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

[Bbradley62]

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

One rule of the Mama-Papa bridge I learned in the early 1970s was "new suit by responder is always forcing".

[Quantumcat]

One rule of the Mama-Papa bridge I learned in the early 1970s was "new suit by responder is always forcing".

 

Except when opener has limited his hand.

[akwoo]

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

 

If you are not playing some form of checkback, 2♥ should be forcing for one round.

[akwoo]

And my entry to this:

 

I recently saw transfers as immediate responses to strong 2♣. Thinking about it, it's not completely terrible; presumably opener makes the expected bid with a balanced hand and breaks the transfer with an unbalanced one. The only drawback is that responder now has to bid 2♠ with a weak hand and no 5 card suit.

[Bbradley62]

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

[BunnyGo]

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

 

In conjunction with Reverse Flannery (where an immediate 2H or 2S over 1D show a non-forcing hand with the advertised shape) then it makes sense to play this sequence as GF. It's what I do with wyman.

[Quantumcat]

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

Won't be useful most of the time, because opener doesn't care about queens and jacks in his non-suits. If he does care, he is balanced, and can bid his range, and let responder add the points together to decide what level they can bid to. Better to define a positive as something useful, e.g. at least one ace and king, or two kings and a useful queen.

[Siegmund]

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

 

In more than one club I've played in, this is universal among the casual players to the point that you get blank stares if you ask them why they didn't alert it. (And I have learned to ALWAYS ask, or check the cc, rather than trusting the lack of an alert here.)

 

A prime example of a very common and very bad agreement.

[Bbradley62]

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

Won't be useful most of the time, because opener doesn't care about queens and jacks in his non-suits. If he does care, he is balanced, and can bid his range, and let responder add the points together to decide what level they can bid to. Better to define a positive as something useful, e.g. at least one ace and king, or two kings and a useful queen.

I wasn't advocating it, I was asking in the spirit of this thread being about the worst agreements.

[Antrax]

A while back I opened 1♥ and had a 2NT overcall on my left, which was alerted. My partner inquired, and found out the bid is natural, 20-22 HCP, balanced with a heart stopper. When my partner looked surprised, the opponent further added that "we don't like that 5-5 thing, I never know what suits she has, so we just play it natural". Probably not the worst agreement, I know :(

[RunemPard]

Maybe someday they will make this legal.

 

I've made my 3rd request this week. Fingers crossed.

 

 

I don't understand why this is not allowed? So you can open 3NT to show a long strong minor, but not 3NT to show a stronger hand with a good major?

[RunemPard]

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

 

I play this with my novice partner at our club...

All it does is force me to bid to the 3 level at times and wrong side my major contracts...

Control responses are ok as well, but I prefer relay w/ nothing special and good values to show a bid.

[Vampyr]

Agree, but playing it in reverse where 4m= 4m preempt, and 3N=good 4M bid (whatever you'd open namyats 4C/4D with) is quite good I think. Better than gambling 3N anyways.

 

 

Maybe someday they will make this legal.

 

I've made my 3rd request this week. Fingers crossed.

 

 

I don't understand why this is not allowed? So you can open 3NT to show a long strong minor, but not 3NT to show a stronger hand with a good major?

 

Is this definitely illegal in the ACBL -- you can open 3NT with a solid minor but not a major? Maybe it should not be a big surprise, since the ACBL seems to have some really arbitrary regulations -- such as, you can bid 1M-2♣ as clubs or a raise or as just a raise, only if you are a passed hand.

[campboy]

Is this definitely illegal in the ACBL -- you can open 3NT with a solid minor but not a major? Maybe it should not be a big surprise, since the ACBL seems to have some really arbitrary regulations -- such as, you can bid 1M-2♣ as clubs or a raise or as just a raise, only if you are a passed hand.

At GCC if a solid suit is guaranteed that is always ok; if the suit might not be solid it has to be a minor.

[blackshoe]

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

I've seen one pair do this in the last couple of years. They're not novices, but close.

[jeffford76]

I don't understand why this is not allowed?

 

Because the convention charts in the ACBL aren't based on logic, they're based on what people have historically played, and what methods people have applied to get added.

[Quantumcat]

How likely is it that when you apply to get a method added, they allow it? My partner and I would love to have a holiday in America and play all the events for a year but not being allowed to play our system which has been carefully crafted over some years is really putting us off.

 

By the way is there a calendar on the ACBL website or elsewhere that shows which events use which convention chart?

[Mbodell]

How likely is it that when you apply to get a method added, they allow it? My partner and I would love to have a holiday in America and play all the events for a year but not being allowed to play our system which has been carefully crafted over some years is really putting us off.

 

By the way is there a calendar on the ACBL website or elsewhere that shows which events use which convention chart?

 

How likely that they would add something? Very, very small. Note that what is on the charts is important, and sets policy for many national/regional/sectionals, but that people are free to overrule the charts at the club and district level (and do) and that directors don't always rule consistently on what is allowed and what isn't. In some clubs, you could play nearly anything. In others, it would be just GCC (and even some GCC bids might get ruled "bad").

[Finch]

And my entry to this:

 

I recently saw transfers as immediate responses to strong 2♣. Thinking about it, it's not completely terrible; presumably opener makes the expected bid with a balanced hand and breaks the transfer with an unbalanced one. The only drawback is that responder now has to bid 2♠ with a weak hand and no 5 card suit.

 

I play transfer responses to a strong 2C opening: 2NT = clubs, 3C = diamonds, 3D = 6 hearts to 3 of the top 5 honours, nothing outside, 3H = same in spades, 3S = 5-5 majors 4-8 HCP. There's a huge amount of merit to this.

[Finch]

Wouldn't you be less likely to want to play in 3NT when partner has an eight-card major than when he has an eight-card minor?

 

Yes.

But in general you don't want partner to play in 3NT when partner has either an 8-card major or an 8-card minor, you want to declarer 3NT.

The 3NT opening with a long major (which I play, subject to fairly strict rules about exactly what it shows) is a way of describing a particular hand type precisely whilst also having some pre-emptive effect. It is not intended to play in 3NT.

[squealydan]

I play transfer responses to a strong 2C opening: 2NT = clubs, 3C = diamonds, 3D = 6 hearts to 3 of the top 5 honours, nothing outside, 3H = same in spades, 3S = 5-5 majors 4-8 HCP. There's a huge amount of merit to this.

 

I like this! Can you tell me what the immediate 2-level responses mean in this system?

[bluecalm]

Agree, but playing it in reverse where 4m= 4m preempt, and 3N=good 4M bid (whatever you'd open namyats 4C/4D with) is quite good I think. Better than gambling 3N anyways.

 

I don't doubt that it's better than gambling but I think gambling is a good convention in a sense that on suitable hands opening 3N is better than other options.

It's very rare though.

[gwnn]

BTW Fred advocated a very strongly modified steps-based response structure:

 

2D=waiting (so based on the below, it will often be 3-7 balanced)

2H=I will pass 2NT if you rebid it (basically 0-2 balanced)

2S=8-10 balanced

 

don't shout at me! I know it's not a real steps structure.

[Kungsgeten]

About a month ago I played at the Swedish Bridge Festival, where this bidding came up:

 

1♠-(2♠*)

 

Most pairs in Sweden (that I know of) plays this as 5-5 in hearts and a minor. I had 8 hearts in a weak hand, so I asked what 2♠ meant: "16+ hcp". After some further questions, they had convinced me that 2♠ really showed 16+ hcp, any distribution. I chose to pass and LHO bid 3♣. RHO now bid 5♣. I asked what 3♣ meant: "It shows clubs". Then I asked what 2NT would have meant "It would have shown NT". Jaw dropped.

 

The spectacle ended when my partner doubled 5♣, and I chose to pull it to 5♥, going down. My partner held 3 aces and nothing more :(

[squealydan]

About a month ago I played at the Swedish Bridge Festival, where this bidding came up:

 

1♠-(2♠*)

 

Most pairs in Sweden (that I know of) plays this as 5-5 in hearts and a minor. I had 8 hearts in a weak hand, so I asked what 2♠ meant: "16+ hcp". After some further questions, they had convinced me that 2♠ really showed 16+ hcp, any distribution. I chose to pass and LHO bid 3♣. RHO now bid 5♣. I asked what 3♣ meant: "It shows clubs". Then I asked what 2NT would have meant "It would have shown NT". Jaw dropped.

 

The spectacle ended when my partner doubled 5♣, and I chose to pull it to 5♥, going down. My partner held 3 aces and nothing more :(

 

I'd say 75% or more of low-level players at my club play an immediate cue-bid as showing some strong hand. The minimum point count probably varies between 16 and 18. I would be surprised if more than a few have discussed what subsequent bidding should mean and I very much doubt any of them have a way for responder to show a bust hand.

 

What's worse, many of them are still playing strong jump overcalls, and although not explicitly stated, many also are happy to double "to show an opening hand" even though if asked they would call the bids "take-out doubles". (Coming up through the grades, so many of my top boards resulted in a post-hand inquest with one opponent saying to the other "But I had to double, I had 13 points!")

 

Just to round out the options, a few even play 2NT overcalls as balanced 20-22! In addition to all the above. So they have a huge armoury of available overcalls for those few occasions when they have a decent hand and an opponent happens to beat them to the opening bid.