[manudude03]

I played against a pair last summer who played that 1x-1y-1/2NT denies 5 cards in x. Annoyingly enough this actually got them a top against us when they got to 4H on Axxxx opposite Qx (the Axxxx hand opening 1H and rebidding 3H) which couldn't be touched while the field was going down in 3N .

[Zelandakh]

manudude03, on 2013-February-26, 11:31, said:

I played against a pair last summer who played that 1x-1y-1/2NT denies 5 cards in x.

In some other parts of the world it is completely standard for a NT opening or rebid to deny a 5 card major. I agree that it would be unusual if x were a minor but certainly less unusual for many than rebidding a 2 card suit with a strong one-suiter and some other peculiarites of Standard American. I imagine several of them could make it onto a list like this one on another forum.

[manudude03]

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-27, 01:34, said:

In some other parts of the world it is completely standard for a NT opening or rebid to deny a 5 card major. I agree that it would be unusual if x were a minor but certainly less unusual for many than rebidding a 2 card suit with a strong one-suiter and some other peculiarites of Standard American. I imagine several of them could make it onto a list like this one on another forum.

I'm not unused to the idea of rebidding short suits, but for these guys, a new suit absolutely guaranteed 4 as well, this meant that if they had Ax 65432 AQx AKx, they have to open 1H and rebid 3H (they play a weak nt)

[aguahombre]

manudude03, on 2013-February-27, 02:43, said:

I'm not unused to the idea of rebidding short suits, but for these guys, a new suit absolutely guaranteed 4 as well, this meant that if they had Ax 65432 AQx AKx, they have to open 1H and rebid 3H (they play a weak nt)

I think they could safely deny a 5-card heart suit, if a 3H rebids were the alternative.

[Fluffy]

Fluffy, on 2012-August-25, 05:07, said:

2NT-pass-3♦-pass
3♥-double

I was 2NT opener, when it was my turn I asked RHO about the double, and she said asks for a heart lead obviously!. My partner had already bid 3NT not caring to ask, and we end up in 4♥ making the same 11 tricks as everyone else losing 2 tricks to lefties ♥AQx

10 years after this same lady did it again

1♦-1♠
1Nt-3♥ -double!

And once again I couldn't get my +730 and had to stand as dummy making the average +630 GRRRRRRRRRR. This time at least she managed to double for a lead when actually her partner was on lead.

[manudude03]

I'm playing with a new partner tomorrow (new only so far as I've never played with him before), and he insists that an overcall denies opening strength, and if you want to overcall a minimum opener, you must double first. And no, there's no way to distinguish between a 12 count and a 22 count. When I asked him about it, he just says **** happens

[Cyberyeti]

manudude03, on 2013-March-03, 16:57, said:

I'm playing with a new partner tomorrow (new only so far as I've never played with him before), and he insists that an overcall denies opening strength, and if you want to overcall a minimum opener, you must double first. And no, there's no way to distinguish between a 12 count and a 22 count. When I asked him about it, he just says **** happens

Somebody tried to play this with me among a whole load of weird ideas, it was the one thing I vetoed.

[manudude03]

Fishbein is also in the system notes, should be an interesting night if nothing else... Oh yeah, he was explaining his version of Fishbein:

(3C)-3D (takeout of clubs)-(P)-4D is both majors, so I asked how do I show diamonds, he didn't have an answer.

I would say it would be the 2nd worst system I've ever played, the worst being a 16-18 NT with no conventions (not even stayman) over it, the only convention on the card was gerber (well, and takeout doubles)

[GreenMan]

Sectional KO, Bracket 2, finals

2♣-2♦ (positive)
2NT

with 3=5=0=5. Afterward she said she just wanted to hear more about her partner's hand. Which, OK, it's a weird psyche but whatever, but then she said, "I do this all the time!"

Next day, sectional Flight A Swiss, a pair plays 3♦ over both natural *and* artificial 2♦ openings is Michaels. (In this case it was a Precision 2♦ showing the other three suits.)

[TylerE]

GreenMan, on 2013-March-03, 17:47, said:

Next day, sectional Flight A Swiss, a pair plays 3♦ over both natural *and* artificial 2♦ openings is Michaels. (In this case it was a Precision 2♦ showing the other three suits.)

KNOWING what you play is honestly more important than what you play.

[GreenMan]

TylerE, on 2013-March-05, 13:15, said:

KNOWING what you play is honestly more important than what you play.

True to some extent (e.g., knowing you play Fishbein doesn't make up for the fact that you play Fishbein), though they also insisted it didn't require an alert. There was a bit of a contretemps between them and a TD.

[ArtK78]

TylerE, on 2013-March-05, 13:15, said:

KNOWING what you play is honestly more important than what you play.

That principal can be taken too far. For example, if you know that you play that a 7NT opening shows a 5-4-3-1 10 count, at least you know what to bid if that hand comes along. But it would still be incredibly silly.

[blackshoe]

GreenMan, on 2013-March-05, 13:22, said:

True to some extent (e.g., knowing you play Fishbein doesn't make up for the fact that you play Fishbein), though they also insisted it didn't require an alert. There was a bit of a contretemps between them and a TD.

Rule 1: Don't argue with the TD.
Rule 2: If the TD is wrong, see rule 1.

[lexlogan]

I gave up trying to read all 10 pages before posting, but here's my story: RHO opens 2♣, strong and artificial. I preempt with 4♣. LHO bids 4♦. RHO proceeds to some slam. When dummy appears, it's a flat nothing. I ask what 4♦ meant, and they say "negative." Declarer collects 12 tricks. I apologize to partner for not bidding 7♣, forcing LHO to respond 7♦!

[Adriaantje]

TylerE, on 2013-February-08, 12:01, said:

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

A Dutch ex-pair which played in the Dutch highest Premier League played this, a 2♦ opener showing 18-19 bal and a natural system next to that. So it can not really be such a bad thing, I guess...

[aguahombre]

Adriaantje, on 2013-March-26, 15:07, said:

A Dutch ex-pair which played in the Dutch highest Premier League played this, a 2♦ opener showing 18-19 bal and a natural system next to that. So it can not really be such a bad thing, I guess...

In the hands of inexperienced players who do this because they read somewhere is is cool, it is brutal. For the strong players, I don't see the upside. The downsides are better use of 2D opening and the occasional hands where they get to play in 2N or worse instead of 1m.

[fromageGB]

The idea of opening 2♦ to show 18/19 balanced reminds me of the (still common) lunacy of opening 2NT on a 19 count. At least 2♦ gives you the option of playing in 2M.

[gwnn]

Adriaantje, on 2013-March-26, 15:07, said:

A Dutch ex-pair which played in the Dutch highest Premier League played this, a 2♦ opener showing 18-19 bal and a natural system next to that. So it can not really be such a bad thing, I guess...

Pretty sure they had a conventional 2NT rebid over 1m-1M; right? His point was that they played 2♦ as 18-19 balanced but they didn't use this for their advantage in their 1m auctions.

[CamHenry]

My favourite "always-Gerber" auction:

---

For once I was glad I'd preempted cautiously on the South hand, and given them room for this disaster. My partner very kindly led the ♥A, then another one, and then he turned up with a couple more tricks...

As for other dubious agreements, I saw a pair playing 2♣ as "4-11, 4432, 4441, 4450, 5431, or 6430, with at least 3 clubs". They had some quite intricate followups...

[mycroft]

A lot of the people who play 2♦ strong balanced around here may not have a use for the 2NT response (although many will, I guess); but they get one advantage out of it - they can't open 2♦ weak. Given that their usual response to "what's your preempting style?" is "huh?" (although they do actually know, they just don't know they know) they probably can't handle weak 2♦ auctions well either.

Or is that just snark?