Talk:Reverse (bridge)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Contract bridge, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

The article states:

By the criteria given above, the final bid shown in these sequences is not a reverse:

  • 1♣ – 1♥; 1♠ (The bid is at the one-level)
  • 1♦ – (2♣) – 2♥; 2♠ (The bid's level is forced by the 2♣ overcall)
  • 1♣ – 1♥; 2♠ (The bid is a jump)

I think this is just overcomplicating things. in all these examples, the reason the final bid is not a reverse is simply the fact that the bid is in a suit that has not been skipped by partner. I propose we remove these redundant and confusing criteria from the article. JocK 02:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree. It was in the original article so I left it in. Quite a lot of that middle section as a bit muddled and over the top so I would be quite happy to see you simplify it considerably ... thereby making it more readable.Abtract 02:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, took a first stab at it. Reverse :) if u don't like it. JocK 02:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more but there are still almost no citations and many uses of the weasel word 'most'. Abtract 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent complicated edits

Oh dear what a lot of work went into those recent edits (please get an account so we know who you are) but I really don't think they add to the article. Indeed they simply overcomplicate an already difficult to grasp concept. This is an encyclopedia not an expert bidding manual. I think it should nearly all be reverted but I hesitate without support because he/she obviously went to a lot of effort to produce it. :) Abtract 23:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any counter thoughts I have removed much of it. Abtract 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple reverse not forcing in Standard American???

I simply can't believe it. Offhand, I would tell that the forcing description on SA and Acol are exactly opposite of what is described in the article. Reference? Duja► 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's what one source [1] says:

A reverse is invitational and forcing (17+ pts) and implies that the first-named suit is longer than the second. Some people play a reverse as 17-19 pts, invitational to game and non-forcing.

Better still, from the ACBL Official Teacher's handbook [2]:

•A medium hand makes its natural rebid of its second suit. Note that a reverse (bidding a new suit higher than two of the suit opened, for example 1♣-1♠-2♥) promises at least medium strength values.
• A maximum hand must force to game. Therefore a maximum must either jump in a new suit (strong jump shift) or reverse and then follow with another strong bid or bid game.

Duja► 14:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
OK no problems from me, I have litle knowledge of SA I was simply regurgitating what was already there - and has been for some time. The Acol bits are correct. Abtract 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have consulted the official encyclopedia of bridge and you are right about thye US being forcing ... moreover the whole definition and one or two examples are incorrect from the amreican perspective. i will correct it shortly. Abtract 12:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I have corrected it Abtract 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not applying {{sofixit}} myself from the outset; I was short of time at that moment. I tweaked it a bit further, as there is (still) a difference between Standard American and 2/1 game forcing; these differences a bit fade away these days, as more and more people in US play 2/1 and it becomes a "new standard". However, the "basic" Standard American is fairly Acol-like (with 5-card majors) and still the "default" system for teaching and casual partnerships (and listed separately from 2/1 on ACBL convention card). Duja► 08:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
no problem ... I have tweaked it further see edit summaryAbtract 10:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You have avoided saying hi or lo in yr latest edit but, just so we agree what is what, the definition in the article is "In Acol and Standard American, a low level reverse (when responder has bid only at the level one) is forcing for one round only, whereas a high level reverse (when responder has bid at the level two ) is forcing to game" - and I believe this to be corect - clearly states that it is a hi level reverse if responder has bid at the 2 level - as in the example. Abtract 10:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For me, "high" and "low reverse" refer only to the opener's second rebid, and the first responder's bid is irrelevant. Of course, one can't bid "high-reverse" after one-over-one (that would be a jump shift), but I consider both 1♦-1♠;2♥ and 1♥-2♣;2♠ to be "low" reverse. (Actually, the term "low reverse" isn't quite common — it's basically a neologism meaning "not high reverse"). Duja► 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
mmm I have checked this in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge and I was quite wrong (dammit!). I will correct the definition accordingly.Abtract 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I must point out some errors here. First, it is entirely possible, in the auction cited, 1C - 1S; 2H, for there to be a heart fit. When one says that such a fit cannot exist, this is wrong. Suppose opener holds a good hand (c. 17+ HCP) with four hearts and five clubs, and responder holds five spades and four hearts. Now the auction can proceed as suggested, and the heart fit will be found.

Also, it is not necessary for a reverse to be at the two-level, or in a suit higher than opener's first suit. Consider this auction, known as a "high reverse" in many places: 1S 2H; 3C . . .

Further, whether a reverse is forcing? Modern sources, including Root and Pavlicek, cited by the article's author, show reverses to be forcing for one round (because the opener intends to continue to bid, and may show a preference for responder's first suit.) This is the usual approach when not playing a "jump reverse," (i. e., a reverse one level higher than a non-jump reverse [or "simple reverse"]), where the sequence by which one "jump reverses" is now freed to become, e. g., a splinter raise for responder's first suit.

This is a preferable approach to the older style which allowed responder to pass opener's simple reverse.

I'll be willing to discuss this subject online. Please contact me as follows:

Alvin P. Bluthman apbluthman@aol.com November 26, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.56.203 (talk) 20:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alvin, best discuss it here. I have corrected as yr point about the fit that cannot be and clarified a little. If you have other well cited points, please make the edits ... maybe a new section but you may like to read the section on jump reverses before you enter the edit fray. up to you, we are all equal here, but remember no original research, reference and citation is important. :) Abtract (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)