[dwar0123]

---

In this auction, is the 2♦ a reverse?

[gwnn]

Yes.

[Mbodell]

It depends on your agreements if this shows extras or not.

I think it should because I play that the X doesn't promise spades and diamonds. It just promises spades and somewhere else to play (often diamonds, but could be support for your clubs). If you play that the X promises spades and diamonds, then it would make sense for this to not promise extras.

[gwnn]

BTW I don't know what 'somewhere else to play' means, I have seen this for the second time today, I think it is just normal to double on AQxx xxx xxx xxx and likewise on AQxx Jxxx xx xxx.

[Mbodell]

I wouldn't double on those hands. So for me somewhere else would mean we wouldn't double on a 6 count and 4333. Make it AQxx Kxxx xx xxx and now somewhere else is nt. Make it AQxx xx xxx Jxxx and now somewhere else is 2♣.

[neilkaz]

Note that this 2♦ is a free bid, so for me it is a reverse showing extra strength. Balanced hands without 4♠ can just pass and not go past 2♣ if PD is planning on bidding that next.

[aguahombre]

gwnn, on 2011-December-23, 16:59, said:

BTW I don't know what 'somewhere else to play' means, I have seen this for the second time today, I think it is just normal to double on AQxx xxx xxx xxx and likewise on AQxx Jxxx xx xxx.

Mbodell, on 2011-December-23, 17:23, said:

I wouldn't double on those hands. So for me somewhere else would mean we wouldn't double on a 6 count and 4333. Make it AQxx Kxxx xx xxx and now somewhere else is nt. Make it AQxx xx xxx Jxxx and now somewhere else is 2♣.

Nah, will stick with Gwnn on this one (both his posts). Failing to respond with a responding hand ---when their overcall did not use up the room to respond --- just doesn't seem like a good idea.

[jmcw]

If you do not have reversing strength why would you not open 1♦ if 4/5 in the minors.
With 4/6 just rebid 2♣ if you don't have reversing strength.

The X shows 4♠ and a decent 6+ count, ♦ are by no means guaranteed.

[Phil]

Its a reverse but I can't imagine not doubling 1N with an 18 count and 4♦ + 5♣. Ergo 2♦ would tend to be more shapely, and less HCP.

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2011-December-23, 19:38, said:

Its a reverse but I can't imagine not doubling 1N with an 18 count and 4♦ + 5♣. Ergo 2♦ would tend to be more shapely, and less HCP.

Yes, sometimes we get hung up on things. This isn't the same as if RHO had passed instead of bidding 1NT. But, still it must be a pretty powerful hand for suit play, since he chose to open 1D instead of 1C with his 5-6.

[ggwhiz]

Yes but with the disclaimer that it could be a bit weaker than normal with say, ♠xx, ♥x, ♦AKxx, ♣AKTxxx fishing for 3nt or a minor suit game (or high level partscore) based on shape instead of the usual power.

It's usually at least a bit more but that's all I'm counting on at this point and I disagree that the double shows 4 spades, without a 2nd place to play. That hand should pass.

[neilkaz]

Phil, on 2011-December-23, 19:38, said:

Its a reverse but I can't imagine not doubling 1N with an 18 count and 4♦ + 5♣. Ergo 2♦ would tend to be more shapely, and less HCP.

Agreed and there's only so many HCP in the deck to go around so an 18 count isn't all that likely unless someone else is light.

[FrancesHinden]

jmcw, on 2011-December-23, 19:34, said:

If you do not have reversing strength why would you not open 1♦ if 4/5 in the minors.
With 4/6 just rebid 2♣ if you don't have reversing strength.

The X shows 4♠ and a decent 6+ count, ♦ are by no means guaranteed.

What to open with 4/5 in the minors and a hand of below reversing strength is a matter of partnership agreement.
There are plenty of people who open 1C (including me). If you want to debate this perhaps we should do it in a different thread, but I want to point out that many, many people do not open 1D with that shape.

[Yu18772]

Like others pointed out before - if the dbl promises ♠ only - yes this is reverse. If dbl promised "the other suits" - ♠ + ♦ than, imo, - it is not a reverse. Still its a free bid, so I think it should be a good hand.

[blackshoe]

A reverse is a bid at the two level that requires partner to go to the three level to show simple preference for the first bid suit. So "not a reverse" is incorrect, whatever strength it shows.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-26, 15:40, said:

A reverse is a bid at the two level that requires partner to go to the three level to show simple preference for the first bid suit. So "not a reverse" is incorrect, whatever strength it shows.

I believe it is understood that the question is whether 2D requires "reverse" strength, with the posters merely shortening the number of words used to describe opener's hand.

For those who believe it does not show extra strength, they are supporting partner's shown suit. For the rest of us, we are introducing a new suit not shown by partner, which would in-fact require partner to go to the 3-level for preference to clubs ---and would require extra strength.

So, the fine distinction about what a "reverse" means, is not really applicable to those whose negative double really shows both other suits.

[wank]

blackshoe, on 2011-December-26, 15:40, said:

A reverse is a bid at the two level that requires partner to go to the three level to show simple preference for the first bid suit. So "not a reverse" is incorrect, whatever strength it shows.

i believe you're lost. the forum for pedantry is at the bottom.

[helene_t]

I think it is sensible to play this as some 14-17, i.e. showing extras but not forcing. This is because a stronger hand could double. Sure, with 15-16 you could probably double as well, but might then lose the diamond suit if LHO bid 2♥ over your double. I don't think it is attractive to double with any strong hand that wouldn't be thrilled about defending 2♥X, but on the other hand it is nice to have the omnibus double because it allows you to bid on more hands that are too weak for a double.

While it is true that doubler hasn't shown diamonds so this is technically a reverse, it doesn't follow that it would be unplayable to allow a reverse on a 14-count. As Phil says it tends to show more shape, often six clubs or otherwise five very good ones. And also, if the reverse is limited to some 17 points, responder can sometimes pass it.

Whether 2♦ without the 1NT bid should be forcing is a different issue. FWIW I think it would be playable to play that as 14-17 also, although I prefer it to show full reverse strength. Playing it as 12-15 (like the 2♥ bid) is not playable, I think, since a hand too strong for a 2♦ bid would not be able to stop below game. So even if 2♦ is not forcing, the range much go up to 17. This is true both with and without the 1NT bid.

[P_Marlowe]

If reverse means - 54 shape and add. strength, than the my answer, based on the agreement
set that I play, is No.

Basically the answer to your question is a consequence to the answer - "What did the X show?"
Did it "only" show spades, than the 2D bid can be treated similar to the 2D bid in the uncontested
auction

1C - 1S
2D

Or did the X implies diamond tolerance or the promise by responder to be able, to handle a 2D
response, the answer is no, because than the X showed diamond,
hence the 2D bid is can now be treated similar to a 2D bid in the uncontested auction

1C - 1D
2D

In the latter case, the X is basically a T/O.

We play the 2nd style, and this was even before we started to change the meaning of the X in
the given seq., nowadays the X denies 4 spades for us.

Looking at the post showing up on this forum - the first style seems to be standard in North America.

With kind regards
Marlowe