[P_Marlowe]

From the same match, you play weak NT, with 5 card majors, 1C showes 3+

In 3rd you hold

♠KQTxx
♥QT
♦Txxxx
♣x

!C - (1H) - 1S (1) - (Pass)
2D - (Pass) - ... (2)

(1) showes 4+, not 5+
(2) your bid

As always reasoning logic is more important than guess what worked and what not.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jillybean]

3♦, forcing. we may have a spade fit but I need to let partner know I have diamonds.

[Cyberyeti]

jillybean, on 2024-March-23, 12:49, said:

3♦, forcing. we may have a spade fit but I need to let partner know I have diamonds.

Whichever way I show a forcing diamond raise, whether it's 3♦, 2♥ then 3♦ or 2N then diamonds

[mikeh]

Ok, let’s start with a pop quiz

As opener you hold AJx x AKx AQxxxx. 1C (1H) 1S (P) ?

Or AJx xx AKx AQxxx. 1C (1H) 1S (P) ?

In an expert bidding panel I’d expect strong support for the fake reverse of 2D.

On the actual hand, we’d probably escape ok after raising 2D to 3 since opener will show his spades next, but that doesn’t excuse not bidding 2S as responder.

I’ve seen many, many non-experts screw up this basic principle. After opener reverses,whether or not an opp has interfered, it is almost always correct to rebid a major when holding longer than the minimum length required for having bid it initially.

Contrary to what those players seem to believe, rebidding 2S is NOT passable…it’s a one round force. And it doesn’t deny good support for one of opener’s announced suits.

It keeps the bidding low while keeping it open, and responder can always show his minor fit later….after telling opener about the major suit length.

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on 2024-March-23, 13:38, said:

Ok, let’s start with a pop quiz

As opener you hold AJx x AKx AQxxxx. 1C (1H) 1S (P) ?

Or AJx xx AKx AQxxx. 1C (1H) 1S (P) ?

In an expert bidding panel I’d expect strong support for the fake reverse of 2D.
<snip>

I am with you, with regards to 2D.
But I want to point out, that we belong to the small group of players, that make up
the 2nd school, you mentioned in your primer on reverses.
https://www.bridgeba...everse-bidding/

I know, the size is shrinking, in germany we call it Gaelic village, referencing
the comic strip "Asterix, the Gaul".
Astrix is living in a small village surrounded by Romans, but they keep on fighting.

[apollo1201]

I was going to say a WTP 2S, show the 5th spade, diamonds can wait (although opps silence makes it less likely than partner is 3145) but (as always) Mike H nailed it so well.

[nullve]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-March-23, 14:57, said:

we belong to the small group of players, that make up the 2nd school

Not the vast majority?

[mikeh]

I have lightened my requirements for a reverse since writing that post concerning reverses. I still am not a really light reverser but I’d reverse maybe a queen (or equivalent playing strength) lighter than my minimum as of then. I also think that there has been a shift towards lighter reverses amongst experienced players and, indeed, I suspect that most either already played ‘light’ (but still strong hands) reverses for many years or shifted that way before I did.

[P_Marlowe]

nullve, on 2024-March-24, 11:48, said:

Not the vast majority?

Most Expert / Strong players I know, play 2S as forcing, which is a sensible agreement, if you belong
to the strong reverse camp.
This is also the way FD+ defines it, FD+ gets quite often a bad rap, the system is ok, the problem with
FD+ are the many versions / changes after the introduction, i.e. nobody knowes, what really is (still) part
of the official version.
Playing 2S as nonforcing makes more sense, if your reverses can be a tad weaker.
If you are coming from an Acol background, as I do, I learned the game in Irland, you will start in the weaker
reverse camp, and it will also feel natural to play 2S as nonforcing, when most bids are nonforcing.
Related to this is, how you play 4th suit, forcing to game, or (initially) only as inv.+.

[mikeh]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-March-24, 12:20, said:

Most Expert / Strong players I know, play 2S as forcing, which is a sensible agreement, if you belong
to the strong reverse camp.
This is also the way FD+ defines it, FD+ gets quite often a bad rap, the system is ok, the problem with
Fd+ are the many versions / changes after the introduction, i.e. nobody knowes, what really is (still) part
of the official version.
Playing 2S as nonforcing makes more sense, if your reverses can be a tad weaker.

Tell me the argument for playing 2S as nf if one’s reverse is lighter than the ‘strong reverse’ approach?

While I’ve lightened my own reverse requirements, wild horses couldn’t get me to stop playing tge 2M rebid as F1. Outside of a strong club method, I just can’t see how that would make any sense at all.

[P_Marlowe]

mikeh, on 2024-March-24, 12:24, said:

Tell me the argument for playing 2S as nf if one’s reverse is lighter than the ‘strong reverse’ approach?

While I’ve lightened my own reverse requirements, wild horses couldn’t get me to stop playing tge 2M rebid as F1. Outside of a strong club method, I just can’t see how that would make any sense at all.

If you need less for the reverse, the probability that you belong in a partial increases, and chances that you have game,
when you have no real fit, drops. And if you have no real fit staying low at he 2level has its appeal.
Is the appeal enough to decide on making 2S NF at the price of needing 4th suit forcing to discover a 5-3 in a forcing manner?

I am not a fierce advocate for playing 2S as NF, we play it that way, why? because, we always did, and this is mainly due to
the fact, that I started to learn the game in a land with a system, that has no forcing seq..
This is not a brilliant argument in favor of the treatment, I know.

It is one of the seq. I will ask about, when playing with a new partner, and I happen to have serious indepth discussion.

[P_Marlowe]

Just to rap the original topic up:

It was just a sanity check, or a check, what is common. I have played only rarely in the last years, so my knowledge,
what is common / uncommon is a bit rusty, and I am using this posts to dust of.

The question was: Is the 2D bid still considered a reverse, and a direct raise considered as forcing, even if the opponents
entered the auction. Nothing spectacular.
At the table (playing in a partnership that plays 2S as nonforcing) I went with the raise, expecting the auction
to continue.
I was a bit suprised to see 3D ending the auction, ..., partner lost the first 3tricks, making +1, having no heart
stopper and no spade fit, this was obviously the place to be, although the auction to reach this place was a bit ...

[mikeh]

P_Marlowe, on 2024-March-24, 12:47, said:

If you need less for the reverse, the probability that you belong in a partial increases, and chances that you have game,
when you have no real fit, drops. And if you have no real fit staying low at he 2level has its appeal.
Is the appeal enough to decide on making 2S NF at the price of needing 4th suit forcing to discover a 5-3 in a forcing manner?

I am not a fierce advocate for playing 2S as NF, we play it that way, why? because, we always did, and this is mainly due to
the fact, that I started to learn the game in a land with a system, that has no forcing seq..
This is not a brilliant argument in favor of the treatment, I know.

It is one of the seq. I will ask about, when playing with a new partner, and I happen to have serious indepth discussion.

One could as easily argue that when opener has (potentially) fewer hcp for your ‘light reverse’ the odds that responder has values increases….and having to jump around to force and/or conceal what may be the best feature of the hand (5+ major) seems weird to me.

Plus, while ‘light reversers’ may have 1 or 2 hcp less than a strong reverser guarantees, most hands that reverse, in the ‘light’ style are in fact full value ‘strong’ reverses, since the upper limit is on the order of 21 hcp. So, while I realize that such big hands won’t pass a nf 2M, the problem is when responder can’t bid 2M out of fear of it being passed. Now,when both hands have extras, they’ve distorted their own auction on a layout where the right game is cold and slam, including grand, is possible. I simply don’t understand why two partners would agree to distort their hands and, simultaneously, destroy their own bidding space simply to accommodate the extremely rare hands where responder bids a nf 2M and opener passes! When was the last time that happened….and was ‘right’? I bet it wouldn’t happen more than once or twice a year if you played a session a day.