Weirdest/worst agreements you've encountered at the table?

[rwbarton]

We've all seen "4♣ always Gerber" or stolen bid doubles in strange situations, but what's the weirdest or worst agreement you've seen your opponents have? It should be an actual agreement, rather than one of your opponents briefly losing their mind.

 

Here is my story. I was playing in a flight C GNT district final a while back, we sit down at the beginning of a round and tell our opponents we are playing a strong club system. They have a discussion in a foreign language, presumably about their defense to 1♣. On the second board I pick up something like A8754 KQ4 AKQT7 - and the auction proceeds

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8754hkq4dakqt7c&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1c(15+%20any%20except%20some%20bal%20ranges)1d(alerted)d(0-3%20HCP)p]133|200[/hv]

 

At this point I ask about 1♦ and get the unexpected response: "He always bids 1♦."

 

I am sitting there trying to figure out if this is even a legal agreement when I realize, hey, if they want to give me an extra step in every 1♣ auction, I might as well let them!

 

I figured I could describe my hand decently by passing here and bidding ♠ over the runout. But LHO had no idea what to do, of course, eventually he decided to pass too. I think he had ♦Jxxx in a flat hand. We lost a couple IMPs when our counterparts made 4♠, so I guess the 1♦ bid worked!

 

What are your favorite stories about your opponents' weird agreements?

[JLOGIC]

This stems from an old agreement of "always bids 1S" which obviously is better since it takes up room (I think that is usually when people can't relay). I think that might have been barred, even though generally anything is allowed over a strong club in ACBL.

[bluecalm]

Both vulnerable and we play polish club where 1/1 is constructive (at least 7hcp).

 

1C* - pass - 1S - 1NT**

 

*=polish, most of the time 12-14bal

**= opponent explained as: "as normal 1NT but 9-11"

 

He in fact had that. It was 500 due to some lucky breaks for him :)

[Phil]

This stems from an old agreement of "always bids 1S" which obviously is better since it takes up room (I think that is usually when people can't relay). I think that might have been barred, even though generally anything is allowed over a strong club in ACBL.

 

Correct: This was the basis for, "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the

opponents’ methods" listed under "Disallowed" under the GCC.

[Quantumcat]

Correct: This was the basis for, "Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the

opponents’ methods" listed under "Disallowed" under the GCC.

I remember reading that, and thinking, that means weak twos, and any other pre-emptive bid, should be banned...

[lalldonn]

They should have changed "primary" to "sole" but I'm sure then someone would point out that a random 1♠ has some 0.001% constructive element to it somehow.

[rwbarton]

This stems from an old agreement of "always bids 1S" which obviously is better since it takes up room (I think that is usually when people can't relay). I think that might have been barred, even though generally anything is allowed over a strong club in ACBL.

 

Right, this is the rule I was thinking of at the table:

 

1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.

It seemed like maybe the purpose of 1♦ was to destroy our methods, but it didn't do a very good job.

 

(And yeah, we actually were playing a relay system with relays on over a 1♦ or 1♥ overcall but not 1♠. That's why over 1♦ we played double = double negative, so after a semipositive pass we could get back to GF relays at +0 after a double by opener.)

[rwbarton]

Both vulnerable and we play polish club where 1/1 is constructive (at least 7hcp).

 

1C* - pass - 1S - 1NT**

 

*=polish, most of the time 12-14bal

**= opponent explained as: "as normal 1NT but 9-11"

 

He in fact had that. It was 500 due to some lucky breaks for him :)

 

Reminds me of Zia's(?) 2NT opening showing 12-14, though that at least has some merit since doubling is a bit dangerous.

[Mbodell]

I know you counted strange shadow doubles before, but I played a pair where they played strong club, and we played strong club, and their defense to our strong club included them doubling our strong club to show a strong club hand for them with their systems on! And it actually came up on one board (I think they went down in a low level partscore instead of us as a result).

[ggwhiz]

I was drafted to play in a tourney in South Africa when 1 player couldn't make it. Lots of system discussion on the drive but right at game time my pard said....

 

Oh, by the way, I like to play a direct cuebid as showing total control of their suit. It can be a void, stiff Ace, AK, AKQ, whatever but doesn't say anything about the rest of the hand.

 

I said sure knowing it would never come up and he bid it 3 times in the first session, once with AK tight and a stray jack in a 4-4-3-2. I never had a clue and just ran for cover but the opponents didn't either and blew up every time. Left it on the card for 3 more sessions but it never came up again.

[CSGibson]

This is a reposting of the comment I made in the other thread which I believe inspired this thread. It belongs here more than anywhere else.

 

One of the most amusing moments I had at a regional last year was playing a Montana pair at the Seaside regional. They opened 1♣, and I overcalled a heart. RHO now doubled, which was alerted. My partner asked, and we heard this amazing explanation:

 

"Its a stolen bid double, showing 4+ hearts"

 

When partner, intrigued, asked for further information "Do you mean its a penalty double?", opener clarified that it was not penalty, it just showed 4 or more hearts with no values promised in the suit.

 

After the round, I asked why they played stolen bid doubles for overcalls, and was informed that they were having trouble identifying stoppers for NT, and this was their solution to the problem. I thanked them politely for the explanation and left trying not to be obvious about my mirth.

[32519]

The dumbest agreement I have seen is something played by one of the pairs at our local bridge club.

 

A 1♦ opening in 1st or 2nd seat is natural promising a 5-card suit. However after 2 passes, a 1♦ opening in third seat is made regardless of the actual hand strength or holding in the suit. The bid is intended as a semi-psyche. I’ve lost count on how many bottom boards this pair got with this ridiculous bid when, not holding the boss suit they conveniently reopened the bidding for their opponents and either,

1. Lost the part score battle to the boss suit, or

2. Played some unmakeable contract when everyone else passed the hand out.

[mr1303]

I'm playing a few dubious methods at the moment.

 

1C is either natural or 2+ in a balanced hand, 9-22 ish. Trouble is it's forcing.

 

2C response to 1 anything is the only way we can force to game.

 

1x (1y) any new suit is 0-6, NF. Double is 13+, so pass shows 7-12 any shape.

[sfi]

A couple of years ago I played a 20 board match against a pair where this auction came up twice:

 

1S - 2S

2NT - 3x

3S

 

What was unusual? 2NT was Roman Key Card Blackwood!

 

Obviously they know more about this game than I do though, because both times they found they were missing 2 keycards and scored +140 in the partscore.

[helene_t]

There was a pair in the amsterdam club that played a 1♣ opening showing 3 or 4 cards in a major. The idea is that they could now find a fit by reponding 1M with a 5-card, or by asking for a 4-card suit with 1♦.

 

So I asked if that meant that they would open 1♣ with a 3-3-7-0 but not with a 2-2-2-7. One of them answered, in an annoyed tone, "of course not". So it remained a mystery to me what their opening scheme was. Maybe they just played the 1♣ opening as "natural or balanced" which is actually not so weired if disclosed propperly.

 

The Looier system has some bizare elements, for example the "Logjes double" of an overcall which shows 0-7 or 10+ points. So with 8-9 points they will either pass or bid a suit.

 

Some Dutch pairs play Roman Lavinthal in (almost) all situations, including leads and when following to declarer's lead. I even heard of one pair that played Roman Lavinthal when giving partner a ruff :)

[gwnn]

In our club there is a pair which plays 1C=0+ and 1D=4+ but they never know what 1C actually shows (2C is 20+ any or so), when asked 'why did you open 1C and not 1D?' (one hand they had 2263) they just shrug and say well we did have 0+ clubs didn't we?

[Siegmund]

We had a regular pair at my previous club who played (what they called) Precision, but with quite a few odd twists.

 

1C-Pass-1NT could include a 4CM and often did.

1C-Pass-1NT-Pass-2C was Stayman. Straight stayman responses.

 

Heck of a way to make sure the 1C bidder is declarer as infrequently as possible.

 

I think they played the same over 1D openings, but can't recall.

[helene_t]

We had a regular pair at my previous club who played (what they called) Precision, but with quite a few odd twists.

 

1C-Pass-1NT could include a 4CM and often did.

1C-Pass-1NT-Pass-2C was Stayman. Straight stayman responses.

Sounds normal to me. Traditional Precision is like that and most precision pairs play that way. I suppose some top pairs play some kind of modified stayman to make opener declare more often.

[gordontd]

What are your favorite stories about your opponents' weird agreements?

I played against a pair who played RKCB 1340. I wondered if they meant 1430, but no, they really did play 1340!

[32519]

Sounds normal to me. Traditional Precision is like that and most precision pairs play that way. I suppose some top pairs play some kind of modified stayman to make opener declare more often.

 

I was under the impression that Transfer Stayman was standard amongst Precision players. In the sequence:

1♣-1NT

2♣ becomes Transfer Stayman to keep the strong hand as declarer.

2♦ = 4-card ♥ suit

2♥ = 4-card ♠ suit

2NT denies a 4-card major

I have seen some Precision players reply 3♣ over a 2♣ Stayman bid promising two 4-card majors. But I guess its all a matter of partnership agreement.

[TimG]

I played against a pair who played RKCB 1340. I wondered if they meant 1430, but no, they really did play 1340!

 

I was just going to post that! I encountered the same thing, thought for sure they had just mis-spoke, but both agreed that they were playing 1340. This came up after they had a RKC auction, and though I don't remember whether the response was 5♣ or 5♦, it did follow their agreement.

[MickyB]

A common convention amongst bad players in England [weak NT-land] is 1N:2S shows 11 pts, 1N:2N shows 12. I once played vs a pair who played systems on over a 1NT overcall - 1D-(1N)-P-(2S); P-(3N) and that was 15 opposite 11.

[kenrexford]

Years ago, I noticed a convention in some book where a 4♦ response to a 1NT opening was an asking bid for HCP strength. The answers were 4♥ = 15, 4♠ = 16, 4NT = 17. So, finding that to be one of the dumbest conventions ever devised, I of course tried it out.

 

This was a godsend, because it allowed me to attain the unattainable result of -7600. I opened 1NT with 17 HCP, vulnerable. My LHO made an artificial double, showing a one-suited hand. My partner (obviously not right in the head because I talked this person into playing this convention), was not sure that this neat convention was on in competition and whippped out a 4♦ preempt. Of course, this already sounds insane and a lie, because to have this agreement and to have this preempt at the same time is implausible. I have never seen a 4♦ preempt in response to a 1NT opening, in or out of competition. But, this partner of mine was insane. Plus, to have this call made in the context of a possible ambiguity is even more astonishing. And yet, this is what actually happened.

 

So, following due course, I bid 4NT to show my 17-HCP hand.

 

Now, it gets more interesting. Finding this agreement in the book to be insane, I also decided to double down and devised the "modified" version. In that approach, 5♦ now, of course, asked for Aces. Partner, who was not sure if I was asking for Aces or suggesting a place to play, with one Ace responded the easy 5♦ to my 4NT call, which was of course asking me for Aces.

 

I had, of course, two Aces. ("5♥ = 0, 5♠ = 1, 5NT = 2") So, I bid 5NT.

 

Again, this is a TRUE STORY!!!

 

Partner now was convinced that I was asking for Kings. Her diamonds being A-K-eighth, she responded dutifully 6♦.

 

As you may have guessed, 6♦ asked for Kings. And, again, I had two. So, again dutifully, I bid 6NT.

 

So far, so good. But, partner had a void. So, she decided for the first time in her life (being an incredible passive bidder, notwithstanding the above) to try for a grand slam, bidding 7♦. Back to me.

 

Knowing that partner was an incredibly passive bidder and that this grand slam bid was the most aggressive call she had ever made in her life, I knew that 7NT would make if she thought that 7♦ was making. So, as this was matchpoints, I bid 7NT.

 

Two passes were followed with a double. I never play 7NT doubled at matchpoints, so I of course redoubled.

 

When LHO made the opening lead, I immediately realized what had happened and about died laughing. We clearly were going set a number. But, there was now work to do. I analyzed the lead, reviewed the bidding, counted my winners and losers, and then decided how to play the hand. "A.R.C.H." It seemed possible, but it would take a lot of work. I do not recall the exact layout or line, but I managed a series of jettison plays that facilitated just barely losing all 13 tricks.

 

So, I ended up with the illusive -7600. Sure -- the line required some heavy work by me to get that -7600, which might to some seem unfair as a statistical matter. However, it is clearly the case that 7NTXX was bid intentionally. My position is that managing to lose all 13 tricks after intentionally reaching 7NTXX is not unfair for statistical purposes but rather an indication of my extreme talent at declaring, as, whatever the position, clearly this would be a goal requiring talent to achieve. So, I maintain that my result was legitimate.

[fromageGB]

I know you counted strange shadow doubles before, but I played a pair where they played strong club, and we played strong club, and their defense to our strong club included them doubling our strong club to show a strong club hand for them with their systems on! And it actually came up on one board (I think they went down in a low level partscore instead of us as a result).

Similar to my methods with one partner. When RHO opens 1♣, X means "I would have bid that", ie a 1♣ open that could be a doubleton. Similar I suppose to a balanced takeout X, and system is on. Wouldn't call it with long clubs.

[fromageGB]

One unusual bid I am just starting to try out in response to a 1♣ open is 2♣ "stayman", invitational+ with 44xx both major 4 carders. Playing transfer walsh we have before lost a fit when 4th seat comes in with a bid like 2♦ over a major transfer.