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

[Cthulhu D]

The absolute most ridiculous convention is "Reversed Fishbein". However, I've never encountered that IRL. :(

 

Is this the thing where 3NT is takeout and X is a balanced NT hand? That doesn't seem completely retarded if we're being honest.

[chasetb]

I know someone who (in a non-ACBL-sanctioned game, of course) played 0-40 Flannery. For fun, obviously. I think they took it out once into the club (as 10-40 Flannery, to be GCC).

 

*rest snipped*

That is awful. Not because it's Flannery, but because the maximum amount of HCP a single hand can have is 37 HCP. With 4522 shape, it goes down to 34 HCP, and 4513 shape is 33 HCP. With any hand with all 4 Aces and 13 tricks, you bid 7NT, so the range should have been 0-32 (though all 22+ HCP hands with that shape will bid 2♣ in standard systems or the strong bid in any other).

[GreenMan]

A friend told me he once encountered a pair playing "bonus Flannery" -- 2♦ alerted as 4♠, 5+♥. On the hand where it came up, opener was 4-8 (!) in the majors.

[Mbodell]

I know a pair that played (and properly Alerted and explained!) 2♦ as "11-15, 5-4 *either way* in the majors.

 

On saturday at the district NAP B a pair against us opened a 2♦ that was 10-14 hcp and 5-4 either way in the majors. Of course the actual hand had 9 hcp (in 3rd). I know if it was a 10-14 nt shaded to 9 hcp they'd be taken out back to be shot, but not sure what break you get on the 2♦ bid. Their passed hand partner drove them to 4♥-1.

[RunemPard]

2C, 2D, 2H, 2S all strong openings...19+ HCP or a long suit with playing strength...non-forcing...

 

Got a bottom against it as they played 2H+1 while we are sitting on a cold 5S...but I still think my partner was in a good position to balance with...

 

AKQxx

---

T873

Q953

 

opposite my balanced 13 count...

[helene_t]

And in Ireland, it is an English cue-bid.

in the Netherlands it is usually called a Polish cuebid, but I have heard "Belgian cue-bid" also.

[manudude03]

Is this the thing where 3NT is takeout and X is a balanced NT hand? That doesn't seem completely retarded if we're being honest.

 

Reverse Fishbein is when double is takeout (not too bad), and the next step up shows a penalty double of their suit...

 

And about that cuebid no-one wants to own, we call it the Polish cuebid in Ireland.

[Cyberyeti]

Years ago, we decided to put together a system that pushed UK licencing regs as far as they would go. We decided to target the general licence which could be played pretty much anywhere. We came up with:

 

1♣ Most traditional 1♦ openers, various hands with both minors, club/major canapes, various balanced ranges including really big, forcing

1♦ Most traditional 1♣ openers, other hands with both minors, diamond/major canapes, various balanced ranges, NF

1M canape if with a minor, non canape both majors

1N big and unbalanced

 

Throw in some equally weird and wonderful 2 bids, it proved to be surprisingly playable. As the licencing book in the UK was the orange book, it was known locally as Clockwork orange.

 

Two highlights.

 

The county captain came down to our club, caught me and partner playing this, and said "We came down for some serious practice, and we meet people playing stuff that's not even restricted licence legal", we pointed out it was general licence legal and he literally fell off his chair.

 

3 pairs playing this hit one of the other local clubs and sat as 3 consecutive EWs in a Mitchell movement. This caused a little chaos and one of the other local clubs made it known that the system was banned at their club without anybody ever having played it there.

 

Sadly various of the bids have become illegal over the years, but it was great fun to play.

[Trinidad]

A bunch of us in the bar after a Sectional listened to one pair discuss Smolen at length and decide to play Reverse Smolen.

 

They put it on their card as such and prepared to alert it properly when someone told them "That's Standard American".

In an area which is filled with Smolen players, I am one of the few who stubbornly opposes this convention. When I started playing with my previous partner he was stunned that I didn't play Smolen. I explained him why I didn't and he was convinced (or he decided to humor me).

 

So from time to time when opponents ask about the lack of an alert of 3M, my partner would explain that we play Reverse Smolen and that it is not alertable.

 

It has happened once that an opponent stated that if Smolen is alertable, Reverse Smolen should obviously also be alertable, if not more so.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

The other day we had this auction: 1NT-(2♣!-X..

 

2♣ showed a single suited hand. The auction continued, I think we ended in 3NT, making. The other defender, a guy who argues about everything, insisted the double requires an alert. Why? Because, he claimed, he plays it as penalty, while we play it as, basically, a stolen bid double. Our ACBL card has a line "systems on over ____". We write in "X, 2C". So now he argued that "systems on" applies only to Jacoby transfers (that's what he meant, but he kept saying "Jacoby 2NT"). He never called the director. Finally, he went away, still grumbling. When he got to table one, where North is one of the best players in town and also a good director, he asked her about it. "Not alertable," she said. He grumbled some more. After the game, I heard him still insisting it requires an alert. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

[mycroft]

On saturday at the district NAP B a pair against us opened a 2♦ that was 10-14 hcp and 5-4 either way in the majors. Of course the actual hand had 9 hcp (in 3rd). I know if it was a 10-14 nt shaded to 9 hcp they'd be taken out back to be shot, but not sure what break you get on the 2♦ bid. Their passed hand partner drove them to 4♥-1.

I certainly would have called and asked about it. If it were a "9-that-looks-like-10", they'd probably say it was okay. If it was a "9-that-looks-like-a-weak-third-hand-opener", it's illegal. Doesn't look like you were damaged, though, but other people may be...

[Cyberyeti]

The other day we had this auction: 1NT-(2♣!-X..

 

2♣ showed a single suited hand. The auction continued, I think we ended in 3NT, making. The other defender, a guy who argues about everything, insisted the double requires an alert. Why? Because, he claimed, he plays it as penalty, while we play it as, basically, a stolen bid double. Our ACBL card has a line "systems on over ____". We write in "X, 2C". So now he argued that "systems on" applies only to Jacoby transfers (that's what he meant, but he kept saying "Jacoby 2NT"). He never called the director. Finally, he went away, still grumbling. When he got to table one, where North is one of the best players in town and also a good director, he asked her about it. "Not alertable," she said. He grumbled some more. After the game, I heard him still insisting it requires an alert. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

No idea about US regulations, but clear cut alertable in the UK if it means anything other than penalty of clubs. Basically here you alert anything that's non T/O of a natural suit bid or non pens of an artificial suit bid/NT.

[ArtK78]

I certainly would have called and asked about it. If it were a "9-that-looks-like-10", they'd probably say it was okay. If it was a "9-that-looks-like-a-weak-third-hand-opener", it's illegal. Doesn't look like you were damaged, though, but other people may be...

And why would it be "illegal?" The opps agreement is that the bid shows 10-14 and 45/54 in the majors. So he actually had 9. Or maybe he had 5-5 in the majors. Or something else that doesn't quite fit the bid. Does his partner know that? If his partner is not aware of any deviation from the agreement (either explicitly or by a history of such occurrences), then there is no concealed partnership agreement, and thus nothing illegal.

 

Even if this person psyched his 2♦ opening, it is not illegal. In the ACBL, the only illegal psyches are psyches of strong, forcing and artificial opening bids. This 2♦ opening doesn't fall into that category, so there is nothing illegal about it.

 

And we are talking about the ACBL here, since this occurred in an NAP game.

[jeffford76]

The other day we had this auction: 1NT-(2♣)!-X..

 

2♣ showed a single suited hand. The auction continued, I think we ended in 3NT, making. The other defender, a guy who argues about everything, insisted the double requires an alert. Why? Because, he claimed, he plays it as penalty, while we play it as, basically, a stolen bid double.

 

I have never before seen it suggested that this does not require an alert. Conventional doubles other than takeout doubles typically require an alert. What part of the alert procedures would suggest this is an exception?

[chasetb]

I have never before seen it suggested that this does not require an alert. Conventional doubles other than takeout doubles typically require an alert. What part of the alert procedures would suggest this is an exception?

Well, in the case of doubling a 2♣ overcall of 1NT, it is a Competitive Double (though it is a Stolen Bid in this case), and generally those don't have to be alerted. What clarifies it for me is on the ACBL Alert Page, the second and third sentences say:

 

"This procedure uses the admittedly 'fuzzy' terminology of 'highly unusual and unexpected' as the best practical solution to simplifying the Alert Procedure. The 'highly unusual and unexpected' should be determined in light of historical usage rather than local geographical usage."

 

That along with the definition of "Conventional", which is what the double of 2♣ is (as Stayman), says you don't have to Alert it. After all, Stayman hasn't been Alertable for years in the ACBL, so why would a double of 2♣ showing the same thing be?

[Vampyr]

That along with the definition of "Conventional", which is what the double of 2♣ is (as Stayman), says you don't have to Alert it. After all, Stayman hasn't been Alertable for years in the ACBL, so why would a double of 2♣ showing the same thing be?

 

LOL! Good one.

[Mbodell]

Even if this person psyched his 2♦ opening, it is not illegal. In the ACBL, the only illegal psyches are psyches of strong, forcing and artificial opening bids. This 2♦ opening doesn't fall into that category, so there is nothing illegal about it.

 

Are you sure about that? The GCC says (under disallowed 2):

 

Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional

responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than

2NT, to natural openings.

 

which suggests it is illegal to psych Flannery or a 1 minor bid that can be less than 2 cards or many other artificial or conventional calls. Heck, for that matter it would be illegal to psych a transfer over 1nt.

[Elianna]

Are you sure about that? The GCC says (under disallowed 2):

Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional

responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than

2NT, to natural openings.

which suggests it is illegal to psych Flannery or a 1 minor bid that can be less than 2 cards or many other artificial or conventional calls. Heck, for that matter it would be illegal to psych a transfer over 1nt.

 

This sounds like they are institutionalizing the "convention disruption" idea discussed in Jillybean's thread.

 

Anyway, I believe that I heard someone else calling out this pair about their convention card, which may have actually said 9-14. I remember the director talking to them saying it's not legal to play it as low as nine, but not sure that they actually bid it. I don't remember what they alerted against us. (It was definitely after we played them, btw.)

[aguahombre]

Am not sure which artificial bids are not allowed to be psyched. We are in a good position to be on the NOS side, though. We tend not to forget our agreements and don't screw around. Am willing to let the Td show his exasperation with pairs who do it.

[Mbodell]

Anyway, I believe that I heard someone else calling out this pair about their convention card, which may have actually said 9-14. I remember the director talking to them saying it's not legal to play it as low as nine, but not sure that they actually bid it. I don't remember what they alerted against us. (It was definitely after we played them, btw.)

 

When I asked he said 10-14 at our table and when I looked at her card I could see the 10-14 written in, I just couldn't see the rest of the writing. But there other 2 bids might have been weird too.

[barmar]

And why would it be "illegal?" The opps agreement is that the bid shows 10-14 and 45/54 in the majors. So he actually had 9. Or maybe he had 5-5 in the majors. Or something else that doesn't quite fit the bid. Does his partner know that? If his partner is not aware of any deviation from the agreement (either explicitly or by a history of such occurrences), then there is no concealed partnership agreement, and thus nothing illegal.

 

Even if this person psyched his 2♦ opening, it is not illegal. In the ACBL, the only illegal psyches are psyches of strong, forcing and artificial opening bids. This 2♦ opening doesn't fall into that category, so there is nothing illegal about it.

 

And we are talking about the ACBL here, since this occurred in an NAP game.

ACBL has long maintained that you can't get around the GCC prohibition of opening 1NT with 9 HCP by claiming that you upgraded the hand. (I know, it's not actually a prohibition of the bid, just a prohibition of conventional followups, but the intent and usual effect is the same.) So the question is whether the same logic applies to Flannery-like 2♦ and GCC's rule allowing "OPENING BID AT THE TWO LEVEL OR HIGHER indicating two known suits, a minimum of 10 HCP and at least 5–4 distribution in the suits" -- will they throw the book at you if you upgrade a 9 count?

[hrothgar]

This sounds like they are institutionalizing the "convention disruption" idea discussed in Jillybean's thread.

 

FWIW, the two topics bear quite different antecedents.

 

The Convention Disruption thingee is an idea that's been festering in Wolff's head for close to two decades. As I understand matters, this particular crusade is his...

 

The way I heard things, the "no psyching conventional openings" was due to one of Marston's shenanigans in which he psyched a strong club opening versus an ACBL official.

[barmar]

The way I heard things, the "no psyching conventional openings" was due to one of Marston's shenanigans in which he psyched a strong club opening versus an ACBL official.

But it seems like ACBL has expanded this one. It used to be just strong, artificial openings that you couldn't psyche, now it's all artificial or conventional openings.

 

BTW, the way they restricted opening 1NT with less than 10 HCP, by prohibiting conventional followups, was due to the old Laws' statement that RAs could only regulate conventions. The 2007 Laws say that RAs can regulate any "special partnership agreements", and RAs get to decide themselves what they consider "special". This opens the door to ACBL changing this rule to prohibit nano-NT entirely.

[mycroft]

1) Yes, psyching micro-Flannery is illegal on the GCC, as several have said upthread.

2) If it's a "9-that-looks-like-10", then it's an upgrade and should be fine (I have issues with the "KQJx QJT9 T9 T98 isn't a 10-count" crowd for Kamikaze NT, as well; what's been *said* and what's been written in the Bulletin, and what's in the actual regulations are two different things, and it would be interesting to get actual case law. But even that is a pogrom by a few people against the 10-12ers who, back in the day, did have a lot of interesting agreements, including effectively opening "any" 9 count and claiming it was an upgrade, and psyching the "bailout" responses, with undisclosed agreements that opener, even with KQJx in the suit, couldn't raise it, even in competition. I don't see the fanaticism on upgrade judgement on any other conventional call - certainly people are happy with my 15-that-looks-like-16 Precision openers, for instance), as I said above.

3) if it's not, if it's a "9-that-looks-like-a-third-seat-opener", then either:

- they expect it, in which case it's an illegal, and concealed, conventional agreement;

- they don't expect it, and it was deliberate, in which case, it's a psych of a conventional opening, and illegal;

- they don't expect it, and they didn't realize 2♦ was regulated differently than a natural 1♥ call, in which case we handle that as we do any other similar situation;

- they don't expect it, opener really did think it was a 10-count, and we believe that his judgement is really that bad and he's not trying one on, in which case we deal with that.

 

Frankly, it is highly likely that they know they can't agree to open crappy 9-counts, but don't realize that the relaxation on (natural) third-seat openings doesn't apply to conventional calls. They do expect this, in third seat, and they do have an implied SPU, and they don't think there's anything wrong with it. Less likely is that they're trying on the innocent look; less likely they are just hoping nobody's going to notice; less likely they don't realize that there's a hard limit of 10 HCP on these calls; less likely yet they're being deliberately malfeasant.

 

But I certainly can't determine what, if any, of these cases apply from here; nor can anyone else. That's why we call the TD; not because we want to punish the offenders, but because only she can determine what, if anything, is problematic, without the bias of being one of the table pairs. Were I at the table, I would be content if the TD said there wasn't an issue after doing the research; I would be content if the TD said there was; I'd only be frustrated if I let it slide, but was still fed up enough with it to raise it the next day somewhere else. So that's why I started with "yeah, call."

[Mbodell]

But I certainly can't determine what, if any, of these cases apply from here; nor can anyone else. That's why we call the TD; not because we want to punish the offenders, but because only she can determine what, if anything, is problematic, without the bias of being one of the table pairs. Were I at the table, I would be content if the TD said there wasn't an issue after doing the research; I would be content if the TD said there was; I'd only be frustrated if I let it slide, but was still fed up enough with it to raise it the next day somewhere else. So that's why I started with "yeah, call."

 

FWIW, to the degree that I'm at all frustrated about this (which is only extremely minimally), it is over the ACBL policy being difficult to understand and not necessarily consistent. So it was more the policy and its enforcement that I'm questioning than the hand in general.

 

I'm also certain that if the pair in question is playing an illegal agreement (or a legal agreement illegally?) it would be though ignorance and not malfeasance. Reasonable people could disagree about if this was an upgradable 9 count: with 5-5 being a plus instead of 5-4 but a with wasted J (KT752 AJ654 T J3). And they certainly didn't cater to being weak when the passed hand 10 count drove to 4♥ (which is actually a pretty good contract, that only went down one at our table when declarer didn't follow the "nine never" rule for finding the trump Q).