smerriman, on 2021-November-12, 15:57, said:
You could argue that there are two ways of bidding in both sequences:
1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ forces the auction higher higher than 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦.
1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ forces the auction higher than 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠.
So it's not far fetched to see that 'reverse' can be used in both cases to refer to reversing the order from one that allows a cheap response to one that does not, thus showing a better hand.
I wouldn't call it a reverse myself, but I don't they are as dissimilar as some are making out.
1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ forces the auction higher higher than 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦.
1♠ - 2♦ - 3♣ forces the auction higher than 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠.
So it's not far fetched to see that 'reverse' can be used in both cases to refer to reversing the order from one that allows a cheap response to one that does not, thus showing a better hand.
I wouldn't call it a reverse myself, but I don't they are as dissimilar as some are making out.
The essence of the matter is the same in both cases, and it deserves a generic term, but it seems to me inappropriate to adopt the name of the first case for all others.
Analogous to calling all acts of war 'invasion'.