[pilowsky]

I've read a few things about reverses. The thread here by Mike suggests >18HCP - but a few, with morals loose (http://bit.ly/SwarthmoreMorals) - may be a little louche.
Here's the auction with 2♦ by West alerted as a reverse with 21- HCP and 18-22 total points.

---

What the West robot had:

Spoiler

I found the right lead but didn't get much of a reward - others managed to take GIB 3NT-4.

---

[mw64ahw]

I'd call that a distributional rather than hcp reverse with a view to taking it to 4♣ with that hcp & length

[nullve]

pilowsky, on 2021-July-06, 02:13, said:

The thread here by Mike suggests >18HCP

I believe that is a non-standard treatment almost anywhere in the world.

nullve, on 2021-April-29, 05:53, said:

Btw, playing strong reverses, what would you rebid with

1) ♠8 ♥AKQ3 ♦AKJ87 ♣872 over 1♦-1♠
2) ♠8 ♥AKQ3 ♦872 ♣AKJ87 over 1♣-1♠

?

2♣ in both cases?

(yet unanswered questions in https://www.bridgeba..._1#entry1022274 )

[hrothgar]

I don't think that you are going to find anything remotely approaching consensus on this front.

Let's ignore highly distributional reverses for the moment

In my experience, there are a number of folks who prefer a so-called "strong reverse".
There are others who are willing to do so with weaker hands.

To me, at least, the reason that this is interesting is not so much the specific requirements, but rather the fact that labels exist indicates that there is disagreement about what is best / that there is no standard.

I personally favor relatively strong reverses.
For me, at least, I find it easiest to draw the dividing line in the same place as a maximum strength strong NT opening.

If I would be happy opening the hand with a strong NT, then I don't consider it strong enough for a reverse.
(Indeed, in many cases I will simply open the said hand with 1NT instead)

There are plenty of players who disagree with me (and a whole bunch of them are much better players)

Moving on to highly distributional hands...
Well, HCPs aren't a very good way to measure the playing strength of a highly distributional hand, so don't worry about it

[cherdano]

With all the idiotic things GIB does routinely, it shows a remarkable lack of judgment to complain about this hand.

[mikeh]

At the time I wrote the initial reverse post, I explained that there were different schools of thought, and that I was describing one of them…the ‘strong’ reverse school. I haven’t revisited that thread in some time but I dimly recall a later post, in that thread or another reverse thread, wherein I said that I’d moved somewhat to a weaker style.

I am still a relatively strong reverser compared to some but my style is definitely looser than it was.

Also, again iirc, even back then I didn’t say one always needed 18+ for a reverse. Much depended and depends on how my hand looks in the context of the auction.

If I’m 3=1=4=5, and partner responds 1S to my 1C, I’ll reverse with significantly weaker values than I’d need if I were 1=3=4=5 and the auction began the same way. AQx x Axxx KQxxx is a minimum reverse after a 1S response to 1C. But I’d be reluctant to reverse with x AQx AJxx KQxxx, despite this being a slightly stronger (on initial valuation) hand. The former has grown up with the 1S response, the latter has not.

It’s also worth bearing in mind how one responds to 1m. In my two current serious partnerships, we very rarely pass 1C…Kxxxx xxx xxxx x would never pass 1C, so this does have a bearing on how one approaches reverses.

Also, if I’m 5=6, I’ve never advocated needing a strong hand with which to reverse. x AQJxx AKxxxx x is a non-minimum reverse for me after 1D 1S. I’d do it with x AQ10xx AQJxxx x and might do it without the diamond Jack.