Talk:Reverse (bridge)

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: In the absence of any counter thoughts I have removed much of it. Abtract 13:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent complicated edits

message: 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)
replies: text: Here's what one source  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 :•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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think I have corrected it Abtract 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not applying  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)
replies: text: no problem ... I have tweaked it further see edit summaryAbtract 10:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Simple reverse not forcing in Standard American??? 

message: The article briefly describes the gap principle and states it is an easy way to determine if a bid is a reverse. I couldn’t understand most of the explanation of the gap principle and it was not helpful to me at all. I think it should be removed or explained better. 2601:589:8082:2700:6C21:6856:D5A0:9218 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to improve the presentation - comments welcome.  Newwhist (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gap rule