[Tramticket]

A pair states that they "don't play reverses" - by which they mean that they do bid suits in a reverse order, but this doesn't promise extra values.

You encounter this sort of thing from time to time and it is usually a pair that is very weak and inexperienced and do not even realise that this is abnormal, so it is futile to expect any disclosure of their methods.

Last night a pair made this statement who were rather more advanced and experienced enough to know that their treatment was unusual. One of the pair asked "should I have alerted?"

What is the correct method of disclosure:
- Alert the bid?
- Show on system card under "Other Aspects of System which opponents should note" (this is a club night and they don't have a system card)

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2020-January-07, 02:16, said:

A pair states that they "don't play reverses" - by which they mean that they do bid suits in a reverse order, but this doesn't promise extra values.

You encounter this sort of thing from time to time and it is usually a pair that is very weak and inexperienced and do not even realise that this is abnormal, so it is futile to expect any disclosure of their methods.

Last night a pair made this statement who were rather more advanced and experienced enough to know that their treatment was unusual. One of the pair asked "should I have alerted?"

What is the correct method of disclosure:
- Alert the bid?
- Show on system card under "Other Aspects of System which opponents should note" (this is a club night and they don't have a system card)

No idea about EBU, but here it would require an alert, not being natural. If their system is workable despite this choice it will probably be so artificial that it would be disallowed at a club event in any case.

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2020-January-07, 03:00, said:

No idea about EBU, but here it would require an alert, not being natural. If their system is workable despite this choice it will probably be so artificial that it would be disallowed at a club event in any case.

I doubt that their system is workable! But it is their system!

The change of suit would be regarded as natural (I think, since it promises 4+ cards) and forcing for one round.

[PeterAlan]

It's not alertable in EBU:

Minutes of EBU Laws & Ethics Committee meeting 19 September 2012 said:

5.8 Alerting a non-strong reverse
The secretary asked whether a sequence such as 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥, where the 2♥ 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 recognised that many may not know, if that is how they have been taught).

My regular partner and I play this way (it's not as unplayable as you might think, even though we play it as non-forcing), but we

• have a comprehensive system card
  
• have "Reverses don't show additional values" in the General Description of Bidding Methods headline section at the top of that card (we originally put it at the top of the "Other Aspects of System which opponents should note" part, but found that was rarely looked at by opponents), and
  
• mention it whenever telling opponents our basic system at the start of a round.

Neil Rosen contends that if you play this way "It's not a reverse": take your pick on that.

[Tramticket]

Thanks for the reference Peter - that answers my question.

PeterAlan, on 2020-January-07, 06:16, said:

My regular partner and I play this way (it's not as unplayable as you might think, even though we play it as non-forcing)

Ok, I'm intrigued. How do you create a force? Do you have some artificial method or do you have to jump to the three-level? Or ...?

[PeterAlan]

Tramticket, on 2020-January-07, 07:10, said:

Ok, I'm intrigued. How do you create a force? Do you have some artificial method or do you have to jump to the three-level? Or ...?

Sorry, Tt, I don't have the time to go into this much now, but, whilst playing it as non-forcing and with opener's rebid sometimes being passed, generally responder is able to find a second bid.

[pescetom]

PeterAlan, on 2020-January-07, 06:16, said:

My regular partner and I play this way (it's not as unplayable as you might think, even though we play it as non-forcing)

Interesting. I'm curious to know how you accomodate it in the system.

PeterAlan, on 2020-January-07, 06:16, said:

Neil Rosen contends that if you play this way "It's not a reverse": take your pick on that.

A reverse bid is defined as a second bid in a new suit at the two level by opener in a higher ranking suit than opener's first bid suit - so it's still a reverse whatever meaning you agree to assign.

[hrothgar]

pescetom, on 2020-January-07, 03:00, said:

No idea about EBU, but here it would require an alert, not being natural. If their system is workable despite this choice it will probably be so artificial that it would be disallowed at a club event in any case.

???

1. The definition of this bid might be far from standard, but this doesn't mean that it isn't natural

2. There are plenty of second round bids by opener which are artificial and still allowed at the club level

[Tramticket]

PeterAlan, on 2020-January-07, 08:03, said:

Sorry, Tt, I don't have the time to go into this much now

No problem. You answered the Laws question.

[pescetom]

hrothgar, on 2020-January-07, 08:54, said:

???
1. The definition of this bid might be far from standard, but this doesn't mean that is isn't natural

Natural in terms of distribution yes, but our alert regulations say to alert "natural bids which have a definition of strength or forcing / non forcing which is anomalous with respect to those normally in use". That substitutes the old WBF list "Non-forcing jump changes of suit responses to opening bids or overcalls, and nonforcing new suit responses by an unpassed hand to opening bids of one of a suit" which was evidently considered unnecessarily restrictive. It would seem to apply to a weak and non-forcing reverse.

hrothgar, on 2020-January-07, 08:54, said:

2. There are plenty of second round bids by opener which are artificial and still allowed at the club level

Of course. But I imagine that a system containing this treatment will compensate with multiple artificial mechanisms of some kind, it depends what they are. Clubs are free to allow or disallow any system they want in a local tournament and not all are open minded.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2020-January-07, 09:50, said:

Natural in terms of distribution yes, but our alert regulations say to alert "natural bids which have a definition of strength or forcing / non forcing which is anomalous with respect to those normally in use".

ACBL has a similar requirement to alert "strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong".

[pran]

I never stop wondering about discussions on "reverse" bids - there is nothing special about those:

When you bid a second suit that will force your partner to the three level if he prefers your first suit then you must guarantee a strength so than the three-level is not to high even with a minimum-strength partner.

Of course this means that you need more strength if your second suit ranks above your first suit compared to the strength you need when your second suit ranks below your first.

It takes no "convention" about "reverse" to apply this principle, it is just natural bidding, and any partnership should be used to it.

[Tramticket]

pran, on 2020-January-07, 11:19, said:

you must guarantee a strength so than the three-level is not to high even with a minimum-strength partner.

If you were to play against opponents don't realise that the 2017 Laws state that you "must" guarantee a minimum strength, you would presumably expect disclosure?

I think that Peter has clarified that this should be on the front of the convention card - under EBU regs.

[pran]

Tramticket, on 2020-January-07, 13:50, said:

If you were to play against opponents don't realise that the 2017 Laws state that you "must" guarantee a minimum strength, you would presumably expect disclosure?

I think that Peter has clarified that this should be on the front of the convention card - under EBU regs.

Does anybody know of an agreement that when bidding two different suits during an auction the second suit bid is longer than the first?
This would IMHO justify the term "reverse" and probably require announcements and/or alerts.

I have only met the term "reverse" to signify bidding a shorter, higher ranking suit after first having bid a longer but lower ranking suit.
The fact that this requires more strength than not forcing the auction to the three-level (by bidding the second suit) is IMHO a matter of general bridge knowledge.

[sanst]

pran, on 2020-January-07, 14:56, said:

I have only met the term "reverse" to signify bidding a shorter, higher ranking suit after first having bid a longer but lower ranking suit.
The fact that this requires more strength than not forcing the auction to the three-level (by bidding the second suit) is IMHO a matter of general bridge knowledge.

Reverse bidding is also possible with a 4441 distribution and I would strongly advise to reserve reverse bidding to strong hands. But it’s not a matter of general bridge knowledge, at least not among weaker players in general. I’m intrigued by Peter Allan’s remark about the non strong - is that English? - reverse bidding of him and his partner.
Is it alertable with a weak hand. In Peter Allan’s case certainly, since there’s an agreement and it’s unusual. But weaker players quite often have no agreement about it, are not even aware of the fact that you should have a good hand and seem to think it bad luck if a wheel comes off. I wouldn’t bother about it.

[hrothgar]

sanst, on 2020-January-07, 15:13, said:

Reverse bidding is also possible with a 4441 distribution and I would strongly advise to reserve reverse bidding to strong hands. But it’s not a matter of general bridge knowledge, at least not among weaker players in general. I’m intrigued by Peter Allan’s remark about the non strong - is that English? - reverse bidding of him and his partner.

To be technical, you can reverse with any shape you want
That doesn't mean that it's a good idea to do so...

I'd much rather pretend that I am 4432 than reverse with a 4441

[helene_t]

pescetom, on 2020-January-07, 03:00, said:

If their system is workable despite this choice it will probably be so artificial that it would be disallowed at a club event in any case.

I don't think so, unless we are talking about a club that uses something even more restrictive than Level 2 on certain club nights. Most clubs use Level 3 (obsolete) or Level 4.

An artificial 2♣ rebid, or 2NT, for example, would be permissible. It is possible that they need to make some tweeks to their responses such as some artificial response that cater to hands that wouldn't be able to handle the jump reverse, but even that would probably be allowed, at least at Level 4. More likely they just have some artificial rebid, or even a natural jump reverse, which would be allowed at any level.

[KingCovert]

pran, on 2020-January-07, 14:56, said:

Does anybody know of an agreement that when bidding two different suits during an auction the second suit bid is longer than the first?
This would IMHO justify the term "reverse" and probably require announcements and/or alerts.

I have only met the term "reverse" to signify bidding a shorter, higher ranking suit after first having bid a longer but lower ranking suit.
The fact that this requires more strength than not forcing the auction to the three-level (by bidding the second suit) is IMHO a matter of general bridge knowledge.

You're talking about Canape. The second suit is longer, or sometimes equal length, to your first suit. I believe that Canape is supposed to be pre-alerted, and then the second suit should be alerted, however, the opening bids, which may conceal a longer second suit are not alerted. This is because there is no guarantee whatsoever of a second suit, and you may well be single-suited or balanced when you open the bidding, at least I'd imagine that to be the reason.

However, as best I can tell, the reason that the second suit is alerted is because opponents have a right to know that opener has at least as much, if not more, willingness to play in that second suit than the first. It's not really about strength, so, I'm not sure that this topic really contributes to the discussion about whether a reverse that doesn't show extra strength should be alerted.

[hrothgar]

I have sometimes heard the expression "strong canape" used when the second suit is unambiguously longer than the first (and "canape" when the second suit might be longer than the first)

[sanst]

hrothgar, on 2020-January-07, 15:20, said:

I'd much rather pretend that I am 4432 than reverse with a 4441

Now that we are OT: it depends on the hand. If I have a small singleton spades I open AKxx AKxx Axxx x 1♣ and after my partner’s 1♠ my bid will be 2♥. If I have A or K of spades, I would answer 2NT. Anyway, the 4441 is the weak point of most simple natural systems.