[Vampyr]

 PeterAlan, on 2013-January-10, 05:06, said:

Quite possibly me and my partner, Stephanie..

Yes, it could be. I don't know who you are IRL, though.

[MickyB]

Reverses became obsolete on Tuesday, when I removed the last one from my system file. I am a bit worried how OP's source knows this, perhaps there is a vulnerability in Google Drive?

[mgoetze]

 MickyB, on 2013-January-10, 07:39, said:

Reverses became obsolete on Tuesday, when I removed the last one from my system file. I am a bit worried how OP's source knows this, perhaps there is a vulnerability in Google Drive?

Twatface told him.

[gwnn]

reverse bids obsolete obsolete.

[Trinidad]

If someone makes reverses obsolete, can that still be reversed?

Rik

[RSClyde]

It's become far more common to reverse on 6-5 hands even if they are weak. Some where I play will go really light like x, KQxxx, x KJxxxx. Basically "if I'm opening and I'm 6-5 then I'll open my longer suit." I used to do this but came to view it as kind of silly: if partner doesn't have hearts then we aren't making game with any less than we ever do (I know partner "could" have a perfect hand but we can't bid for partner to have all working cards a priori.) So why not start with 1♥, if partner likes that we can get aggressive, if not then he can dictate the pace of the auction rather than me blasting us into outer space. That said, I don't have to be too much better if I'm 6-5 to reverse.

Also after a GF, we just bid our suits.

However with like a 5-4 hand? I really try not to reverse on those, instead trying to open/ rebid no trumps if possible, it's not always of course. But reversing on just any ole hand? That's just bad bridge.

When I've talked to newer players about these situations, rather than mentioning reverses I'll explain it this way:
1♥ 1nt
2♠
"partner doesn't have spades here so there's no need to bid them with only 4." (Not that this works for every auction.)

[PeterAlan]

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-10, 06:35, said:

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.

Absolutely. It seems to me that systematic bidding is the hardest thing for beginners to learn - much harder than basic card play, for example - and it's much better to get them confident with a systematic approach as soon as possible, at the price of teaching a simplified system, rather than to bog them down with extra system complexity and reliance on judgment at too early a stage. Developing judgment is important, but to require it from day 1 can lead to difficulties that could be avoided with a more step-by-step approach.

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-10, 06:35, said:

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).

Indeed, but as I've said my experience has been that there have always been other priorities! Some day, we'll get good enough in other areas for this to be first priority for change. I wouldn't play Benji Acol either if wanting to play a relatively optimal system, but changing that can wait too.

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-10, 06:35, said:

Once people understand that, you can easily teach them about reverses by pointing out that they will get you higher ...

True.

 Trinidad, on 2013-January-10, 06:35, said:

... and that you, therefore, need extra strength to make a reverse bid.

The standard comment, but of course only partially true. Fine, if your objective is to make the contract, but that may not be wholly the case: The Law often applies. This is one reason why bidding as my partner and I continue to choose to do does not lead to the end of the world as we know it.

[PeterAlan]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-10, 07:35, said:

Yes, it could be. I don't know who you are IRL, though.

Peter Randall IRL. The most recent occasion we met was in the first round of the Satellite Pairs final at the Autumn Congress, when Paul remarked to you before we started that I posted here under this name. Congratulations again on your win; we did not do well, but it wasn't this issue that let us down!

Peter

[aguahombre]

Hmm. Perhaps before tackling a term as tough as "reverse", we should have resolved that:

"Me and my partner, Stephanie" meant Peter was talking to Stephanie rather than identifying his partner.

Sorry, Vamp, for thinking you really played reverse bids that way.

[barmar]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-09, 22:50, said:

There are obviously some misunderstandings here. First of all, "reverse bid" is not the name of a convention. It is simply the technical name for what you are doing when you rebid at the 2-level in a higher suit than the one you opened in. Some examples:

I knew someone was going to point this out. But whenever someone uses the term in the way the OP did, e.g. something like "we don't play reverses", it's clear that what they mean is "we don't play that reverses show extra strength." Is it really necessary for someone to get pedantic every time someone uses the term like this? It's not like anyone is actually confused by it.

Quote

This simple bit of bridge logic is the primary reason why reverse bids require extra strength. It's not just something people thought up as a fancy convention. If you bid 1♦-1NT-2♥ on 12 HCP, you will get into a lot of trouble. There are also a lot of other reasons why this would be a bad idea (notably, you will have a lot of trouble bidding the hands which do have extra strength properly).

Wish I'd thought of pointing this out. Oh yeah, I did.

[aguahombre]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-09, 22:50, said:

There are obviously some misunderstandings here. First of all, "reverse bid" is not the name of a convention. It is simply the technical name for what you are doing when you rebid at the 2-level in a higher suit than the one you opened in.

This was the opening paragraph of what I consider a very well thought-out attempt to define the concept of a reverse.

 barmar, on 2013-January-10, 11:33, said:

I knew someone was going to point this out. But whenever someone uses the term in the way the OP did, e.g. something like "we don't play reverses", it's clear that what they mean is "we don't play that reverses show extra strength." Is it really necessary for someone to get pedantic every time someone uses the term like this? It's not like anyone is actually confused by it.

Unfortunately it is not clear that the OP understood the extra values needed by most experienced players in order to rebid a higher suit at the 2-level. I further believe that many casual readers of "we don't play reverses", and the vast majority of people who say that are actually quite confused.

Michael G's post was an attempt to reach a common ground of terminology, from which point PeterAlan could contribute his minority view. We all knew exactly what we were disagreeing with...a good thing for a forum thread.

[mycroft]

 barmar, on 2013-January-10, 11:33, said:

I knew someone was going to point this out. But whenever someone uses the term in the way the OP did, e.g. something like "we don't play reverses", it's clear that what they mean is "we don't play that reverses show extra strength." Is it really necessary for someone to get pedantic every time someone uses the term like this? It's not like anyone is actually confused by it.

Absolutely it is (SB-mode off). The same people who say "we don't play reverses" play 1NT-2♠ "transfer" (Announcement, rather than Alert) and what they actually *play* is "wants to play 3 of my minor"; they play "Flannery" with 4-6; and many other such. It's important to explain what they are misdescribing, because eventually they will in fact have a MI ruling based on it.

Usually however, I get "is that a reverse?" And yes, I do go all SB on them: "Yes it is. Do you want to know if it shows extras?" (or, to be ACBL correct, "Natural and forcing; guarantees 5+ [first suit]. Minimum 16-ish playing points." or "Natural; does not guarantee extras", in my Calgary 2/1 partnerships after 1♥-2m; 2♠)

[mgoetze]

 barmar, on 2013-January-10, 11:33, said:

I knew someone was going to point this out. But whenever someone uses the term in the way the OP did, e.g. something like "we don't play reverses", it's clear that what they mean is "we don't play that reverses show extra strength." Is it really necessary for someone to get pedantic every time someone uses the term like this?

No, not every time. When MickyB tells me that he has removed the last reverse sequence from his system, I understand what he means and everything is fine. When someone who is obviously a beginner and doesn't know what reverses actually are and why they should show extra strength says it - then that is one of the times it is necessary to be absolutely clear about it.

[Vampyr]

 PeterAlan, on 2013-January-10, 09:06, said:

Peter Randall IRL. The most recent occasion we met was in the first round of the Satellite Pairs final at the Autumn Congress, when Paul remarked to you before we started that I posted here under this name. Congratulations again on your win; we did not do well, but it wasn't this issue that let us down!

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 .

[Free]

Reminds me of a poor local system explained as "no jump no game". The auction is not GF unless someone jumps...

[barmar]

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

Unfortunately it is not clear that the OP understood the extra values needed by most experienced players in order to rebid a higher suit at the 2-level.

Of course it is, since that was the whole point of his question. Someone told him that most players have dropped this requirement, and he was asking if this is true.

[kenberg]

Maybe the alert could be: Alert, we bid very badly.

I once played against a pair that pre-alerted that they do not play that a new suit by responder is forcing. I don't mean that they had some exceptions. The new suits were never forcing. Sounded stupid, and so it was.

The other day I subbed in an indy. Partner passed in first position and when I opened 1♦ in third he jumped to 3NT. I suppose that he figured his five card spade suit would be useful in NT. He made it, no doubt to the consternation of the opponents. I had a good 14 and so would have raised 2NT to 3, and the defense was as weird as the play.

If someone wants to open 1♦ and rebid 2♥ over 1♠ on a 12 count, I say let them. Except that these random tops and bottoms do sort of screw up the results.

[MickyB]

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?

[steve2005]

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!?

[kenberg]

You are probably getting old, can't be helped, but bidding 2♥ is nuts regardless of your age.