[smerriman]

AL78, on 2021-April-20, 14:08, said:

I'm glad I asked the question andc got some good responses about continuations after a reverse, as it has exposed something I need to discuss with my regular partners. One or two things I thought were the case are evidently not. I confess to never studying reverse auctions much as they hardly ever come up.

I can see why there might be some confusion: This page states that after a reverse, rebidding your own long suit shows a very weak hand (5-7 HCP) and at least five in the suit. Larry Cohen's page says the same bid is a one round force. It looks to me like something that needs to be discussed within a partnership.

Read mikeh's 14 year old post here and ignore all other sources

[mikeh]

Karen Walker has written a lot of articles in the ACBL Bulletin. AFAIK, her articles are always/usually aimed at very inexperienced players, and her discussion of reverses falls (imo) into that category.

I wouldn’t teach ingberman or lebensohl, etc, to beginners, and I have no concern with a beginner being taught that a rebid, here 2S, is weak and can be passed...IFF the beginners were told that they may need to change this once they acquire more knowledge

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2021-April-20, 14:55, said:

IF the beginners were told that they may need to change this once they acquire more knowledge

This is the crucial part that is missing from all beginner lessons.

[Winstonm]

Beginners tend to think only of their own bids but the issue here is that opener - because he reversed - has promised another bid.

2S in this sequence is neither weak nor strong but descriptive

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2021-April-20, 09:27, said:

There are a great many more bad players than good, hence we see a lot of bad agreements.

Here's a "bad agreement" with 2♠ non-forcing:-

1♣ - 1♠; 2♥
==
2♠ = to play
2NT = to play 3♣ or GF with 3+♣
3♣ = GF exactly 5♠
3♦ = to play 3♥ or GF with 4+♥
3♥ = GF with 6+♠
3♠ = GF looking for a ♦ stop (or GF with 6+♠ and no ♦ stop if you are happy using a different sequence with 4342 and ♦xxxx)
3NT = to play (typically 4342)
--

I very much agree that bidding over reverses is one of the weakest areas of bidding for most players. But I also think that there are system advances to be had in this area even for top players above and beyond the Blackout/Lebensohl/Ingberman schemes that are typically espoused.

[mikeh]

Zelandakh, on 2021-April-20, 19:58, said:

Here's a "bad agreement" with 2♠ non-forcing:-

1♣ - 1♠; 2♥
==
2♠ = to play
2NT = to play 3♣ or GF with 3+♣
3♣ = GF exactly 5♠
3♦ = to play 3♥ or GF with 4+♥
3♥ = GF with 6+♠
3♠ = GF looking for a ♦ stop (or GF with 6+♠ and no ♦ stop if you are happy using a different sequence with 4342 and ♦xxxx)
3NT = to play (typically 4342)
--

I very much agree that bidding over reverses is one of the weakest areas of bidding for most players. But I also think that there are system advances to be had in this area even for top players above and beyond the Blackout/Lebensohl/Ingberman schemes that are typically espoused.

I also very much agree that it is possible to devise theoretically better approaches to ingberman, lebensohl, etc. However, few but dedicated members of a serious partnership would be willing/able to remember them. I can sit down with virtually any NA expert and say ‘ingberman over reverses’, expecting an ok or ‘I prefer just lebensohl’ and expect that we’ll be pretty close to being on the same wavelength if it came up.

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2021-April-20, 20:10, said:

I also very much agree that it is possible to devise theoretically better approaches to ingberman, lebensohl, etc. However, few but dedicated members of a serious partnership would be willing/able to remember them. I can sit down with virtually any NA expert and say ‘ingberman over reverses’, expecting an ok or ‘I prefer just lebensohl’ and expect that we’ll be pretty close to being on the same wavelength if it came up.

But this is something of a chicken and egg thing. Before transfers were widespread, you could also not sit down and agree "4 suit transfers"; similarly for "2/1 GF" or even RKCB. The rules for the above method may not be theoretically better than Lebensohl but the rules involved are just as simple and if it were widely used 2 players could just as easily agree "4S5 transfers" (or whatever you want to call it). And the same would be true for an optimised version.