[babalu1997]

What are Roth Stones Reverses?

How can i bid them?

Does that take longer to learn than splinters?

thanks

[kenberg]

http://www.bridgewor.../ksupdated.html

scroll sown to B-12&13


1m-1M-2R, R a reverse: They say:
Forcing, but not necessarily a monster, promises rebid over anything but 3 m. Promises length in m and strength, not length, in reverse suit R. Could even be doubleton, with 2-1/2 m rebid, or 2-1/2 M with 3 trumps, or game raise in M with singleton in fourth suit.

Later, they consider
1 m - 1 M
2 R - 2 M
fourth suit

Here they say:
Game-force; a Roth-Stone reverse; R suit likely natural; probably no stopper since then 3 NT. Responder makes his most natural rebid, with emphasis on 3 NT if stopper, or 3 M if good suit.



There is more. It's pretty brief and I can't say that I fully understand it. Surely you would need a partner who reads the same thing and understands it the same way. I won't be critiquing Roth and Stone but I don't think it is all that common.


Everybody must get Stoned.

[Stephen Tu]

Roth-Stone was based on very sound opening bids. Their minimum for openings was higher and their minimum for reversing was also higher; basically reverse = a game force. Don't remember if they played special structure there afterwards.

K-S (Kaplan-Sheinwold) reverses are very much *not* GF, they are not at all R-S reverses; it is a light-reversing structure rather than heavy. The section Ken is quoting is just showing how to make a GF *after* reversing in the K-S updated response/rebid structure when having an inappropriate hand to bid 3nt (basically use 4th suit forcing+artificial by opener); i.e. to show a R-S minimum reverse on opener's third bid. R-S would already be in the GF after opener's 2nd bid.

Hardly anyone plays Roth-Stone these days, though many elements they introduced/popularized are still in use (5cM + forcing 1nt, very sound practically GF 2/1 responses, negative doubles).

[kenberg]

I was wondering what R-S was doing under K-S but I figured maybe they were just grabbing the reverse structure from them. What Steven says makes more sense. It's all I could find searching on Roth-Stone Reverses.

So I withdraw my thoughts, which were nothing to write home about in the first place.