[inquiry]

BridgeBase Advance states that it uses Ingberman over reverses (for more on this convention, see http://www.bridgeguys.com/Conventions/Ingb...Convention.html). This carries two implications. First, a reverse at the two level is 1) forcing on responder for one round, and 2) not forcing to game. If it wasn't forcing, you would not need Ingberman, and if the reverse was forcing to game, you would also not need it.

But Ingberman leaves one type of auction fairly poorly defined... the continuation after responder rebids or jump rebids his own suit. Bridgeguys state that Ingberman himself prefers the jump rebid to be semi-forcing, but this in not "defined" within the convention. This lack of definition on the jump rebid by responder, also puts pressure on the values for the simple rebid by responder in his own suit, and the openers follow up after responder rebids his own suit. For the questions above, let's consider these four auctions...

Auction A.
1C - 1S
2D - 2S

Auction B.
1C - 1S
2D - 3S

and Auction C
1C - 1S
2D - 2NT
3C - 3S

Auction D
1C - 1S
2D - 2S
3S

Answer one...----------------
Auction A shows 5+ Spades, forcing one round - other bids besides 3S/4S deny as many as five spades. While a jump to 3S (auction over the revers shows a solid or semi-solid spade suit suitable to play opposite a singleton and is forcing. The raise on auction D is forcing, and auction C this spade rebid by responder is semi-forcing with just spades. -------------------


Answer two ------------------
Same as answer one, except raise auction D is NOT forcing. ------------------


Answer three ---------
Auction A shows 5+ spades, forcing one round - other bids besides 3S/4S deny five spades. A jump to 3S (auction over the revers is semi-forcing in that opener is expected to pass with minimum and poor fit. Auction C is looking for a stopper in the fourth suit for 3NT, and auction D is FORCING to game. ------------

Answer Four -----
Same as answer three, except auction D is invitational.
-----------------------

Answer Five ------------
Auctoin A shows a WEAK hand with five plus and the opener may pass. Auction B shows a good hand with 5+ spades, forcing (since 2S can be passed). Auction C shows a hand iwth long spades and invitational (since 2S can be passed, and 3S is forcing). Auction D is game force.------------

Answer Six -----------
Same as answer five, except opener's raise is NOT forcing----------------

Answer Seven ---------------
Auction A shows WEAK hand with five plus spades and opener may pass. Auction B is semi-forcing (strongly invitational), Auction C is weakly invitational (opener would bid fourth suit then rebid spades with good spades/hand), Auction D is game forcing ---------------------

Answer Eight ----------
Same as answer seven, but auction D is invitational ----------------

Answer NINE ----
Other, please explain. Note, as good as rubenshol maybe here using transfers at the three level, that would be too big an addition to BBO Advanced.. try to stay within the Ingberman framework for your other definitions.--------------

As this is a convoluted poll, depending upon the results, we might need to narrow the options for a second poll before we "define" how Bridgebase advance will play this. Also, implication from the expert panel's votes will also play a major role in shaping the final "defined" continuation.

Ben

[mike777]

Structured Reverses (notes from Root-Pavlicek's)
-------------------

Definition of a Reverse: After a one level response, a rebid of a
2nd higher suit by opener at the 2 level shows 17+ and at
least 5-4 distribution (5 in opening suit and 4 in second)


Here are some examples of a Reverse (*) by opener:
1C 1H
2D*

1C 1S
2H*

1D 1NT
2S*

1H 1NT
2S*


In each of these cases, opener is making partner bid at a higher
level to show support (thus, opener must be strong to force
responder to bid so high). After Reverse by opener, responder
can show weakness (less than 10). There are two cases:

1) Responder has bid a major:
In this case, responder shows weakness by a) bidding the
major again (showing 5+ in the suit) or by bidding NT
to show that the suit was just a 4 card suit. Examples:

1C 1H
2D 2H* responder is weak and shows 5+ cards in H

1C 1S
2H 2NT* responder is weak and has only 4 cards in S

2) Responder has bid NT (6-12):
In this case, responder shows weakness (<10) by
a) showing preference (bidding the lower suit) or by
bidding the lowest NT to show no support for the lower suit.

1D 1NT
2S 3D* responder is weak and has maybe 3+ card support

1H 1NT
2S 2NT* responder is weak and has no support for H

NOTE: never pass a reverse.
NOTE: If responder does not make a weakness signal, a
game-forcing auction is created.



GAME FORCING REBIDS BY OPENER after a weakness signal:
1) Bidding the 4th suit (always forcing). If a minor, it shows
5-4-4-0 distribution. If a major, it must be artificial.
1C 1S
2H 2S
3D* Shows 5 clubs, 4 hearts, and 4 diamonds

1C 1H
2D 2NT
3S* why would opener wait so long to show spades?
it must be forcing

2) Show support to a 4 card suit. After all, why support just 4?
1C 1S
2H 2NT
3S* you couldn't support earlier, so supporting
now shows at most 3 cards and a strong hand

3) Bidding the higher suit again to show at least 6-5.
1D 1S
2H 2NT
3H* you could just bid 3D and let resp choose,
but you didn't, so you must be strong.

1D 1NT
2S 3D
3S* responder has already chosen, so bidding
spades again makes no sense if you don't
have a game-forcing hand.

4) Jump in the lower suit to show extreme distribution (7-4)
1C 1NT
2S 2NT
4C* shows 7 clubs and 4 spades is forcing



NON-FORCING REBIDS BY OPENER:
1) Raise of partner's suit (if 5 carder):
1D 1S
2H 2S
3S You are inviting partner to
bid game with a maximum

2) Bid 3NT (to play):
1C 1S
2H 2S
3NT

3) Raise of partner's raise:
1D 1NT
2H 3D
4D* asks resp to bid game with maximum

4) Bid 2NT to show 4th suit:
1C 1H
2D 2H
2NT shows you have a spade stopper

[kgr]

Do most experts play Ingberman?
I don't like :
1C-1S-2D-2NT-3NT
Is it not better - most of the time - that the strong hand plays this 3NT?
(I would prefer the more natural treatment of Root-Pavlicek)

[DrTodd13]

I also prefere Root-Pavlicek structured reverses.

[inquiry]

kgr, on Jun 14 2005, 11:19 AM, said:

Do most experts play Ingberman?
I don't like :
1C-1S-2D-2NT-3NT
Is it not better - most of the time - that the strong hand plays this 3NT?
(I would prefer the more natural treatment of Root-Pavlicek)

If you are going to bid 3NT over partners attempt to signoff in unknown suit, you should have bid 3NT initially. That is, this auction should be impossible because it makes no sense to "wrong side" the contract.

[reisig]

1♣ followed by 2♦ (reverse) - does that promise 4♦s? Not to me!

[Walddk]

reisig, on Jun 14 2005, 07:07 PM, said:

1♣ followed by 2♦ (reverse) - does that promise 4♦s?  Not to me!

No, it should not. I had a post about exactly that some time ago. An artificial 2♦ reverse after 1♣ - 1MA. 2♦ can even be a singleton as I showed.

http://forums.bridge...?showtopic=8311

At the same time Richie pointed out that on an auction like

1♦ - 1♠
2♥

Opener does not promise 4 hearts.

Roland

[han]

inquiry, on Jun 14 2005, 12:01 PM, said:

kgr, on Jun 14 2005, 11:19 AM, said:

Do most experts play Ingberman?
I don't like :
1C-1S-2D-2NT-3NT
Is it not better - most of the time - that the strong hand plays this 3NT?
(I would prefer the more natural treatment of Root-Pavlicek)

If you are going to bid 3NT over partners attempt to signoff in unknown suit, you should have bid 3NT initially. That is, this auction should be impossible because it makes no sense to "wrong side" the contract.

I don't agree with this Ben! I certainly don't jump to 3NT over 1S with all hands where I'd want to be in 3NT if partner has a minimal hand with only 4 spades. By reversing first you might find a better strain, or, leave more room for investigating slam when partner has a good hand.

[cherdano]

While I agree in principal with answer two, I disagree with adding this much stuff to BBO advanced. I think "A reverse promises a rebid, and we play Ingberman over reverses" maybe with an explanation of Ingberman should be enough. If we start working out whether auction C is semi-forcing or invitational, or, say, the difference between responder bidding 2S-then-3S or 2NT-then-3S, we should rather be working on BWS.

Arend

[fred]

Here's what I like to do. It is mostly natural and logical (to me at least) and as far as I can tell it works pretty well.

1) Responder always rebids a 5-card major unless he has primary support for one of opener's suit and enough to force to game. In that case, he shows his support. Opener will continue by making his most natural bid so you won't lose any 5-3 major suit fits by playing this way.

Note that responder promises neither a good suit nor any values when he rebids his major - he could have a terrible hand. After responder rebids his major, opener has to jump or bid a new suit in order to force. The reason why opener should not rebid his 5-card major with the type of hands described in the first paragraph follows from this.

2) If responder jump rebids his major, he is showing a suit that can play in slam opposite a small singleton. This call is forcing to game, but it does not necessarily show any slam interest.

3) If the 4th suit is available at the 2-level, it is an artificial negative. Opener has to jump or bid a new suit in order to force over this - all of his other calls are non-forcing. If responder then rebids the 4th suit he is showing a "directionless game force" (ie a hand without primary support for partner and no stopper in the 4th suit).

4) 2NT is always natural and forcing to game. This you might call the antithesis of Ingberman.

5) In 1C-1S-2H and 1D-1S-2H, responder's return to 3 of opener's minor is non-forcing. Responder's rebid of the 4th suit is an artificial game force with at least 3 cards in opener's minor.

6) In the auctions mentioned in 5) above, in my system there is no need for responder to show a "bad hand with 4-card heart support". That's because I play something called "Reverse Flannery Responses". For me 3H would be forcing in both the auctions mentioned in 5). If you don't play Reverse Flannery you will have to tweak 5) in order to come up with a system that can handle everything.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[fred]

Jlall, on Jun 14 2005, 10:54 PM, said:

fred, on Jun 14 2005, 05:52 PM, said:

After responder rebids his major, opener has to jump or bid a new suit in order to force.

Does this include 1C p 1S p 2H p 2S p 3H being NF? That seems odd to me, other than that I pretty much play what fred suggests with my regular pards.

Actually I do play that as forcing. Sorry - hard to condense many pages of system notes into such a small spaces without missing something

This is also forcing (but is at best ambiguous according to the definitions in my prior post):

1C 1S
1D 2H
2S

Spades isn't really a "new suit" here. However, responder's 2H denies 5 spades so it is not likely that we will play in spades when the auction starts this way.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[kgr]

I did vote other.
I prefer Root-Pavlicek structured reverses or something like Fred is playing.

BTW: If you want to have a more complete description of BB advanced, with the intention that more BBO players would use this system in a pick-up partnership then it is probably best not to include too much artificial bids that are not generally known.

[luke warm]

well i'm not sure i agree with that... the 2/1 system being discussed is the 'advanced' version.. there's also a 'basic' version... it's my understanding that there should be some way to differentiate between the two

i personally would like to see reverse flannery put in, a weak nt, etc etc, but i understand that these things are matters of personal taste... not so, imo, for things that actually do far more to help, like 2 way ckback, ingeberman, leb, etc

the purpose might not be to induce more pickup p'ships to use this system.. for that they could start w/ the basic structure and add to it... this one seems more suited for a p'ship that plays together often, so the more detailed the notes, the better imo

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Jun 14 2005, 06:20 PM, said:

While I agree in principal with answer two, I disagree with adding this much stuff to BBO advanced. I think "A reverse promises a rebid, and we play Ingberman over reverses" maybe with an explanation of Ingberman should be enough. If we start working out whether auction C is semi-forcing or invitational, or, say, the difference between responder bidding 2S-then-3S or 2NT-then-3S, we should rather be working on BWS.

Arend has some valid point. For sure a revesrse promises a rebid, and for sure we don't want to develop a full-fledged system per se, there are some issues that simply need to be defined. Fred expressed some desire for this when he said BBO Advanced was just a frame-work and he hoped someone would help fill in the gaps. Having said that, leaving the follow up over a reverse as simply Ingberman must by definition be incomplete, because auctions where responder rebids or jump rebids his own suit are undefined.

I happen to play Fred's stated responder jump rebid in his own suit as GF suitable suit for slam opposite a singleton. Ingberman himself prefers it to be good suit, but only semi-forcing. So if we are going to fill in the framework, I think such a question is essential. Now rather those 30 or so of us who read this part of the forum are qualified to make such a judgement, I am not sure. But since we are the ones participating in the polls, we can at least define what it should mean for the polls.

As far as BWS, it is clearly a very well defined system. And those users who know it and who read Bridge World, can quickly agree to play that and be done with it. But not everyone reads BW, and why BWS? We could pick one authors text, or one detailed system on line, like WJ2005, and be done with it too. The ponit was to go with limited system available to all, that has a CC already on all computers using BBO as the "System".

Kgr expressed a different view, wanting to go a completely different way.....

Quote

I did vote other.
I prefer Root-Pavlicek structured reverses or something like Fred is playing.

BTW: If you want to have a more complete description of BB advanced, with the intention that more BBO players would use this system in a pick-up partnership then it is probably best not to include too much artificial bids that are not generally known.

Well, changing to Fred's preferred way or to Root-Pavlicek is really not an option. We are going to stick with what is on the standard BBO Advanced convention card that is loaded onto your computer when you install BBO software. That means, Ingberman. What we are trying to do in this poll is to define two frequent and undefined auctions within Ingberman. And if you read BPO-003A, you will see there is opportunity for disagreement even amoung the experts. Roland, for instance, thinks his partners 2♠ rebid is passable. So this seems like a place where we should try to get a consensus.

Ben

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Jun 15 2005, 02:58 PM, said:

Roland, for instance, thinks his partners 2♠ rebid is passable.

Ben

Yes indeed. I would pass 2♠ with a hand like

x
AKJx
xxx
AKQxx

Roland

[Fluffy]

I play it very simply (In europe we play that 2NT thing 'moderateur' not sure if it is exactly the same).

1x-1y
2z-2NT = I don't wanna play game

1x-1y
2z-anything else: Game forcing at least.

[P_Marlowe]

Fluffy, on Jun 15 2005, 08:11 AM, said:

I play it very simply (In europe we play that 2NT thing 'moderateur' not sure if it is exactly the same).

1x-1y
2z-2NT = I don't wanna play game

1x-1y
2z-anything else: Game forcing at least.

Hi

correct, but bids below 2NT have also the meaning
"I dont wanna play game" or "I am dead".

Why play 3S, when you could play 2S.

Marlowe

[kgr]

Quote

Well, changing to Fred's preferred way or to Root-Pavlicek is really not an option. We are going to stick with what is on the standard BBO Advanced convention card that is loaded onto your computer when you install BBO software.

Ok for me (you are the boss ).
Some additional remarks/my opinion:
- It would really be good if we could play at BBO and just say "BBO Advanced". To make this happen it would be good to have a detailed description, to include not too many conventions and to have promotion for this system (promotion - f.i. in news window - being the most important).
- You could change BBO advanced and load a new corrsponding convention card with a new release of the software. An important disadvantage would be that this is confusing for someone using BBO advanced and not reading this forum. Probably important enough to agree that you better don't change it.
- BBO advanced is based on 2/1. It would be good to have a link to standard 2/1 or 2/1 version that you want to link to BBO advanced (maybe this is already there). It should be clear what a reverse is after 2/1 (1H-2C-2S), what a jump shows (1H-2C-3H), ....
(I'm not used to play 2/1, but looking at questions it seems that the meaning of these bidding sequences depends on 2/1 version you are playing. So I would prefer to study the 2/1 version that is 'linked' to BBO advanced).

To Ben:
I appreciate the work you are doing for this and the bidding poll, but don't spend too much time at it! ... I'm waiting for more on squeezes and BLUE (still the most interesting and useful I've seen on this forum)