[oryctolagi]

 zillahandp, on 2016-March-20, 02:57, said:

Orycto for you especially "least lie" and slammy not a word for everyone do you study English?

Zillahandp, your profile (on BBO) says that you're based in GB, so presumably English is your first language. If your intention was to demonstrate that I'm a cr@p player and my idiot of a partner pulled off a brilliant coup which I failed to capitalise on, fine, go ahead, say it. I can handle that - I've been there! But if you shroud your post in the most incomprehensible gobbledygook, expecting me to waste my time trying to decypher it, go and post your rubbish somewhere else please.

All right then, chum, so you were typing in on a fancy smartphone and trying to manipulate your touchscreen with fingers the size of pork sausages, was that it? Go and learn to type on a proper keyboard please. I learnt my typing on a typewriter, and there were no spellcheckers for me. If I made a mistake, out came the Tippex (or better still, rip out the sheet and start over). And I don't have a smartphone (I did have one, but I gave it to my son).

Quite frankly, this sort of lazy attitude p***es me off big-time.

The rest of you - thanks once again for the replies.

[nullve]

 oryctolagi, on 2016-March-20, 06:31, said:

Zillahandp, your profile (on BBO) says that you're based in GB, so presumably English is your first language. If your intention was to demonstrate that I'm a cr@p player and my idiot of a partner pulled off a brilliant coup which I failed to capitalise on, fine, go ahead, say it. I can handle that - I've been there! But if you shroud your post in the most incomprehensible gobbledygook, expecting me to waste my time trying to decypher it, go and post your rubbish somewhere else please.

All right then, chum, so you were typing in on a fancy smartphone and trying to manipulate your touchscreen with fingers the size of pork sausages, was that it? Go and learn to type on a proper keyboard please. I learnt my typing on a typewriter, and there were no spellcheckers for me. If I made a mistake, out came the Tippex (or better still, rip out the sheet and start over). And I don't have a smartphone (I did have one, but I gave it to my son).

Quite frankly, this sort of lazy attitude p***es me off big-time.

The rest of you - thanks once again for the replies.

I understand your frustration, but you just proved that rudeness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.

[zillahandp]

wear cap fits the if it springs to mind

[Grommet1]

Your partner's bid was a lie that he thought was the best way to deal with a system hole, which is inherently dangerous. In a regular partnership, you would have a discussion of how to handle this hole in the future and move on. To go off in a huff with a pickup partner because your bid worked out poorly is just rude.

[iandayre]

 oryctolagi, on 2016-March-18, 08:45, said:

I'm baffled. Perhaps I just don't know enough. This was in the BBO Acol club and I thought my partner was reversing:

---

Anyway, liking partner's (presumed) diamonds and (presumed) lots of points, a lot, I thought "slam" but eventually landed us in 5♦.

After the fiasco (3 down), I was about to ask partner what 2♦ was all about, but he/she scarpered before I got a chance.

Perhaps it's me. Not the first time something like this has happened. Perhaps I'm not up to this game, and others are taking it out on me... Should I quit?

Partner WAS reversing. It could be argued that 3C is enough with this hand, but make the D better, and 2D would be the only sensible call.

[jogs]

The 'style' of inventing a suit in a three card suit has been appearing in The Bridge World 'Master Solver's Club' answers for at least 20 years. Only the 3 card suit is usually headed by the ace and lower ranking than the real suit. But what was your rush? Why didn't you just bid 3♦?

[nekthen]

S A 8 4
H A K 9
D A J 8 6 4 2
C 3

This is the sort of hand that can consider a 3 card reverse.
We have the strength for 3♦ but the suit is ragged.

1D 1S
2H 3H
3S

We know when p bids 3H that he has 5 spades. If our black suits are swapped we cannot reverse because 3N could be a disaster over 3H possibly we could get to 4H or 4/5D

That makes it borderline between 2 or 3 D

The other sort of hand where opener may rebid a 3 card suit is

S 4
H A J
D A K J 9 7 6 4
C K Q 8

I would open 2D multi but if that is not available and 2D is weak, you have to open 1D and after 1S 3D not strong enough and 4D by passes 3N.
Solution is to bid 3C. Again you can't do this with the hearts and clubs swapped and you would not reverse as you are way too strong so have to choose between 3 and 4 d

[helene_t]

You are entitled to assume that partner has four diamonds.

Reason 1: Many people never reverse on a 3-card suit. There are always alternatives (2NT rebid, opening Benji 2♣, underbidding 3♣, rebidding 4♣ assuming that it is natural)

Reason 2: If partner has only three diamonds he will usually be 1336 (with shortness in hearts the rebid is 3NT, without shortness he would rebid 2nt or open 2nt). So he can correct to hearts.

With this particular hand partner had a normal 3♣ rebid.

[blackshoe]

 nekthen, on 2016-March-20, 14:30, said:

S 4
H A J
D A K J 9 7 6 4
C K Q 8

I would open 2D multi but if that is not available and 2D is weak, you have to open 1D and after 1S 3D not strong enough and 4D by passes 3N.
Solution is to bid 3C. Again you can't do this with the hearts and clubs swapped and you would not reverse as you are way too strong so have to choose between 3 and 4 d

I would open that hand 1NT (Dynamic NT, 4-5 losers, 18-21 HCP, unbalanced, or 19-20 HCP, balanced, 6 controls). Partner will probably respond 2♣ (0-5 HCP), and I will rebid 2♦, showing this hand. If I were playing Romex, that is.

[ahydra]

 nekthen, on 2016-March-20, 14:30, said:

S A 8 4
H A K 9
D A J 8 6 4 2
C 3

This is the sort of hand that can consider a 3 card reverse.
We have the strength for 3♦ but the suit is ragged.

1D 1S
2H 3H
3S

We know when p bids 3H that he has 5 spades. If our black suits are swapped we cannot reverse because 3N could be a disaster over 3H possibly we could get to 4H or 4/5D

That makes it borderline between 2 or 3 D

The other sort of hand where opener may rebid a 3 card suit is

S 4
H A J
D A K J 9 7 6 4
C K Q 8

I would open 2D multi but if that is not available and 2D is weak, you have to open 1D and after 1S 3D not strong enough and 4D by passes 3N.
Solution is to bid 3C. Again you can't do this with the hearts and clubs swapped and you would not reverse as you are way too strong so have to choose between 3 and 4 d

You have to be extremely cautious about lying about the length of a major suit. Partner holding 5♠4♥ will jump to game and leave you nowhere to go (is 4S really natural rather than a cue now that hearts are agreed?). So on that first hand I would still bid 3D - the suit isn't _that_ bad and you describe the strength and shape accurately.

On the second hand I rebid 3NT, which we have defined as "6+ cards, a hand too strong for 1x then 3x" (but not good enough for a 2C opener). Even if you don't have that system option available, 3NT is a practical shot as most roads lead there anyway.

ahydra

[billw55]

I don't see any problem with 3♣ at all.

[Charlie Yu]

5D is still very bad. At least you should bid 2H/2S showing your fifth heart.

[akwoo]

I should remind everyone that, especially with an unknown partner, it's not clear that 1♣-1♥-2♦-2♥ is forcing, nor is it clear that 1♣-1♥-2♦-3♦ is forcing. Indeed, I have partnerships where they are not forcing (because partner wouldn't be able to remember that they are forcing).

I agree they should be forcing (or at least 3♦ should be), but…

Remember that Lebensohl is too complicated for most bridge players.

[barmar]

 akwoo, on 2016-March-21, 17:52, said:

I should remind everyone that, especially with an unknown partner, it's not clear that 1♣-1♥-2♦-2♥ is forcing, nor is it clear that 1♣-1♥-2♦-3♦ is forcing. Indeed, I have partnerships where they are not forcing (because partner wouldn't be able to remember that they are forcing).

I don't think they were when I first learned.

Quote

I agree they should be forcing (or at least 3♦ should be), but…

Remember that Lebensohl is too complicated for most bridge players.

And lots of poor bridge players don't even understand the requirements for a reverse.

[wank]

 oryctolagi, on 2016-March-18, 10:24, said:

Maybe to you. Bear in mind we were in the Acol club, and I have Acol very firmly stated on my card. We had made no agreement to play otherwise. And in Acol, unless I'm very much astray, a reverse is a reverse, a natural bid showing a strong hand and two suits. Where are the two suits in this hand????

no matter how much you write in bold,you're wrong.

acol, as any other system, involves sometimes faking a suit.

i think you need to tone down your posting style which tries to combine being aggressive with playing the victim.

[ahydra]

 Charlie Yu, on 2016-March-21, 17:40, said:

5D is still very bad. At least you should bid 2H/2S showing your fifth heart.

I don't think he said he bid 5D directly over 2D, just that 5D was the final contract. I like a 2S bid (4SF) here.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

 akwoo, on 2016-March-21, 17:52, said:

Remember that Lebensohl is too complicated for most bridge players.

Bridge is too complicated for most bridge players.

[blackshoe]

 wank, on 2016-March-22, 09:45, said:

no matter how much you write in bold,you're wrong.

Don't agree with this.

 wank, on 2016-March-22, 09:45, said:

acol, as any other system, involves sometimes faking a suit.

Do agree with this.

A reverse is a bidding sequence that reverses the normal order of bidding, which is to bid the higher ranking suit first. In that sense, a reverse is indeed a reverse. By implication, the lower ranking suit should be longer than the higher ranking (if the higher ranking were longer, there would be no need to reverse). Also by implication from the agreement that the second bid suit is natural, it should have four cards. By implication from the fact that responder will be forced to the three level to give simple preference to opener's first suit, the reverse should contain extra values (unless, for example, responder's first bid was forcing to game). However, these implications must sometimes give way when opener does not have the perfect hand. So a reverse on a 3 card second suit is certainly acceptable. Keep in mind that the implications are what the bid shows, not what it promises. A partnership agreement cannot promise, lest the hand become unbiddable.

[nullve]

 blackshoe, on 2016-March-23, 09:50, said:

Keep in mind that the implications are what the bid shows, not what it promises. A partnership agreement cannot promise, lest the hand become unbiddable.

Reduced Stayman:

1N-2♣; ?:

2♥: shows, but does not promise, 4+ H
2♠: shows, but does not promise, 4+ S
other (incl. 2♦): not allowed / end of partnership

Less ridiculous, perhaps:

1♥(5+ H)-1N(F1); ?:

2♣: shows, but does not promise, 4+ C
2♦: shows, but does not promise 4+ D

This post has been edited by nullve: 2016-March-25, 08:16

[barmar]

Some cases are obviously more likely to be close to promises, because there's unlikely to be a need to lie. I can't imagine ever responding falsely to Stayman, there are no "problem hands" where none of the normal replies are a good fit.

I don't quite agree with your forcing NT example, though. Responding 2minor shows 3+ in the suit, not 4+ (responder shouldn't consider raising with less than 5). Sometimes you have to lie and bid 2♣ with only 2, because you have a weak 4=5=2=2 hand.