[gwnn]

MickyB, on 2013-January-10, 15:56, said:

The discussion about terminology has got me wondering -

Given that 1C-P-1H-P; 2D is a reverse even if 2D doesn't show extras, is it a reverse even if 2D isn't natural?

No it's not.

edit: Although this 2D could be a non-extras showing call in two ways. 1. relay, probably some smart raise to 2H or something, might pass 2H, whatever it is. 2. (very) natural, 6 diamonds and 2-3 clubs, plays some cool kenrexford system but can't stand hiding diamonds this long.

This post has been edited by gwnn: 2013-January-10, 17:23

[the hog]

RMB1, on 2013-January-10, 04:48, said:

We understand that Andrew Robson (London, England) teaches his beginners that they do not need extras to reverse. (If they get too high, they get too high.)

The key word here is "beginners".

[PeterAlan]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-10, 13:53, said:

Did he say that? Sorry, I must have been in a world of my own, as usual. Yes, I was thinking of you, but I was not going to suggest your name online.

Thanks .

That's very thoughtful of you, but as you'll realise from my usename I've given up being worried about being identified by those who can actually be bothered to find out! I'd assumed from past postings that everyone knew who you were already, but if not I apologise for using your given name - I see it's no longer in your footer.

As I recall that (Satellite Pairs) occasion, we started with the contract, played by my partner, which had the interesting spade combination that Paul subsequently analysed on these boards.

Peter

aguahombre, on 2013-January-10, 11:56, said:

Michael G's post was an attempt to reach a common ground of terminology, from which point PeterAlan could contribute his minority view.

I think my views are reasonably close to the mainstream (except that I don't regard departures from the norm in quite such black-and-white terms as some posters, for the reasons I've given); it's my practices that differ! And I repeat that any such departures from the norm shouldn't be idiotic - for example, partner and I would never consider a sequence of the form 1♣/♦-1NT-2♥/♠ without appropriate extra values, for the obvious reasons that have been set out at length by others.

[bberris]

qwyz, on 2013-January-09, 18:21, said:

I was playing at a local club recently where I was informed that 'nobody' makes deliberate reverse bids anymore. When playing SAYC with no partnership agreements, the bidding sequence of 1D-1S:2H--- could be from a bare minimum opening type of hand and is no longer restricted to the stronger, reverse bid type of hand. It was further stated that it is now being taught by cruise ship bridge instructors and others at regional and national events that reverse bids are obsolete. The 'new' approach is that any new suit by Opener is forcing upon Responder who must bid again regardless if it appears as if coming from a minimum or a stronger - reverse bid type of hand as the Opener's rebid no longer suggests the strength of the hand.
As I was not aware of this 'trend', I am wondering if this is commom practice elsewhere. If the current trend is reverse bids are obsolete, does one need to alert the bid so that others at the table are aware that it is no longer considered to be a reverse bid and then no longer reflects the strength of the Opener's hand.
Comments appreciated

So if I understand this correctly,

1C 1S
2D ?

I should now take a preference to clubs at the 2 level?

[sfi]

bberris, on 2013-January-10, 18:34, said:

So if I understand this correctly,

1C 1S
2D ?

I should now take a preference to clubs at the 2 level?

That may indeed be the winning strategy.

[paua]

steve2005, on 2013-January-10, 16:07, said:

Surely after 1♦-1♠
with min hand 5♦4♥ you rebid 1N, sometimes 2♦ with good ♦weak ♣ or 2♠ with Hxx and 1♣
and 2♥ shows extras.
is this no longer considered good bridge? i don't think so.
or maybe i'm getting old!?

If playing weak NT then the 1NT rebid won't be available with a weak opener.

[aguahombre]

paua, on 2013-January-10, 20:26, said:

If playing weak NT then the 1NT rebid won't be available with a weak opener.

I think I found the next quote for my tagline.

[Vampyr]

PeterAlan, on 2013-January-10, 18:31, said:

I'd assumed from past postings that everyone knew who you were already, but if not I apologise for using your given name - I see it's no longer in your footer.

I don't mind at all. My name is still in my profile. I just got bored of seeing it with every post.

But as to reverses, what I hate about them is that there is, at least in England, no standard scheme of followups. Sitting down with a first-time or occasional partner I find myself hoping that reverses don't come up.

[paua]

aguahombre, on 2013-January-10, 20:54, said:

I think I found the next quote for my tagline.

poetry !

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-11, 03:01, said:

I don't mind at all. My name is still in my profile. I just got bored of seeing it with every post.

But as to reverses, what I hate about them is that there is, at least in England, no standard scheme of followups. Sitting down with a first-time or occasional partner I find myself hoping that reverses don't come up.

I've seen a couple of good follow up schemes. The problem here is that few know of them. And many people aren't willing to put in the effort to learn them. "I just want to play bridge".

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-11, 09:18, said:

I've seen a couple of good follow up schemes. The problem here is that few know of them. And many people aren't willing to put in the effort to learn them. "I just want to play bridge".

I don't mind if I play a good, indifferent or even poor follow-up scheme with a casual partner. I would consider it enough just to be on the same wave should a reverse come up. But I have absolutely no idea what would be the default without discussion.

[mycroft]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-11, 03:01, said:

I don't mind at all. My name is still in my profile. I just got bored of seeing it with every post.

And given that nobody gets your name right whether it *is* in your post or not...

I assume that anyone that cares in the bridge world can figure out who I am. It's not hard. I don't put my name to my account publicly because my future employers don't come under the heading of "cares in the bridge world" (and there are still some people from my past that might have the same attitude to me that I have to them, plus an interest in continuing; and, of course, nobody can spell or pronounce my name correctly either). This has caused problems in other places; their site, their rules. However, my name, *my rules*.

[aguahombre]

There are probably even fewer than that who care who I am

But I don't exactly hide it either. Just got tired of getting the reject "Waterman is taken" every time I registered for a new site.

[barmar]

MickyB, on 2013-January-10, 15:56, said:

The discussion about terminology has got me wondering -

Given that 1C-P-1H-P; 2D is a reverse even if 2D doesn't show extras, is it a reverse even if 2D isn't natural?

The Bridge World's Glossary defines a reverse as:

Quote

a non-jump bid in a new suit that bypasses a bid in a lower-ranking suit already bid by the same player.

There's more extensive discussion in Wikipedia.

So it's still a reverse. Whether it requires extra values depends on what it shows. The requirement for extra values is generally necessary if responder might have to bid 2NT or take preference to opener's first suit with a minimum. But if 2♦ shows a raise of ♥, going back to clubs is unlikely, so no extra values are required.

[aguahombre]

MickyB, on 2013-January-10, 15:56, said:

Given that 1C-P-1H-P; 2D is a reverse even if 2D doesn't show extras, is it a reverse even if 2D isn't natural?

Maybe. But I can't imagine using the term "reverse" to describe it could possibly serve a useful purpose; not in discussion with partner, not in disclosure, not in an article.

I have heard/seen the term "jump-reverse" used to describe what is really a splinter:

1C-1H
3D! As in, "This jump reverse shows Diamond shortness and (whatever) values in support of hearts."

We know a reverse is not a jump-bid by definition, but the point gets across to the reader/listener.

[barmar]

Bridge is full of terms with nonsensical meanings when you try to interpret them literally. E.g. in "Two-way New Minor Forcing", one of the minor suits is usually not "new" (they're only both new when the auction starts 1♥-1♠-1NT). This is a consequence of terms evolving based on treating previous terms as conceptual entities, rather than as phrases to be parsed literally. It's also related to the inclination to pull words apart and use prefixes or suffixes as conceptual entities. E.g. "Blackwood" was named after a person, but over time the "-wood" suffix has become used for a number of ace-asking conventions, such as Redwood (which also plays on the first syllable being a playing card color) and Minorwood; this is analogous to the real world use of "-gate" as a suffix for political scandals, ever since the Watergate.

This is just a consequence of the way the language area of the brain works. We don't process letters and words, we process phrases and concepts, except when initially learning them.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-11, 09:51, said:

I don't mind if I play a good, indifferent or even poor follow-up scheme with a casual partner. I would consider it enough just to be on the same wave should a reverse come up. But I have absolutely no idea what would be the default without discussion.

"Everything natural".

[ArtK78]

The term "reverse" comes from the fact that you are bidding your suits in the "reverse" order of what would be considered to be the normal order - higher ranking suit first - and, as a consequence, the bid of the second suit is at a higher level than a simple rebid of the first suit. Whether the bid is natural or shows more values than bidding the suits in their "normal" order is not relevant.

1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ is not a reverse because the bid of the second suit is not at a higher level than a simple rebid of the first suit.

However, 1♣ - 1♥ - 2♦ is a reverse because the bid of the second suit is higher than 2♣.

So, if you are asking whether a bid is a "reverse," you have to keep in mind that you are not asking whether it shows additional strength or even whether it is a natural call.

It is almost universally true in modern bridge bidding that a reverse shows extra values. It is not universally true that a reverse is a natural call. Most of the time it is defined as a natural call, but it is not unheard of for the reverse bid to be made on a short holding.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-11, 14:43, said:

"Everything natural".

Right, but what is/is not forcing?

[qwyz]

Re: Reverse Bids becoming obsolete
I appreciate all of u taking the time to provide your comments on this topic.
I think that this topic can be concluded with the following comments:
From glen: when playing SAYC with no partnership agreements on a cruise ship, the ‘trend’ is anything goes.
From RMB1: we understand that Andrew Robson (London, England) teaches his beginners that they do not need extras to reverse. (If they get too high, they get too high).
From Trinidad: It seems entirely sensible to not say anything about reverses and strength requirements to absolute beginners. Let them (mis)bid the hands and get on with the play. First teach them to show their distribution, locate a fit, etc. The next step will be to teach them that you need to decide at some point when you stop showing your suits (because otherwise you will get too high). Once people understand that, you can easily teach them about reverses by pointing out that they will get you higher and that you, therefore need extra strength to make a reverse bid.
From P_Marlowe: My guess is, that this is due to a mixup. There is a children’s game called ‘Stille Post” (the English call it ‘chinese whispers’/telephone.... It is quite funny what comes out after 3-4 stations.

With the above comments and others in mind, it seems possible that the statement that ‘reverse bids are no longer being taught by cruise ship bridge instructors and others at regional and national events ' may be true BUT not because they are now considered to be obsolete bids, BUT rather that perhaps it takes too much effort to explain and to get beginners and others who are attending these instructional sessions to fully understand the whole reverse bid picture. Perhaps the old telephone game outcome has resulted in this unique local belief that reverse bids have become obsolete.

And from the comments it does appear that this is a local practice. It is known that bridge players may have personal agreements that can be like the one that caused this post: that ‘any new suit by Opener is forcing upon Responder who must bid again regardless if it appears as if coming from a minimum or a stronger – reverse bid type of hand as the Opener’s rebid no longer suggests the strength of the hand. My concern in raising this post is; if this is the practice and it is not alerted as being different from the expected, how would I know when a new suit bid is showing the stronger typical reverse type bid or hand or is showing this local practice of simple further bidding out of the hand regardless of the strength of the hand. The posting by barmar as to ACBL’s Alert Procedures was very informative and actually does reflect what is occurring at this local club: “Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong... So this requires you to compare your agreement with how the bid ‘sounds’. If it were actually true that ‘nobody plays deliberate reverse bids any more,’ then it wouldn’t sound strong, so you wouldn’t alert it.”
On two occasions, what I took to be a reverse type of bid was made by the Ops without an alert being made. In both cases the Opener did not have sufficient strength to make what I took to be a reverse type of bid. I excused the first one based on the experience of the players, however the second time it was made by some level of ACBL life master members. So now barmar’s statement as to the interpretation of the bid according to the local ‘sound’ has a great deal of significance. As I was informed later that at this local club reverse bids do not imply extra strength and therefore will not have a ‘strong sound’. A significant lesson as to the value of asking what the local customs are before playing.

The posting by PeterAlan containing reference to the Draft Minutes of EBU Laws and Ethics Committee Meeting 19 September 2012 was also very informative: “The secretary asked whether a sequence such as 1D-1S; 2H, where the 2H was bid to show a 5-4 hand in diamonds and hearts but only on a minimum opening hand, was alertable. It was agreed that it was not, although players should be encouraged to disclose that their method was unusual (although it was recognized that many may not know, if that is how they have been taught)”. And I think that this brings us to the full circle: it players are not being taught about reverse bids showing an extra strength hand, then they would not know that what they are playing is unusual".
And again reinforces for me the value of asking what the local customs are before playing.

In response to aquahombre statement that “it is not clear that the OP (Opening Poster) understood the extra values needed by most experienced players in order to rebid a higher suit at the 2 level.” Let me assure you that I do consider myself a serious student and player of bridge, although because of location somewhat limited in available bridge venues. I was considerably alarmed when I was informed that ‘nobody makes deliberate reverse bids to show extra strength hands anymore’, and that reverse bids are no longer being taught by bridge instructors on cruise ships nor at regional or national bridge events. And this disbelief in this statement is what caused me to raise this post.
Again I thank all of u for ur comments. I have concluded that I will continue to use reverse bids to show extra strength type of hand as any serious bridge player would. 