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

[mycroft]

Para. 1: Welcome to the club :-)

 

Para. 2: It certainly does look like a 10 to me (even with the wasted J). Mostly, as you say, because it's 5=5 treated as 5=4 (but the three controls don't hurt). However, that is also an issue: is 5=5 or longer an option systemically? Is it disclosed? Do they upgrade 5=5s into "stronger" 5=4s regularly enough that the opponents should know about it anyway, whether or not it's an agreement? But I agree with you on the 'it's really borderline, and they need to know what the GCC actually says and what it means when they decide to "upgrade" these "on the legal edge" conventional agreements' front (and, as above, on the 'wish we had more concrete and consistent information about what "it" means' front).

[rduran1216]

against phil and i yday it goes

 

4c 4s

5c 5h

6s

 

 

with a chuckle phil who can hardly contain himself goes...gerber? hahaha

[ggwhiz]

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

 

And in France where a monkey wrench is a cle Anglais

[Gerardo]

And in France where a monkey wrench is a cle Anglais

 

Also in spanish, llave inglesa.

[TylerE]

Worst I can remember is probably the pair playing a "Mexican"/Romex 2♦ (18-19 balanced(ish)) while playing an otherwise standard system.

 

A few 4♣ is always Gerber pairs (even on suit auctions, and even when clubs shown, and even when opened)

[ArtK78]

Worst I can remember is probably the pair playing a "Mexican"/Romex 2♦ (18-19 balanced(ish)) while playing an otherwise standard system.

 

A few 4♣ is always Gerber pairs (even on suit auctions, and even when clubs shown, and even when opened)

What's wrong with playing a Mexican 2♦ in an otherwise standard system? Apparently, this pair decided that they did not like the other uses avaialble for 2♦ openings so they decided to plug a hole in their system by using the Mexican 2♦. While I personally don't agree with their choice, I don't find their decision particularly outlandish.

 

As for "4♣ is always Gerber," at least these pairs are never in doubt when one of them bids 4♣. And, by the way, I don't believe them. There are plenty of auctions in which even a "4♣ is always Gerber" pair will bid 4♣ without it being Gerber.

[TylerE]

No, at least one of the pairs I've seen them bid at least 20-30 times over several years. It really is always Gerber.

 

For the other - because there is no hole. The pair that played it (they came to their senses and stopped) had no system hole. They just didn't bid 1m-1banana-2N as 18-19, rather opening 2d with it for some reason.

[ArtK78]

No, at least one of the pairs I've seen them bid at least 20-30 times over several years. It really is always Gerber.

 

For the other - because there is no hole. The pair that played it (they came to their senses and stopped) had no system hole. They just didn't bid 1m-1banana-2N as 18-19, rather opening 2d with it for some reason.

(1♠)-2♣-(P)-P

(X)-P-(2♠)-3♣

(P)-P-(3♠)-P

(P)-4♣

 

I am sure that even one of the pairs that you are referring to would not play this 4♣ as Gerber.

 

As for playing Mexican 2♦ in a standard structure, there are plenty of uses for the jump rebid of 2NT other than 18-19 balanced. There has been discussion in these fora for the use of 2NT as an artificial game force. And, while I have not played Mexican 2♦ openings for about 30 years, it might be possible to get out in 2 of a major after a 2♦ opening (and it is certainly possible to get out in 2♦) which is something that is not possible after a 2NT rebid. Of course, if one opens one of a minor with the 18-19 HCP hand, it is possible to get out in one of the minor.

[TylerE]

(1♠)-2♣-(P)-P

(X)-P-(2♠)-3♣

(P)-P-(3♠)-P

(P)-4♣

 

I am sure that even one of the pairs that you are referring to would not play this 4♣ as Gerber.

 

The pair in question have a combined age pushing 190 years. They don't bid 4♣ here.

 

As for playing Mexican 2♦ in a standard structure, there are plenty of uses for the jump rebid of 2NT other than 18-19 balanced.

 

Sure, but the pair in question weren't playing any of them. 1x-1y-2N was undefined.

[GreenMan]

As for "4♣ is always Gerber," at least these pairs are never in doubt when one of them bids 4♣. And, by the way, I don't believe them. There are plenty of auctions in which even a "4♣ is always Gerber" pair will bid 4♣ without it being Gerber.

 

Also, you never have to PLAY 4♣. This is an underrated benefit. :P

[Charlie Yu]

My personal worst treatment was openind 2D as 18-19 bal or weak majors. After a few impossible 2NT we switch to weak only.

[ahydra]

Ran into a weird one the other day. Opps played a 5cM system with 1♣ = "denies a five card major", to which a response of 1♦ = "denies a five card major".

 

Maybe there's some logic to it, I don't know (1C-1M can now be raised with 3 cards - but how is that better than a standard system?)

 

This was from the same tournament where my teammates were playing some sort of FNJ-after-double convention. If you have responding values, 1M-(X)-any = 3-card support for opener + a suit, XX = denies 3c support for opener. (To make it more interesting, this is in a 4cM context.) Although it looks odd, perhaps it's a better use of XX than the standard "penalty interest"?

 

I've played a couple of games with a "4C is always gerber" partner. Sure enough, we didn't have any misunderstandings and it all worked out. So I say, why stop at 4C? Playing in 4D is just as bad, right? :)

 

ahydra

[WellSpyder]

Ran into a weird one the other day. Opps played a 5cM system with 1♣ = "denies a five card major", to which a response of 1♦ = "denies a five card major".

 

Maybe there's some logic to it, I don't know (1C-1M can now be raised with 3 cards - but how is that better than a standard system?)

I've also come across people who think "5-card majors" applies to responder as well as opener. The biggest problem it seemed to create was over disclosure, since those doing it seemed to think it was just normal, and that oppo should be aware that 1D - 1N might contain 2 4-card majors, or 1H - 1N could easily still have 4 ♠s.

[Zelandakh]

Ran into a weird one the other day. Opps played a 5cM system with 1♣ = "denies a five card major", to which a response of 1♦ = "denies a five card major".

It might be worth looking into Montreal Relay. This sounds like a variation of it.

[aguahombre]

I've also come across people who think "5-card majors" applies to responder as well as opener. The biggest problem it seemed to create was over disclosure, since those doing it seemed to think it was just normal, and that oppo should be aware that 1D - 1N might contain 2 4-card majors, or 1H - 1N could easily still have 4 ♠s.

 

It might be worth looking into Montreal Relay. This sounds like a variation of it.

"Variation", undoubtedly. But, the pairs in WellSpyder's story ---and over here---who do these things would never have heard of the system which bears some resemblance to how they bid.

 

They half-listen to teachers or run with a concept they think is being used by others. Hands in a certain range bid NT, period. Responding 1NT to 1H with 6=2=3=2 is not considered a variation of anything; and why would they alert such a natural response? :rolleyes: Disclosure of unusual methods requires first that they know it is unusual.

[RMB1]

Forrester/Gold play 1C-1M as 5 cards and 1C-1D = relay (not 5M / not 5m GF)

[barmar]

I've also come across people who think "5-card majors" applies to responder as well as opener.

Every time I've encountered that, it was a beginner who just didn't understand.

[fromageGB]

Ran into a weird one the other day. Opps played a 5cM system with 1♣ = "denies a five card major", to which a response of 1♦ = "denies a five card major".

This is not uncommon, and is nothing to do with failure to understand anything. It is a perfectly playable way of responding to find all the 5-3 and 4-4 major fits, with 1NT available when you have neither. Responder bids 1♦ with diamonds or a 4 card major, or 1♥/♠ with a 5 card major, or 1NT with none of the above. After 1♦ it is all natural, opener and responder showing 4 card majors upwards.

 

If responder bids 1♥/♠, of course opener supports on 3.

 

Contrast this with other non-transfer walsh methods, where a 1M response may be 4 or 5 card, opener has 3 cards, and responder is weak. You either play in 4-3 fits when 1NT is better, or play in 1NT when the 5-3 fit is better. It sounds like a big improvement to me.

[fromageGB]

Technically speaking, 1♦ is a relay, but most people can't tell the difference between a transfer, a relay, and a puppet. Describing it as "denies a 5 card major" is fair enough.

[gwnn]

fromage, it is not a 'big improvement.' You find your 5-3 fits brilliantly but you lose some 4-4 fits if RHO bids 2m over 1♦, wreaking havoc.

[fromageGB]

I've played a couple of games with a "4C is always gerber" partner. Sure enough, we didn't have any misunderstandings and it all worked out. So I say, why stop at 4C? Playing in 4D is just as bad, right? :)

Didn't you know? Maybe your partner forgot to tell you, but if 4♣ is always gerber, then bypassing this and bidding 4♦ is always exclusion gerber, where you logically work out from the bidding which suit is to be excluded.

[Zelandakh]

Technically speaking, 1♦ is a relay, but most people can't tell the difference between a transfer, a relay, and a puppet. Describing it as "denies a 5 card major" is fair enough.

Fair enough if it were true. But most of the time it is not true; it also denies whatever hands are bid with responses of 1NT and higher. You have a responsibility to disclose your methods fully.

[fromageGB]

fromage, it is not a 'big improvement.' You find your 5-3 fits brilliantly but you lose some 4-4 fits if RHO bids 2m over 1♦, wreaking havoc.

Funnily enough, you have found my defence to their methods - get in the bidding if you possibly can, 2nd seat, too. Note the 1♦ relay method is played also by one of the best pairs in the top club in this area. Many times there is no opposition bidding, and when there is, it reverts to standard takeout double etc, so little is lost. Not a patch on TWalsh, of course, but if I didn't play that, I would play this.

 

Edit - Of course it is not that enticing bidding a minor in 4th seat, as the 1♣ opener could have long clubs, and responder would also bid 1♦ with long diamonds.

Edited February 15, 2013 by fromageGB

[fromageGB]

Fair enough if it were true. But most of the time it is not true; it also denies whatever hands are bid with responses of 1NT and higher. You have a responsibility to disclose your methods fully.

Don't blame me, I don't play it. But I would be happy with the description. It is 100% true, 100% of the time. Certainly a fuller description is better, such as adding "may have diamonds or a 4 card major", but you don't have to identify all the hand types that it denies. If asker wants to know, he can pose follow-up questions.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps I should try describing every bid my partner makes as "0 or more diamonds". It is 100% true, 100% of the time. I am sure I do not have to identify all of the hand types it denies; the asker can pose up follow-up questions if they want to know.