[smerriman]

Assuming you play Ingberman, after the sequence:

1♣ - 1♠ - 2♦ - 2♠

what are the standard meanings of 3♠ and 4♠?

Have read the stickied primer, and one other thread on reverses, and this came up just a couple of times; a couple of people saying 3♠ should be forcing, and a couple saying it should be nonforcing.

Which is more valuable - having 3♠ as a strong bid, allowing room for slam exploration and 4♠ as a signoff; or having 3♠ as an invitation, allowing you to stop short of game? (And when would responder pass?)

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

if you have read the primer, you most likely agree, that 2S should be forcing,
quite common (maybe even expert standard).
In this case 3S has to be nonforcing, at one point in time, one side has to limit
his hand.

If 2S is non forcing, than 3S by opener should be forcing, opener showes something
like 5431, and there is not much gain in asking the weak responder, how weak are
you really, but starting a slam exploration auction, or using the the bid as cog
(it allowes responder to bid 3NT, if he has all of his values in openers singlton
suit) will be more rewarding.

With kind regards
Marlowe
PS: I voted non-forcing, assuming 2S to be forcing.

[Tramticket]

For us 2♠ can be weak and a 3♠ raise is invitational. But I have no strong feelings and can live with either treatment as long as we are agreed.

[smerriman]

P_Marlowe, on 2018-May-03, 01:11, said:

Hi,

if you have read the primer, you most likely agree, that 2S should be forcing,
quite common (maybe even expert standard).
In this case 3S has to be nonforcing, at one point in time, one side has to limit
his hand.

Yep, agreed 2♠ is forcing. I just can't imagine many hands where I have a 5431, am strong enough to reverse, and still don't want to be in game opposite a hand that was good enough to respond 1♠ in the first place (and has 5 of them). Compared to the number of occasions when I'm interested in slam, but (other than an immediate Blackwood) really just have to jump to 4♠ and let responder be in control of getting there.

This may be because people respond 1♠ with sub-minimums more regularly these days. I tend to expect the book definition of a 1♠ response.

[P_Marlowe]

smerriman, on 2018-May-03, 01:57, said:

Yep, agreed 2♠ is forcing. I just can't imagine many hands where I have a 5431, am strong enough to reverse, and still don't want to be in game opposite a hand that was good enough to respond 1♠ in the first place (and has 5 of them). Compared to the number of occasions when I'm interested in slam, but (other than an immediate Blackwood) really just have to jump to 4♠ and let responder be in control of getting there.

This may be because people respond 1♠ with sub-minimums more regularly these days. I tend to expect the book definition of a 1♠ response.

The alternative explanation: by making the reverse, opener is promising another bid.
It may no be clear, personnally I prefer 2S nonforcing, but I do know, that this is not mainstream, at
least not on BBF.

[Vampyr]

Tramticket, on 2018-May-03, 01:17, said:

For us 2♠ can be weak and a 3♠ raise is invitational. But I have no strong feelings and can live with either treatment as long as we are agreed.

P_Marlowe, on 2018-May-03, 02:50, said:

The alternative explanation: by making the reverse, opener is promising another bid.
It may no be clear, personnally I prefer 2S nonforcing, but I do know, that this is not mainstream, at
least not on BBF.

The OP did start with “Assuming you play Ingberman”.

[P_Marlowe]

Vampyr, on 2018-May-03, 06:37, said:

The OP did start with “Assuming you play Ingberman”.

Sure, I have read this. What has this to do with my comment?
Ingberman is a way to limit responders hand, espesially when
it comes to raise openers suits.

[smerriman]

P_Marlowe, on 2018-May-03, 15:27, said:

The alternative explanation: by making the reverse, opener is promising another bid.

I think you might have misunderstood my question - wasn't asking whether 2♠ should be forcing or not, but whether 4♠ should be weaker than 3♠, since once I discover we have a major fit I'm probably always going to want to play game anyway.

[Stephen Tu]

smerriman, on 2018-May-03, 15:48, said:

I think you might have misunderstood my question - wasn't asking whether 2♠ should be forcing or not, but whether 4♠ should be weaker than 3♠, since once I discover we have a major fit I'm probably always going to want to play game anyway.

IMO in this age of light opening bids and light responses if you are keeping your reverses so strong that it's a GF opposite a 5 cd spade response, you are under-utilizing the sequence and putting far too wide a range of hands into presumably 1c-1s-2s, and won't be as accurate on the single raise sequence.

If responder is strong, the lack of space after the jump to game isn't that bad, because opener's hand is fairly tightly defined in both strength and distribution, you can probably also utilize the jump to 4H for super strong hands a K stronger than min GF .

[smerriman]

Stephen Tu, on 2018-May-03, 16:09, said:

IMO in this age of light opening bids and light responses if you are keeping your reverses so strong that it's a GF opposite a 5 cd spade response, you are under-utilizing the sequence and putting far too wide a range of hands into presumably 1c-1s-2s, and won't be as accurate on the single raise sequence.

I would tend to open 1♦ with medium hands not quite strong enough to reverse, to prevent rebid issues after a 1♥ response.

But fair point on the jump to game.

[smerriman]

For reference, here is my hand that prompted this discussion.

---

I felt this would be making game opposite most minimums, and bid 4♠ - we ended up too high after partner played me for a stronger hand.

I ran a sim afterwards and if North has exactly 6 HCP with at least 5 spades, game is making 51% of the time.

If 3♠ is an invite, maybe the real question is, is this under the assumption North should accept with what I would consider 'minimums', due to people often responding much weaker?

Or is this just a rare case where you have to risk missing out on a vulnerable game?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I will bid game with the given opener hand, it does not really matter, if 2S is forcing or not.
But, what is wrong with 4H?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Vampyr]

smerriman, on 2018-May-03, 19:34, said:

For reference, here is my hand that prompted this discussion.

---

I felt this would be making game opposite most minimums, and bid 4♠ - we ended up too high after partner played me for a stronger hand.

I ran a sim afterwards and if North has exactly 6 HCP with at least 5 spades, game is making 51% of the time.

If 3♠ is an invite, maybe the real question is, is this under the assumption North should accept with what I would consider 'minimums', due to people often responding much weaker?

Or is this just a rare case where you have to risk missing out on a vulnerable game?

It seems to me that a 6-count is rather weak for 2♠.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2018-May-04, 00:10, said:

It seems to me that a 6-count is rather weak for 2♠.

So what would you suggest instead?

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2018-May-04, 00:15, said:

So what would you suggest instead?

2♥

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2018-May-04, 00:22, said:

2♥

You are right - I hadn't registered there was an unbid suit cheaper than 2NT in this auction. The tougher problem is when there isn't.

[smerriman]

P_Marlowe, on 2018-May-03, 22:18, said:

I will bid game with the given opener hand, it does not really matter, if 2S is forcing or not.

It's getting a bit confusing when you keep bringing up whether 2♠ is forcing or not, as that's not relevant to this thread. Assume 2♠ forcing is a given.

gordontd, on 2018-May-04, 00:45, said:

You are right - I hadn't registered there was an unbid suit cheaper than 2NT in this auction. The tougher problem is when there isn't.

If 2♠ therefore shows more than a minimum, why is the consensus that 3♠ is nonforcing?

[Vampyr]

smerriman, on 2018-May-04, 00:51, said:

It's getting a bit confusing when you keep bringing up whether 2♠ is forcing or not, as that's not relevant to this thread. Assume 2♠ forcing is a given.


If 2♠ therefore shows more than a minimum, why is the consensus that 3♠ is nonforcing?

It depends, really on how you define “more than a minimum”. Apparently, your partner thought that six points was enough. Perhaps “more than a minimum” should be defined as promising game values opposite a minimum reverse? Of course there are various toys, But essentially the problem is that after a reverse you are a little high, and something has to give.

[smerriman]

Oh, partner didn't have 6 points. Was just saying that my hand (a pretty minimum reverse) was good enough to bid game opposite what I would call a minimum. So it seemed odd having to make a non-forcing raise.

(Which is why I thought it would make sense for 4♠ to show my hand, and 3♠ to show stronger ones - seems very rare you'd want the option to stop in 3♠.)

[Stephen Tu]

I guess the question is what hand your partner had that got you overboard, and what he thought your minimum for jumping to game was.

In any case, I think you can utilize 4h/4s to distinguish between something resembling your hand vs. your hand + a K/ace.

I think your hand is a 3s bid personally, partner over 3s should expect ~15+-16/17 hcp imo and go to game with good trumps/not much heart wastage with min hands. You don't really want to be in game opposite something like Qxxxx KJx xxx xx. A 4s bid would be more like QJx x Axxx AKQJx where the points are more definitely working.