[jallerton]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-20, 14:33, said:

A strong 1NT, traditionally shows the same minimum HCPs as a reverse. A 1NT opening shows the medium opening hands. This used to be 16-18 and a reverse used to be 16+. If a hand was strong enough to open 1NT and you would move a card from the doubleton to the four card suit to change a 2434 into a 1435, it was strong enough to reverse.

This has changed a little bit over the years.. Strong 1NT openings are getting weaker.. because minimum openings are getting weaker, and with people opening 11 point balanced hands, strong 1NT openings are now a good 14 to a bad 17.

Now two styles of reverses have developed. One style has lowered the requirements for a reverse to follow the trend of the 1NT openings. In this style a 2♠ rebid by responder is not forcing. West seems to play this style. East clearly thinks it is forcing and seems to think that a reverse shows more.

The other style led to increased requirements for a reverse. The followers of this style continuously hit the problem with reversing patterns that are just not strong enough to reverse. I am one of the followers of this style. Many of the 5422 hands where the long suit is (just) below the four card suit are fine for a 1NT opening. But 5431 hands are not fine, not even with a singleton king.
Rik

What's a typical minimum unbalanced 1♣ opening bid in your style? The range of the 1♣-1♠-2♣ rebid seems uncomfortably wide.

By the way, Opener's rebid problem on this type of hand is one of the advantages of playing weak NT openings. Now you have an easy 1NT rebid (15-17) after 1C-1♠.

[bluecalm]

Old debate.
Imo the best and easiest style are weak reverses (most 15hcp and all 16+) with 2S/3 in partner's suit as NF and other bids 8+GF.
This is also very popular in top level bridge. You can even put 16-21 single suited hands in reverse playing that way (clarifying after 2N isn't much of a problem) as top Italian pairs do.
Strong reverses mean systemic offshape 1NT and very wide ranging 1m-1M-2m sequences. All that to use quite low bid for very rare hands. Imo it's just a bad idea.

[bdegrande]

3S even though 2S should be forcing, it describes this hand with slam interest well. A reverse should be strong enough to promise a rebid, which opener's hand isn't.

[mike777]

prefer to open 1nt\
given OP then 3s now by responder
2s would be much much less.


3s=6+ and 10hcp

[P_Marlowe]

#1 after the reverse, I am investigating slam, I have a fit, I tell partner,
hence 3c, assuming this to be GF

#2 I would not make the reverse with the hand, but it is close.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

<duplicate>

[Trinidad]

jallerton, on 2014-April-21, 08:15, said:

What's a typical minimum unbalanced 1♣ opening bid in your style?

11: ♠7♥KJ76♦Q86♣AJ982

jallerton, on 2014-April-21, 08:15, said:

The range of the 1♣-1♠-2♣ rebid seems uncomfortably wide.

11-15, bad 16.

jallerton, on 2014-April-21, 08:15, said:

By the way, Opener's rebid problem on this type of hand is one of the advantages of playing weak NT openings. Now you have an easy 1NT rebid (15-17) after 1C-1♠.

Rebidding 1NT to show a balanced 15-17 is just as bad as opening 1NT to show a balanced 15-17. The hand is not balanced, not even semibalanced. You do not have the spade support you promised.

The only advantage that the weak NT gives is that in this sequence you have already shown "where you live" (clubs). But what you win here, you lose when you move a king from one hand to the other.

Rik

[kenberg]

P_Marlowe, on 2014-April-22, 01:15, said:

#1 after the reverse, I am investigating slam, I have a fit, I tell partner,
hence 3c, assuming this to be GF

#2 I would not make the reverse with the hand, but it is close.

With kind regards
Marlowe

This interests me. I mentioned that while I would bid 3♠ I would be worried about the possibility that the proper slam is in clubs, not spades and that it would be difficult to find this after the 3♠ call.

When I have five spades, three clubs, and values, I like to bid 3♣ with the understanding that this does not preclude playing in spades. If partner has 3=4=1=5 shape he can call 3♠ over my 3♣.. The spades just seemed too good here to pass up, but I considered 3♣.

Further note on the subject:
Imo, mikeh has done the I/A community a service with his pinned post: A primer on reverse bidding. A regular partnership might, or might not, want to adjust some of the suggestions but I recommend that casual partnerships would do well to simply agree "We will play it Mike's way". As this thread shows, various people have various ideas and the result is chaos and mis-understandings. A good system that both have read and agreed to is far better than two systems, however good they might be, with one playing one of the systems and the other playing the other.

[straube]

I think you should tell partner where you live (3S) and not bid 3C. You have AQJTxx of spades and xxx of clubs. Partner will never understand the nature of your hand if you show a fit right away. You may easily wind up in the wrong trump fit. Say partner has K AKQx xxx AQxxx. If you bid 3S, you can support clubs later.

[ggwhiz]

Assume short spades and long clubs in openers hand (and actually owning a reverse which they don't) 3♠ has a lot of merit but makes it tough to get to a club slam.

2♠ leaves more room if you have your continuations worked out ie. partner bids 2nt with 2-4-2-5, shows a 6th club or a 1-4-3-5 (or thereabouts) by bidding 3♦. The apple pie win is if pard has something like a 0-4-2-7 hand.

Speaking of continuations the reverser not promising another call is NOT! playable.

[Cyberyeti]

Trinidad, on 2014-April-22, 01:54, said:

Rebidding 1NT to show a balanced 15-17 is just as bad as opening 1NT to show a balanced 15-17. The hand is not balanced, not even semibalanced. You do not have the spade support you promised.

The only advantage that the weak NT gives is that in this sequence you have already shown "where you live" (clubs). But what you win here, you lose when you move a king from one hand to the other.

Rik

This is just wrong, opening a strong NT on this can lead to a monumentally stupid result opposite say xxxx, QJ10x, Qx, Qxx where you might not even make 1N with 4♥ playable, in the weak NT context, you know partner has length opposite your shortage and your singleton is the K, which is as good as xx opposite a lot of combinations.

I assume you're moving the K from the "1N" hand, now this is an easy 2♣ rebid.

[caddis]

Depends on partnership agreements following reverse to 2H. Is 2S forcing? if not are you using Ingberman 2nt for a weak sign off hand? 3S is forcing but denies a diamond stopper with extra spades.suggest using ingbeman 2nt. Without consideration of background agreements, I would bid ant--it shows stops in the diamonds and spades with the values for ant and enough transportation between the hands to not make shortness in diamonds a real problem. There may be wasted values in both hands so 4S needs to be considered over anuy rebid.

[Zelandakh]

TWO4BRIDGE, on 2014-April-21, 07:28, said:

Perhaps 3D! ( 4th suit ) could be "telling" about 5 cards ♠ as straube suggested ( post # 17 ) .

I think this works best within a transfer advance scheme. For example:

1♣ - 1♠; 2♥
==
2♠ = nat, NF
2NT = clubs
3♣ = 5 spades
3♦ = hearts
3♥ = 6+ spades with diamond stop
3♠ = 6+ spades without diamond stop
3NT = to play

Even here you are struggling for space a little bit with 5 spades and it may be better to farm out some of the hands with 5 spades to 2NT. If all of the hands with 5 spades had to rebid 3♦ then I think you would run into difficulties often. I would prefer to keep 2♠ forcing in that case. Similarly for your earlier idea of using 3♠ for GF and 2NT->3♠ invitational. I think we can do away with invites here and it would be better to use 3♠ to show 6+ spades without a stop in the fourth suit and 2NT->3♠ to show 6+ spades with the stop. We have had several examples on BBF where knowledge of a stopper after Responder bids 3♠ in a reverse auction is a key piece of information.

[fromageGB]

1) 3♣ transfer to ♦
2) no

Assuming opener had a real reverse, I'd be quite excited by my hand. As Zel says, showing stops while you are still below 3NT is a good idea, so playing simple transfers after a reverse (2♠ natural forcing, 2NT and higher are transfers) I show my stop and then rebid 3♠ to emphasise the suit and lack of prime support. Over to partner.

As to the West hand, I think if you have an unbalanced opener you should use it. For me it is a 1♦ open (shortage outside diamonds guaranteed if it is not a 6 card diamond suit) and then a 2NT rebid over a simple natural 1♠ response. This would show the shape (3-suited with singleton or void spade) and strength (17/18) of the hand.

[rmnka447]

1 - I'm another 3 ♠ bidder with this hand.

2 - No, it's not a reverse.

[mcphee]

A 2S re-bid after the reverse simply shows 5 or more S and a hand that is not suitable for another bid. This can mean responder is weak, or has game values but is unable to show support. A direct raise of either suit from the opening hand becomes a game force. Jumping to 3S for the most part is impractical, robbing your side from gaining what might be valuable information.

The hand does not meet the requirements for a reverse. Once this player elected to open 1C they have to rebid 1NT understating their values, or 2C which for most indicates 6 clubs. Perhaps opening 1NT would have solved the problems and was the best lie.

[kenberg]

I don't want to get bent out of shape over phrasing but I think opener's hand type is common enough to make how to handle it a "choice" instead of a "lie". I have had partners who insist that rebidding clubs absolutely promises 6, that reversing absolutely promises more strength than this, and that opening 1NT absolutely cannot be done with a stiff, or at least not with a stiff in the majors. What am I to do when I hold this hand, get up and leave the tournament?

Me, I decided long ago that I open 1♣ and rebid 2♣. I don't insist that this is right and I am happy to hear other views. But for me, a "lie" is something you do with a hand that is sufficiently unusual that only regular and expert pairs would ever have considered how to handle it. The sort of hand opener has here is hardly that odd.

Repeating, I don't mean to harp on the choice of words, but I would like to hear how others handle this situation.. Surely we have all encountered it, the hand just isn't that rare. Starting thought: If I open 1NT and partner transfers to spades and drops me, producing a dummy with maybe six points and a five card spade suit such as J9742 this will probably not go well. If, instead, I open 1♣ and rebid my clubs I might still be in a 5-1 fit but at least I have a decent suit. Also, auctions don't shut down at 2♣ nearly as often as they shut down at 2♠. If partner, with his stiff club, is 5/4 in the majors he can bid 2♥ if weak or 2♦ artificial if he is strong.

I truly don't know what is best, I do know what I do. I open 1♣ and, over 1♠, I rebid 2♣.

[aguahombre]

Back to Wank's post at the very beginning. For me the choice of opening bid is all about my next rebid. The 1NT opening bid is easy...easy on me.

All rebids are flawed, and the opening 1NT is flawed. But my torture is over with early.

[fromageGB]

kenberg, on 2014-May-02, 07:08, said:

Repeating, I don't mean to harp on the choice of words, but I would like to hear how others handle this situation..

Playing with a partner with normal minor openings, I open 1♣ and over 1♠ rebid 1NT. This is no lie, because if you have no agreements on balanced or unbalanced openings and rebids, but have agreed that you do not open 1NT with a shortage, then by rebidding 1NT you are not excluding a 1NT opening strength when you do have a shortage.

The wide range is unfortunate, but a 2♣ rebid would have an equally wide range, and 1NT is a better description of the hand, in my view.

[Vampyr]

fromageGB, on 2014-May-02, 12:14, said:

Playing with a partner with normal minor openings, I open 1♣ and over 1♠ rebid 1NT. This is no lie, because if you have no agreements on balanced or unbalanced openings and rebids, but have agreed that you do not open 1NT with a shortage, then by rebidding 1NT you are not excluding a 1NT opening strength when you do have a shortage.

The wide range is unfortunate, but a 2♣ rebid would have an equally wide range, and 1NT is a better description of the hand, in my view.

I think that wide-ranging 1NT rebids will cause more problems than they solve. For instance, after opener rebids 1NT, responder will not know whether she has an invitational hand or not, and there is the potential to end up in, eg, an uncomfortable 2NT with 12 opposite 8.