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

[RunemPard]

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.

 

 

You must play at my local club...

[jeffford76]

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?

 

As Michael said, they don't add things very often.

 

If you're considering coming to a national tournament, almost all of the open national events will use the midchart. Note that the midchart has variance in what you can play depending on the length of the rounds. For example multi is not allowed in pair games even though it's allowed in the big KO's and Swiss events. The exceptions are the Fast Pairs, which uses the general chart, and the Spingold and Vanderbilt which use the super chart. If you're playing super chart methods, you have to pre-register them and your opponents get time to look at them the day before.

 

Regional events (which include the side events at nationals) are much more variable. If a KO bracket has a high enough masterpoint level of participation, you can play midchart, and if not, you can't. If there's an A/X event that will also be midchart, but an open event will be GCC.

[Quantumcat]

As Michael said, they don't add things very often.

 

If you're considering coming to a national tournament, almost all of the open national events will use the midchart. Note that the midchart has variance in what you can play depending on the length of the rounds. For example multi is not allowed in pair games even though it's allowed in the big KO's and Swiss events. The exceptions are the Fast Pairs, which uses the general chart, and the Spingold and Vanderbilt which use the super chart. If you're playing super chart methods, you have to pre-register them and your opponents get time to look at them the day before.

 

Regional events (which include the side events at nationals) are much more variable. If a KO bracket has a high enough masterpoint level of participation, you can play midchart, and if not, you can't. If there's an A/X event that will also be midchart, but an open event will be GCC.

Thanks, that was quite useful.

[ArtK78]

When I first started playing duplicate bridge (early 1970s), one of the main clubs in the area was at the local Jewish Community Center (JCC). The level of play at the JCC was not high. Many of the players there had been playing for years and had advanced as far as they were ever going to advance.

 

It was here that I ran across what I referred to as the "JCC double." It was a takeout double with shortness in an unbid suit. A typical auction would proceed as follows:

 

(1♥) - x* - (P) - 1♠

(P) - 1NT** - (P) - 2♠***

(P) - 2NT****

 

 

* - the JCC double - could be a real takeout double, but....

** - Pard, I don't like your suit.

*** - But I really have spades!

**** - Pard, I really don't like your suit!

 

Eventually, the message got across, and they played in another suit or notrump.

 

In all of my experience at this club, the doubler never had extra values for the double followed by NT bid.

[helene_t]

We once had this auction at a club night:

1♣-(x)-xx-(2♣)

pass-(2nt)-x-(all pass)

 

2♣ meant clubs, 2NT that she didn't like her partner's suit. +1100 for us.

[Quantumcat]

When I first started playing duplicate bridge (early 1970s), one of the main clubs in the area was at the local Jewish Community Center (JCC). The level of play at the JCC was not high. Many of the players there had been playing for years and had advanced as far as they were ever going to advance.

 

It was here that I ran across what I referred to as the "JCC double." It was a takeout double with shortness in an unbid suit. A typical auction would proceed as follows:

 

(1♥) - x* - (P) - 1♠

(P) - 1NT** - (P) - 2♠***

(P) - 2NT****

 

 

* - the JCC double - could be a real takeout double, but....

** - Pard, I don't like your suit.

*** - But I really have spades!

**** - Pard, I really don't like your suit!

 

Eventually, the message got across, and they played in another suit or notrump.

 

In all of my experience at this club, the doubler never had extra values for the double followed by NT bid.

Same at my club - when they have an opening hand, they feel they MUST bid, and if they have nothing to overcall they double. So usually they either have lots of cards in our opened suit, or a takeout double. It's so annoying when their pard bids a suit, and they happen to have support for it - they have one or two cards in the other unbid suits (and four or five in ours) but four cards in the one their pard bid. However, it's great in the sense that when their pard has a six-card suit, they don't feel comfortable bidding it at a high level (in case there is only singleton support), so we usually get away with murder.

[wyman]

1c 1h

2s

 

I was asked last night if this was a WJS.

 

That would be quite a weird agreement!

[awm]

1c 1h

2s

 

I was asked last night if this was a WJS.

 

That would be quite a weird agreement!

 

At a club game a while back, I opened 1♠. LHO passed, partner bid 2♠. RHO turned to me and said in a loud voice: Does that show hearts and a minor? A bit flabbergasted, I simply responded "no" to which RHO said (sounding a bit annoyed) well what is it then? Having recovered my equilibrium somewhat, I replied "it shows three or more spades and about five to nine points." RHO gave me an annoyed look and passed.

[MrAce]

At a club game a while back, I opened 1♠. LHO passed, partner bid 2♠. RHO turned to me and said in a loud voice: Does that show hearts and a minor? A bit flabbergasted, I simply responded "no" to which RHO said (sounding a bit annoyed) well what is it then? Having recovered my equilibrium somewhat, I replied "it shows three or more spades and about five to nine points." RHO gave me an annoyed look and passed.

 

:D

[helene_t]

Funny, here in North England the idea that a double just shows "an opening hand" is not widespread. Another frequent club-player mistake that I encountered frequently in the Netherlands but not often here is abuse of blackwood/gerber.

 

People here tend to open and overcall very light and then compensate by being very conservative in response to openings and overcalls. Occasionaly you will see a 2/1 on a 7-count followed by a pass after opener's high reverse or jump rebid. But generally people tend to understate rather than overstate their values.

 

One very frequent mistake people commit here, though, is to bid 5-card suits twice even when there is a perfect alternative.

 

One very frequent mistake, both here and in NL, is in follow-ups after t/o doubles. Doubler bids again and again, just repeating the message that s/he has a 13-count or such, while advancer with an 11-count never shows any life.

[Vampyr]

An amusing explanation I was once given:

 

"We play third and fourth leads"

 

Never having heard of this style, I ask when they lead third rather than fourth.

 

"When we only have three"

[kenberg]

An amusing explanation I was once given:

 

"We play third and fourth leads"

 

Never having heard of this style, I ask when they lead third rather than fourth.

 

"When we only have three"

 

This has a weird sort of appeal. Sort of a "We do the best we can" response. I like it.

[barmar]

I've actually thought for a long time that it's the correct description. Against NT, you rarely lead from 3 to an honor, so "4th best" is almost always in a 4+ suit. But against suits, it's quite common to lead from 3 to an honor. So even if you check "4th best", often it's only 3rd best.

[Zelandakh]

My very first partner insisted on playing a 2♣ response to an opening bid as asking for Opener's point range. Responses: 2♦ = 12-13; 2♥ = 14-15; 2♠ = 16-17; 2NT = 18-19, all irrespective of Opener's shape. Eventually I found out that this was being used to avoid the "problem" of a rebid in a new suit being wide range, so I was able to suggest playing Opener's jump shift as 16+ as a compromise. I am pretty certain that this "2♣ Asking Range" convention is the worst I have personally played.

[glen]

"Always lead a spade"

 

Had a pickup partner in a club game, and he told me he always leads a spade. I confirmed that this applied to all contracts that he was on initial lead to, except when he had a void in spades, and decided it was best to pre-alert the opponents to this agreement (I decided I was not bound to his agreement, but there's the question of whether we are playing distinct methods). It certainly put a damper on my lead directional bids, and in subsequent club games I was fortunate to have him as my LHO, which produced fun results.

[sasioc]

I once encountered a pair who played Benji (two strong and artificial openings at the 2 level) with a strong club. When asked how they dealt with opening hands with clubs they said, "some of those hands are a bit awkward and sometimes we just have to pass".

[the hog]

My very first partner insisted on playing a 2♣ response to an opening bid as asking for Opener's point range. Responses: 2♦ = 12-13; 2♥ = 14-15; 2♠ = 16-17; 2NT = 18-19, all irrespective of Opener's shape. Eventually I found out that this was being used to avoid the "problem" of a rebid in a new suit being wide range, so I was able to suggest playing Opener's jump shift as 16+ as a compromise. I am pretty certain that this "2♣ Asking Range" convention is the worst I have personally played.

 

Ron Klinger's Power system ahd 1x 2C as a weak relay; opened bid 2d with a min hand. Drury has a similar rationale.

[Quantumcat]

Ron Klinger's Power system ahd 1x 2C as a weak relay; opened bid 2d with a min hand. Drury has a similar rationale.

The Power system isn't very good. And Drury uses one bid to show all good hands, not wasting room, which is hardly needed anyway (responder either bids the major, or a new suit or NT to show clubs, and has a tight range so opener won't need much room to find the right spot).

[the hog]

"The Power system isn't very good"

Really? And on what font of wisdom do you base this comment? Is it too hard for you?

Peter Gill thought it was ok, just that it was difficult to remember.

[Quantumcat]

Only based on what people who I trust have told me. I have never played it, and am only familiar with its basics. Peter is the player I respect the most above all other bridge players, and if he thinks it is a good system, I guess I should believe him, and do some more reading on it. Has he voluntarily played it with anyone besides Klinger, though?

[the hog]

No. The memory strain is high. Lilley liked it as well.

[ThymePuns]

1c 1h

2s

 

I was asked last night if this was a WJS.

 

That would be quite a weird agreement!

In the same auction, someone once asked me if it was a jump shift.

[fromageGB]

I came across a new one last night. They bid 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ pass. 8 tricks, and a top for them. Both of them explained afterwards that it is not forcing.

[blackshoe]

I came across a new one last night. They bid 1♥ 2♦ 2♠ pass. 8 tricks, and a top for them. Both of them explained afterwards that it is not forcing.

I suspect that they do not play whatever system they claim to play.

[Free]

The most awful one I played was a homegrown club system which was quite popular at a local club. Since I played quite a lot against it, I wanted to learn it to know it's issues. It's a strong ♣ system with light limited openings. The basis is relatively normal (except the responses, but lets not get carried away):

1♣ = 17+ any

1♦ = 10-14, no 5 card M (0+♦)

1M = 10-14, 5+M

 

As you can see, there's a gap between 1♣ and the limited openings. Their solution:

1NT = 15-16 balanced (may have any 5 card)

2X = 15-16, unbalanced, 5+X

 

A while later they modified the 2X openings to include weak two's. The result was:

2♣ = 15-16, unbalanced, 5+♣/♥/♠

2♦ = 15-16, unbalanced, 5+♦

2M = weak

 

Still pretty awful if you ask me...

 

My simple solution was playing 11-15 and 16+ ranges (hell, even play 10-15 if you really want to open all 10-counts) and have the entire 2-level free. However, when I tried to convince them, it appeared to be too difficult to understand by these people. They were too happy to know opener's HCPs very accurately when they opened 2X. :blink: