

1♦ 1♠
2♥ 2NT

should be forcing though and can be used as either some kind of general ask or lebensohl. There are many schemes available.

[hanp]

bluecalm, on Sep 2 2010, 07:52 AM, said:

I think 2♠ should be non-forcing.
I mean, what are you going to do with:

KQTxx xx xx xxxx ?

I see forcing 2♠ as masterminding a system which is both inferior and require artificiality. Not for me.

I'd bid 2S. What would you bid with KQ10xx Kx xxxx xx after 1C - 1S - 2H?

Quote

I see forcing 2♠ as masterminding a system which is both inferior and require artificiality. Not for me.

I congratulate you for being able to get to the heart of an agreement with which you are obviously not familiar, and for judging it without the need for further clarification of those who are more familiar with the approach.

[bluecalm]

Quote

KQ10xx Kx xxxx xx

2♠.
Not forcing. Partner passes with minimum, bid 2NT with extras, wtp?

Quote

I congratulate you for being able to get to the heart of an agreement with which you are obviously not familiar, and for judging it without the need for further clarification of those who are more familiar with the approach.

No matter what's the system after forcing 2♠ the bidding won't magically come back to that partscore.
I think forcing 2♠ violates basic bidding principles. We don't have balance of force to go higher than 2NT after reverse and 2♠ is last possible partscore below that.
The only other way to be able to stop in 2NT/below would be to play 2♠ as forcing and 2NT as not forcing but this is inferior (I think it's clear why ?).

[ArtK78]

Unless you play that the reverse doesn't promise a rebid, you can't play 2♠ as nonforcing.

I know that the old version of the Romex system had nonforcing reverses (given that the upper range for a 1 bid was 18 HCP). Since I have not played Romex in about 30 years, I can't vouch for the current version. But I have never heard of any standard system in which a reverse was nonforcing or in which responder's second bid (below game) could be passed.