[TimG]

 gordontd, on 2012-August-24, 04:58, said:

I played against a pair who played RKCB 1340. I wondered if they meant 1430, but no, they really did play 1340!

I was just going to post that! I encountered the same thing, thought for sure they had just mis-spoke, but both agreed that they were playing 1340. This came up after they had a RKC auction, and though I don't remember whether the response was 5♣ or 5♦, it did follow their agreement.

[MickyB]

A common convention amongst bad players in England [weak NT-land] is 1N:2S shows 11 pts, 1N:2N shows 12. I once played vs a pair who played systems on over a 1NT overcall - 1D-(1N)-P-(2S); P-(3N) and that was 15 opposite 11.

[kenrexford]

Years ago, I noticed a convention in some book where a 4♦ response to a 1NT opening was an asking bid for HCP strength. The answers were 4♥ = 15, 4♠ = 16, 4NT = 17. So, finding that to be one of the dumbest conventions ever devised, I of course tried it out.

This was a godsend, because it allowed me to attain the unattainable result of -7600. I opened 1NT with 17 HCP, vulnerable. My LHO made an artificial double, showing a one-suited hand. My partner (obviously not right in the head because I talked this person into playing this convention), was not sure that this neat convention was on in competition and whippped out a 4♦ preempt. Of course, this already sounds insane and a lie, because to have this agreement and to have this preempt at the same time is implausible. I have never seen a 4♦ preempt in response to a 1NT opening, in or out of competition. But, this partner of mine was insane. Plus, to have this call made in the context of a possible ambiguity is even more astonishing. And yet, this is what actually happened.

So, following due course, I bid 4NT to show my 17-HCP hand.

Now, it gets more interesting. Finding this agreement in the book to be insane, I also decided to double down and devised the "modified" version. In that approach, 5♦ now, of course, asked for Aces. Partner, who was not sure if I was asking for Aces or suggesting a place to play, with one Ace responded the easy 5♦ to my 4NT call, which was of course asking me for Aces.

I had, of course, two Aces. ("5♥ = 0, 5♠ = 1, 5NT = 2") So, I bid 5NT.

Again, this is a TRUE STORY!!!

Partner now was convinced that I was asking for Kings. Her diamonds being A-K-eighth, she responded dutifully 6♦.

As you may have guessed, 6♦ asked for Kings. And, again, I had two. So, again dutifully, I bid 6NT.

So far, so good. But, partner had a void. So, she decided for the first time in her life (being an incredible passive bidder, notwithstanding the above) to try for a grand slam, bidding 7♦. Back to me.

Knowing that partner was an incredibly passive bidder and that this grand slam bid was the most aggressive call she had ever made in her life, I knew that 7NT would make if she thought that 7♦ was making. So, as this was matchpoints, I bid 7NT.

Two passes were followed with a double. I never play 7NT doubled at matchpoints, so I of course redoubled.

When LHO made the opening lead, I immediately realized what had happened and about died laughing. We clearly were going set a number. But, there was now work to do. I analyzed the lead, reviewed the bidding, counted my winners and losers, and then decided how to play the hand. "A.R.C.H." It seemed possible, but it would take a lot of work. I do not recall the exact layout or line, but I managed a series of jettison plays that facilitated just barely losing all 13 tricks.

So, I ended up with the illusive -7600. Sure -- the line required some heavy work by me to get that -7600, which might to some seem unfair as a statistical matter. However, it is clearly the case that 7NTXX was bid intentionally. My position is that managing to lose all 13 tricks after intentionally reaching 7NTXX is not unfair for statistical purposes but rather an indication of my extreme talent at declaring, as, whatever the position, clearly this would be a goal requiring talent to achieve. So, I maintain that my result was legitimate.

[fromageGB]

 Mbodell, on 2012-August-23, 21:00, said:

I know you counted strange shadow doubles before, but I played a pair where they played strong club, and we played strong club, and their defense to our strong club included them doubling our strong club to show a strong club hand for them with their systems on! And it actually came up on one board (I think they went down in a low level partscore instead of us as a result).

Similar to my methods with one partner. When RHO opens 1♣, X means "I would have bid that", ie a 1♣ open that could be a doubleton. Similar I suppose to a balanced takeout X, and system is on. Wouldn't call it with long clubs.

[fromageGB]

One unusual bid I am just starting to try out in response to a 1♣ open is 2♣ "stayman", invitational+ with 44xx both major 4 carders. Playing transfer walsh we have before lost a fit when 4th seat comes in with a bid like 2♦ over a major transfer.

[Cyberyeti]

A couple of junior world champions turned up at the university bridge club in Cambridge when I was a student and played their "pass throughout" system. They scored nearly 60%.

[Free]

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

What I did encounter was a pair that overcalled 2♣ promising a 2♣ opener. I had a light limited transfer opening (playing MOSCITO at the time) and LHO had 22+, he overcalled 2♣ and they were proud that they were able to handle this type of hand quite easily (missing a juicy penalty in the progress). I've encountered some other crappy stuff, but nothing was as memorable as this one.

[mfa1010]

 Siegmund, on 2012-August-24, 02:33, said:

We had a regular pair at my previous club who played (what they called) Precision, but with quite a few odd twists.

1C-Pass-1NT could include a 4CM and often did.
1C-Pass-1NT-Pass-2C was Stayman. Straight stayman responses.

Heck of a way to make sure the 1C bidder is declarer as infrequently as possible.

Yeah, that's what I play too.

Actually we even play that 2♦ is also stayman. So I guess we are twice as silly. After 2♣ stayman, responder shows it all, 5c minor, min/max etc with naturalish responses, while after 2♦ he only shows his major(s).

[mfa1010]

 rwbarton, on 2012-August-23, 19:55, said:

Reminds me of Zia's(?) 2NT opening showing 12-14, though that at least has some merit since doubling is a bit dangerous.

I have play a reasonably serious event with 2N = exactly 15 balanced.
This fits nicely with 12-14NTs and 16+ precision 1♣

[ggwhiz]

 Free, on 2012-August-24, 14:05, said:

The absolute most ridiculous convention is "Reversed Fishbein".

Players reverse everything they can in my neck of the woods.

After mucho discussion in the bar one pair decided to play reverse Smolen and alerted it as such. It is more commonly known as standard american.

[awm]

I played against a pair for whom 4♣ was always gerber. This is weird but not enough to make this list on its own.

What was really strange, was that after 4♣ gerber and partner's response, 4NT was keycard. So they managed to bid gerber and keycard in the same auction! Their reasoning was that "keycard lets you show the trump king and queen, whereas gerber is just for aces."

[Mbodell]

 Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-24, 13:37, said:

A couple of junior world champions turned up at the university bridge club in Cambridge when I was a student and played their "pass throughout" system. They scored nearly 60%.

I briefly considered trying this in a longish team match for the last session when we were up a lot against a team that was heavily favored to beat us. I don't think pass throughout would work quite as well at IMPs as MP, but who knows. We played conventionally, if a bit too timidly, and held on for the win.

[gordontd]

 Siegmund, on 2012-August-24, 02:33, said:

1C-Pass-1NT could include a 4CM and often did.
1C-Pass-1NT-Pass-2C was Stayman. Straight stayman responses.

Just as in the Terence Reese book that popularised the system.

[Fluffy]

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

[bluecalm]

I would be more happy to play most things in this thread than:
-capp
-better minor
-standard way of handling 16-21 hands (which is jumping or reversing on 2-3 card suits)

Those are not only terrible but also very frequent so they are more costly than say 1S -p-2S-p-2N = RKCB

[Fluffy]

a bit off topic but I also had this auction myself

pass (focing, but not neccesarilly strong)-1♠ (0-7, best major)
2♠ (opponents must have game at least)

partner forgot the agreement and -1700 at the 5 level.

[Gerben42]

 rwbarton, on 2012-August-23, 19:55, said:

Reminds me of Zia's(?) 2NT opening showing 12-14, though that at least has some merit since doubling is a bit dangerous.

I'm still playing 13-14 2NT (9 - 12 for 1NT) with one pd 1st 2nd seat at favourable. We had agreed that if they shoot us, we will reconsider. So far, the only one who has gone for a number were the opps... One time we played the 2nd best game but it made anyway so who cares.

Meanwhile I have a new favourite story: As my pd gets confused mixing normal and Puppet after 2NT we stuck with Puppet even after the weak variation.

---

That was an unusual score of I forgot what. 760? Doubler of course had "the rest", which wasn't enough.

[ArtK78]

 Free, on 2012-August-24, 14:05, said:

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

The only "reverse" Fishbein that I ever heard of was related to me by Dave Treadwell. He called it "Ethnic" Fishbein (insert your favorite ethnic group for the word "Ethnic."

Double was for takeout, the next step was for penalties.

[Cyberyeti]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-25, 10:21, said:

The only "reverse" Fishbein that I ever heard of was related to me by Dave Treadwell. He called it "Ethnic" Fishbein (insert your favorite ethnic group for the word "Ethnic."

Double was for takeout, the next step was for penalties.

Reminds me of the apocryphal "ethnic"/reverse western cue bid, which says I have a stop, do you have a solid 8 card minor.

[blackshoe]

 bluecalm, on 2012-August-25, 05:21, said:

I would be more happy to play most things in this thread than:
-capp
-better minor
-standard way of handling 16-21 hands (which is jumping or reversing on 2-3 card suits)

Those are not only terrible but also very frequent so they are more costly than say 1S -p-2S-p-2N = RKCB

My preferences:

• Hello
  
• 1m shows at least three. With 3-3 in the minors bid 1♣, with 4-4 bid 1♦. As I understand it this is, strictly speaking, not "better minor", but some people call it that.
  
• Play Precision, or Romex, in the latter case the "two card" variant (at MPs, Romex when vulnerable, Romex Forcing Club (RFC) when not vulnerable; at IMPs RFC only at favorable).

Comments welcomed.