Soapbox
TABLETS OF STONE

By Peter Austwick

In the December 2002 issue of Bridge Plus, Andrew Kambites writes (page 41): “West’s [reverse: 1– 1– 2] is forcing for one round.” He goes on to say: “A raise of the reverser’s second suit is normally played as forcing.” In the latest issue of English Bridge, exasperated by no-one finding all the correct answers to his bidding quiz, he makes the point more forcefully; he says on page 33: ‘. . . it seems to be a state secret that raising opener’s reverse suit is forcing.”

Well, I agree that playing the reverse forcing, and the raise of reverser’s second suit forcing, are currently methods of experts who are introducing some subtlety into some earlier rather wham-bam bidding. But are these methods really part of the system bridge teachers are inculcating in the current generation of pupils? The problem is that there are so many High Priests of Acol around at the moment, all preaching from their own tablets of stone, that it is difficult for the earnest seeker after truth to know whom to believe.

In the good old days the High Priests were, I suppose, Simon, Reese and, later, ‘Bridge-is-an-Easy-Game’ Mcleod. Their doctrines involved a passionate belief in the concept of ‘Limit’ bids. A reverse, while strong, was of limited strength and therefore non-forcing; likewise a raise of reverser’s second suit. Even by 1974 Eric Crowhurst, a successor High Priest, was writing (Precision Bidding in Acol, page 143): “If the responder has bid at the one level, a reverse is not absolutely forcing.” However, the ground was shifting. He went on to say (page 144): “This sequence [1– 1– 2– 3] is described as limited and non-forcing in traditional Acol. In practice . . . we can . . . increase the efficiency of our bidding by defining a raise of opener’s major as 100% forcing.”

South opened 1, West overcalled with 2NT (the Unusual No-trump for the minors) and North closed proceedings with 4.

The 9, a likely singleton, was led to the ace. Back came 10, another likely singleton, covered by the jack and won by West's ace. Now West plays a rather eloquent Q. East ruffs the king and fires back a spade to return the favour and beat the contract, right? Yes, but what if declarer refuses to put dummy's king on West's Q? It should make no difference, but this particular East had a strong aversion to ruffing his side's winners - so West's queen won the trick and the subsequent spade ruff disappeared. Contract made!

In 1983 Phillip Alder agreed that a reverse is not forcing. In You Can Play Bridge (page 66), he produces a hand to illustrate the principle. He writes: “Suppose [you] hold:

K 7 6 5 4   Q J 6   3   8 5 4 3

“[You] respond to a 1 opener with 1, and the opener rebids 2. . . . You cannot support diamonds, you cannot repeat your spades, . . . and you cannot bid no-trumps. . . . Even though you only know about a seven-card heart fit, get out while you can – pass.”

So what do modern Acolytes tell novitiates to do with the above hand? And how would they cope with this one?

K J 6 5 4   J 9 6 4   3   J 4 3

Possibly the answer is: “Bid something and hope for the best, and offset any bad result against the good ones to be obtained from the method.”

But wait, more High Priests are ready with another stone tablet. In Tournament Acol, 1995, David Bird and Tim Bourke write (page 79): “[Reverses over a one-level response] are forcing for one round. . . . When responder wants to show weakness after [a reverse over a one-level response] he has two options. He may rebid his own suit at the two level. He may also use the ‘Blackout’ convention – by bidding either the fourth suit or 2NT, whichever is the cheaper bid. Any other bid is game forcing.”

Wow! So in certain circumstances the fourth suit after a reverse is not forcing to game, and if the fourth suit is not available at the two level maybe 2NT has no stop in the fourth suit. I suspect not a lot of people know that.

Time to have a word with partner!