Reverse Bids
I was aked this question by a very experienced TD who is playing on an ad-hoc basis with someone who has been playing for a long time but whose methods are, to say the least, old-fashioned and he refuses to accept the principle that a reverse bid shows higher than opening strength. Her question is, should this be alerted on the basis that the reverse, although showing a natural suit, has an unexpected meaning?
My feeling is that it is not alertable but I would be interested in views
Comments
I was actually under the opposite impression – that reversing without a strong hand was the more modern method, and strong reverses were a more old-fashioned approach. That might be some sort of misunderstanding of the history, though, and I'm not at all confident in this.
mjbridge.info, which is the most comprehensive guide to Acol that I'm aware of, states that both strong reverses and non-strong reverses are "mainstream methods", but that strong reverses are more commonly played. That leads me to suspect that neither is alertable (especially as it recommends non-strong reverses as a starting method for beginners, and strong reverses as being better for more advanced players – there seems to be an unspoken rule that "beginner methods" are unalertable, because otherwise people would probably be alerting a 2!d natural signoff over partner's 1NT).
I still think it's a problem to have our alertability definitions based on what is and isn't expected, though; for one thing, it means that players can reasonably differ on whether a call is alertable or not; and for another thing, it makes bridge very hostile to beginners because they won't know what's standard/expected, so won't know which calls are alertable.
Here are a couple of natural calls I play myself:
(1NT), 2!s: natural, wide ranging, could be as weak as five spades and a good five points (but could be much stronger)
(1!h), X, 2!s: 6 to 8 points and spade support
Currently, I alert both calls. The first 2!s bid, I initially thought was unalertable, but after a quick poll I decided that alerting would probably be helpful. The second 2!s bid was suggested by a partner, who wasn't aware that it was at all unusual (and it seems to work pretty well in practice, incidentally, so there isn't an immediately apparent reason why it's unusual) – as such, they didn't alert it until they were informed that the jump would show 9+ for most people.
This can be quite confusing for opponents too, when a call gets alerted due to being just a few points out from the usual meaning! On the other hand, knowing that the point range is different can be very important sometimes, so alerting does seem to help.
(Online bridge, at least, can fix most of these problems – you can just self-alert more or less everything, without having to worry about how standard it is.)
The reason a reverse shows extra strength is because it requires preference to be show at a higher level without a fit being guaranteed. While to play otherwise is not usual in the wider world of bridge, many people are not taught about this until they are more experienced, so they won't know they are doing anything unexpected by reversing without extra values. For that reason it seems impractical to require them to alert.
There is a Laws & Ethics Committee minute (19 September 2012) that covers this:
5.8 Alerting a non-strong reverse
The secretary asked whether a sequence such as 1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥, where the 2♥ was bid to show a
5-4 hand in diamonds and hearts but only on a minimum opening hand, was alertable. It was
agreed that it was not, although players should be encouraged to disclose that their method was
unusual (although it was recognised that many may not know, if that is how they have been
taught).
My regular partner and I play this way, but include "Reverses don't show additional values" in the General Description of Bidding Methods section at the top of our system card to make the position clear.