[bdegrande]

3♣. If you are even considering 2♥, then 2♣ can't be an option, and the void in partner's suit is a very good reason not to make a light shape reverse.

[the hog]

 bdegrande, on 2014-July-27, 17:54, said:

3♣. If you are even considering 2♥, then 2♣ can't be an option, and the void in partner's suit is a very good reason not to make a light shape reverse.

So if responder is 5+4 in the Ms you lose your heart fit, as 3H now would be stopper showing/asking.
3C and 2H carry the same weight and as I posted earlier, I consider both of them to be wrong.

[luckyloser]

this is a matter of style. knowing what partner expects is critical. if, for instance, you reverse with this hand and your partner is a BBO-robot you will end up in 7nt opposite many hands that just qualify for game.

[Cyberyeti]

 luckyloser, on 2014-July-27, 23:40, said:

this is a matter of style. knowing what partner expects is critical. if, for instance, you reverse with this hand and your partner is a BBO-robot you will end up in 7nt opposite many hands that just qualify for game.

This is true, but a hand that might make a grand opposite the right flattish 12 count (xxxxx, KQxx, AK, xx) and might well make one opposite a non extreme 9 count xxxxx, KQxx, A, xxx) surely is more than a 2♣ rebid.

[Zelandakh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2014-July-26, 16:14, said:

I suspect some of the differences here may come from <snip>

I think the main difference comes from the fact that Mike plays strong reverses. In truth I wondered if he would go for a 3♣ rebid, which he did on the last (slightly stronger) hand of this type that got posted. It is pretty clear to me that reversing style needs to be given in any thread of this type. Since that is not provided in the OP it is basically impossible to give an answer within that context. If you play strong reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 3♣ and going low seems indicated (notwithstanding the previous thread referenced above). If you play light reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 2♥ and that is closer with perhaps a small preference for 2♥. If you play reverses between those extremes the choice is again between 2♣ and 2♥ but now the pendulum possibly swings back towards 2♣ (but still very close and I am willing to be convinced otherwise).

Finally, here is another, somewhat related, system question. If you were playing Precision would you upgrade this into a strong (16+) club or use a limited opening? And would system (ie whether the weak systemic opening would be 1♦, 1♥ or 2♣) affect that choice? I am assuming everyone would upgrade this hand into a 15+ 1♣ opening if playing one of those systems...

[Cyberyeti]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-28, 03:20, said:

I think the main difference comes from the fact that Mike plays strong reverses. In truth I wondered if he would go for a 3♣ rebid, which he did on the last (slightly stronger) hand of this type that got posted. It is pretty clear to me that reversing style needs to be given in any thread of this type. Since that is not provided in the OP it is basically impossible to give an answer within that context. If you play strong reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 3♣ and going low seems indicated (notwithstanding the previous thread referenced above). If you play light reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 2♥ and that is closer with perhaps a small preference for 2♥. If you play reverses between those extremes the choice is again between 2♣ and 2♥ but now the pendulum possibly swings back towards 2♣ (but still very close and I am willing to be convinced otherwise).

Finally, here is another, somewhat related, system question. If you were playing Precision would you upgrade this into a strong (16+) club or use a limited opening? And would system (ie whether the weak systemic opening would be 1♦, 1♥ or 2♣) affect that choice? I am assuming everyone would upgrade this hand into a 15+ 1♣ opening if playing one of those systems...

Our reverses are playing strength (in NT, no assumption of real fit required) based rather than pointcount, I'd rather reverse on this than Q, AQxx, Qxx, AKxxx, but many people will reverse on the second hand.

[the hog]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-28, 03:20, said:

I think the main difference comes from the fact that Mike plays strong reverses. In truth I wondered if he would go for a 3♣ rebid, which he did on the last (slightly stronger) hand of this type that got posted. It is pretty clear to me that reversing style needs to be given in any thread of this type. Since that is not provided in the OP it is basically impossible to give an answer within that context. If you play strong reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 3♣ and going low seems indicated (notwithstanding the previous thread referenced above). If you play light reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 2♥ and that is closer with perhaps a small preference for 2♥. If you play reverses between those extremes the choice is again between 2♣ and 2♥ but now the pendulum possibly swings back towards 2♣ (but still very close and I am willing to be convinced otherwise).

Finally, here is another, somewhat related, system question. If you were playing Precision would you upgrade this into a strong (16+) club or use a limited opening? And would system (ie whether the weak systemic opening would be 1♦, 1♥ or 2♣) affect that choice? I am assuming everyone would upgrade this hand into a 15+ 1♣ opening if playing one of those systems...

You assume wrong. Years of playing Precision and discussion with the Borins has convinced me that top players do not upgrade these hands. Open with your normal P bid but bid strongly after that. By the way the hand posted by CY is not an Acol 1C opening!

[Cyberyeti]

 the hog, on 2014-July-28, 04:37, said:

You assume wrong. Years of playing Precision and discussion with the Borins has convinced me that top players do not upgrade these hands. Open with your normal P bid but bid strongly after that. By the way the hand posted by CY is not an Acol 1C opening!

The 9 count I gave is not an old style acol 1♣, it is in the modern rule of 19 style as played by many people.

Bidding strongly after partner's passed 2♣ can be difficult. In general it's easier to add values than subtract them, but I just feel this hand's too good, if it was 1336 with the same honours I'd rebid 3♣ automatically, and it's midrange in terms of playing tricks in clubs for what 3♣ shows.

[jallerton]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-28, 03:20, said:

I think the main difference comes from the fact that Mike plays strong reverses. In truth I wondered if he would go for a 3♣ rebid, which he did on the last (slightly stronger) hand of this type that got posted. It is pretty clear to me that reversing style needs to be given in any thread of this type. Since that is not provided in the OP it is basically impossible to give an answer within that context.

I agree with you that reversing style matters, but I think you are being unfair on broze, who did specifically ask about style:

 broze, on 2014-July-26, 05:31, said:

What's your rebid and how close is it - i.e. what would you change about the hand to change your bid? Do you have specific agreements with your partner about light/shapely reverses?

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-28, 03:20, said:

If you play strong reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 3♣ and going low seems indicated (notwithstanding the previous thread referenced above). If you play light reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 2♥ and that is closer with perhaps a small preference for 2♥. If you play reverses between those extremes the choice is again between 2♣ and 2♥ but now the pendulum possibly swings back towards 2♣ (but still very close and I am willing to be convinced otherwise).

Finally, here is another, somewhat related, system question. If you were playing Precision would you upgrade this into a strong (16+) club or use a limited opening? And would system (ie whether the weak systemic opening would be 1♦, 1♥ or 2♣) affect that choice? I am assuming everyone would upgrade this hand into a 15+ 1♣ opening if playing one of those systems...

Holding a spade void makes it more likely that someone will keep the bidding open if you open a natural 2♣, so will not miss game opening 2♣ as often as it might first appear. Whilst this hand must surely be strong enough to open a strong club, there is a danger than the auction could get quite high before you have had a chance to show your suit. I've seen some strong club players try to solve this dilemma by reserving a special opening bid for a high playing strength hand lacking the requisite high card strength for 1♣.

[jallerton]

 the hog, on 2014-July-28, 04:37, said:

You assume wrong. Years of playing Precision and discussion with the Borins has convinced me that top players do not upgrade these hands.

It seems that you have not watched Meckstroth & Rodwell very much!

[Lovera]

 jallerton, on 2014-July-30, 12:29, said:

I agree with you that reversing style matters, but I think you are being unfair on broze, who did specifically ask about style:





Holding a spade void makes it more likely that someone will keep the bidding open if you open a natural 2♣, so will not miss game opening 2♣ as often as it might first appear. Whilst this hand must surely be strong enough to open a strong club, there is a danger than the auction could get quite high before you have had a chance to show your suit. I've seen some strong club players try to solve this dilemma by reserving a special opening bid for a high playing strength hand lacking the requisite high card strength for 1♣.

Having this hand 5 losers (Courtney) you, also considering spade situation, cannot open 2 club (bidding is easy as you can see).

[MrAce]

 broze, on 2014-July-26, 05:31, said:

---

What's your rebid and how close is it - i.e. what would you change about the hand to change your bid? Do you have specific agreements with your partner about light/shapely reverses?

Sorry - somehow I failed to create a poll.

I would rebid 2♥. It's not about being min or max of 2 Cl rebid for me. This hand has too many tricks even if we can't find a fit.

@ Mike: To me A KJxx Qxx AQxxx is a 2 ♣ rebid for max even though this has 16 points. I know I am probably minority on this one. If this's too much for you, change ♦ Q with J. Just trying to make a point that I am not one of those who never holds max for their 2 Cl rebid

[whereagles]

I would definitely reverse on that.

[the_clown]

This one is very close, I can live with 2♣ or 2♥.

[WellSpyder]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-28, 03:20, said:

Finally, here is another, somewhat related, system question. If you were playing Precision would you upgrade this into a strong (16+) club or use a limited opening?

Not an issue in England in most events, where you are not allowed to upgrade this hand to a strong club opening (or at least not if partner is aware that you might do this).

[jallerton]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-August-14, 09:38, said:

Not an issue in England in most events, where you are not allowed to upgrade this hand to a strong club opening (or at least not if partner is aware that you might do this).

Yes, the L&EC is (at least certain members of it are) a clear fan of the Milton Work Count. K&R rates this hand at 19.1!

Wait until you hold something like KQJ KQJ QJ J5432 (K&R of 12.2) before you open a strong club!

[Stephen Tu]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-28, 03:20, said:

I think the main difference comes from the fact that Mike plays strong reverses. In truth I wondered if he would go for a 3♣ rebid, which he did on the last (slightly stronger) hand of this type that got posted. It is pretty clear to me that reversing style needs to be given in any thread of this type. Since that is not provided in the OP it is basically impossible to give an answer within that context. If you play strong reverses the choice is between 2♣ and 3♣ and going low seems indicated (notwithstanding the previous thread referenced above).

I guess I can't see any logic in choosing 3♣ rather than 2♥, for having the floor for 3♣ be lower than the floor for 2♥. To me it's 2♣ or 2♥, I can't see any advantage in 3♣. It gets you just as high as reversing does, not much safer, you potentially miss heart contracts. To me it's a question of choosing between being potential eventual overbid, vs. possibly missing game if you just bid 2♣. I am a light reverser so I choose 2♥.

[kenrexford]

I am just wondering. ..

Imagine a world where 3C was weaker than 2C...

It seems playable for a 2C rebid t promise extras, four hearts (if partner bids 1S), or fragment support, opting for a weaker 3C (obviously a treatment) if weak, notrump unsuitable, without fragment support, and with no 4 card hearts. That restructuring might solve a problem or two.

[P_Marlowe]

 kenrexford, on 2014-August-14, 15:36, said:

I am just wondering. ..

Imagine a world where 3C was weaker than 2C...

It seems playable for a 2C rebid t promise extras, four hearts (if partner bids 1S), or fragment support, opting for a weaker 3C (obviously a treatment) if weak, notrump unsuitable, without fragment support, and with no 4 card hearts. That restructuring might solve a problem or two.

This get / got played, if I recall it correctly Auken / von Arnim did play this for a while.

[mcphee]

I prefer to not bid 2H with the S void but sure would not go bonkers if partners who held this did. There are days when choosing a weaker rebid helps a lot more than choosing a pushy reverse. I expect the responder to bid again with a decent 8 count when holding 5S. The 2C rebid is going to lose when partner passes holding 2 aces and out with short C (about the only time they might pass 2C)for example Axxxx xxx Axxx x you might find partner passing 2C in fear of getting us overboard.Partners should be aware that a 2C rebid can be a decent hand unsuitable to bid 3C or find a reverse. I am not at all anxious to reach 3N when it might get hit for a spade lead.