[Vampyr]

 PhilKing, on 2015-June-08, 15:54, said:

This may be a transatlantic thing - opposite a British partner, there is a pretty good chance 3♦ will end the bidding.

I am surprised. I thought that even here, a reverse promises another bid.

[helene_t]

 Vampyr, on 2015-June-10, 09:01, said:

I am surprised. I thought that even here, a reverse promises another bid.

Yes, after a suit response. I recall Fred once wrote about this. Ingberman shouldn't apply after a reverse following a 1nt response. 2NT would be natural so 3♦ would be nonforcing.

[lycier]

 helene_t, on 2015-June-10, 09:03, said:

Yes, after a suit response. I recall Fred once wrote about this. Ingberman shouldn't apply after a reverse following a 1nt response. 2NT would be natural so 3♦ would be nonforcing.

Not necessarilly so.
After reverse 2♠,rebid-2nt is a natural bid,also is a second nagative bid with weakish hand.
I think the responder is asking trouble if rebid-3♦ after reverse.
Here I have to say reverse 2♠ is worse.
What's the exact meanings of reverse 2♠?
I think :
1- It is a strong hand with 19hcp+,so 2♠ is forcing a round.
2- It may be a picture bid to show 4-6 distributions in ♠ and ♥ with some extra values hand,and the opener promise he can afford pd's preference at 3-level.
Actually,the opener can't meet both conditions,so reverse 2♠ should be unreasonable,of course,the opener should rebid 2♣ after forcing 1nt.

[PhilKing]

 Vampyr, on 2015-June-10, 09:01, said:

I am surprised. I thought that even here, a reverse promises another bid.

Not in traditional methods, which still pertain at rubber. If I had the auction 1♣-1♠-2♥with Zia or Gunnar, then 2♠,2NT or 3♣ could end the bidding. And in the given auction, I would certainly interpret 3♦ as an attempt to play.

Reverses promising another bid was certainly not a British concept, and absent of playing modified Blackout or Lebensohl, my guess is that minimum bids in no trumps or previously bid suits are still non-forcing in most local duplicates.

[gszes]

We really do not know what p has for the 2s bid. It is indeed quite probable they have spades but there is no guarantee and so we should try making a bid that will be the most helpful for p overall. (I have seen both hands). IHMO I think 3d is a much more useful bid than 2n or 3s (though I also feel the 2s and 4s bids were umm errr how to say this a tad on the optimistic side (2s = 3 4s = 1). 3d gives us a plausible place to play as well as keeping 3n in play and even bringing 5d into the picture.

[SteveMoe]

1♥-1N-2♣-2♦ seems about right for this one. If opener now rebids 2♠ responder can pass.
A 2♠ rebid by opener needs a GF opposite a minimum NT. Off by an H or so, I'd say.
After 2♠ rebid I think 2N is prudent, even if not our favorite gadget.

[kenberg]

If we were playing Flannery I would open this 2D, since the two minor suit Jacks seem to be not worth all that much more than minor suit deuces. Of course we are not playing Flannery but this still means that after 1H-1NT(forcing) I am not bidding 2S (gwnn already said this, and others seem to feel the same). Now the conditions are that we have no special agreements. To me, that means that 1H-1NT-2S-3D is passable Responder is sometimes dealt six points and six cards. Is he suppose to pass 1H or pass 2S? If 2NT over 2S allowed him to show such a weak hand, fine a direct 3D is forcing, but just as we are not playing Flannery we are not playing that 2NT is a relay to 3C. So I think on 1H-1NT-2S-3D responder can have six diamonds and six points. Opener can then do as he sees fit.


The problem with this hand can be traced to the 2S bid. With responder's hand, I would expect game to be likely and I would raise 2S to 3S. Opener does not expect me to have four spades, he still bid 2S over 1NT, if he doesn't want to be raised to 3S on what I have then he should not have bid 2S.



I see this as pick-up standard. No special agreements, just reasonable choices (or guesses, if you prefer). And yes, I would have bid 2C over the 1NT.