[blackshoe]

 Free, on 2012-September-09, 09:32, said:

They were too happy to know opener's HCPs very accurately when they opened 2X.

Offer them this:

All openings up to 2S are artificial:

1♣: 8-10 HCP
1♦: 11-13 HCP
1♥:14-16 HCP
1♠: 17-19 HCP
1NT: 20-22 HCP
2♣: 23-25 HCP
2♦: 26-28 HCP
2♥: 29-31 HCP
2♠: 32-34 HCP

All openings above two spades are transfers, 0-7 HCP, (6)7+ trumps at the three level, more at higher levels.

If you have more than 34 points, just bid six (or seven) of something.

This should result in a large number of lovely bottoms.

[glen]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-09, 09:42, said:

1♣: 8-10 HCP
1♦: 11-13 HCP
1♥:14-16 HCP
1♠: 17-19 HCP
1NT: 20-22 HCP
2♣: 23-25 HCP
2♦: 26-28 HCP
2♥: 29-31 HCP
2♠: 32-34 HCP

If you just add 2 points to each (1♣ is 11-13 etc.) I met someone who played exactly that

[fromageGB]

 Free, on 2012-September-09, 09:32, said:

1NT = 15-16 balanced

Some parts of the system have merit !

[blackshoe]

 glen, on 2012-September-09, 10:07, said:

If you just add 2 points to each (1♣ is 11-13 etc.) I met someone who played exactly that

ROFL!

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2012-September-08, 11:41, said:

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

The method taught at Andrew Robson's bridge club is that reverses do not promise extra.

[ash1968]

I know a pair who wanted to make it "more difficult" for pairs who played a strong 1C so they would open 1C 10-12 any when possible. Mostly opponents then played X = same as 1C opening and the rest of the system on.

[32519]

Here is another crazy agreement from our local club played by one of the pairs.

Over 1M, a jump to 3M = slam interest!
Over 1M, a jump to 4M = a limit raise (10-11 HCP)!
They don’t have any method for being able to show a hand with long trump support but low in HCP.

I’m not kidding you. This really is their agreement.

[the hog]

 32519, on 2012-September-11, 22:53, said:

Here is another crazy agreement from our local club played by one of the pairs.

Over 1M, a jump to 3M = slam interest!
snipped

This is not uncommon and was part of the Goren system.

[Zelandakh]

 the hog, on 2012-September-12, 00:30, said:

This is not uncommon and was part of the Goren system.

And before that, 1M - 3M as the strong (GF) raise was part of Culbertson. Nothing wrong with this at all. The somewhat unusual part was 1M - 4M as a limit raise though (which at the very least grossly distorts the proper usage of the term).

[helene_t]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-11, 02:55, said:

The method taught at Andrew Robson's bridge club is that reverses do not promise extra.

Really? Are they playing Canape or something?

[helene_t]

 the hog, on 2012-September-12, 00:30, said:

This is not uncommon and was part of the Goren system.

Yes. More generally, old (1960 or earlier I think) bridge books are full of strong jumps in suits already bid. For example

1♣-1♦
1♥-3♣*
(*forcing)

Presumably, limit bids just didn't exist back then. Responder either forces to game or signs off at his second turn.

[the_clown]

A friend of mine told me that she was playing inverted majors in a blue club context. In particular 1♥-2♥-3♥ is Keycard.

[P_Marlowe]

1M - 3M as forcing raise is also suggested by Alvin Roth in picture bidding,
he moves lots of things in the forcing NT.

I dont think, playing the jump raise as forcing is a bad agreement, you could
move the limit raise to 2NT, helping you with game tries, you have no game try,
when it goes 1M - 3M.
This may espesially be useful, if you dont require 4 card support for the limit
raise, e.g. you want to keep open the option of playing in 3NT.

The point is of course, that the 3M bid is a game forcing raise, that does not
show add. SI - you will alway have SI as responder, if you have opening strength
and a fit for openers major.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-11, 02:55, said:

The method taught at Andrew Robson's bridge club is that reverses do not promise extra.

After a 2/1 response?

[gordontd]

 helene_t, on 2012-September-12, 02:23, said:

Really? Are they playing Canape or something?

No, they just recognise that beginners have a lot of trouble understanding (and recognising) reverses, so if they don't treat them differently from other suit rebids they gain some advantages at the price of sometimes getting too high on unsuitable hands.

In this way they never miss a fit in opener's second suit, and a rebid of opener's first suit absolutely guarantees six cards.

Eventually learners will reach the stage where they wonder why they are getting too high on minimum two-suited openers, and when they do they can be told to "lie" on such hands - ie they will understand why reverses & high-reverses should show extra.

On several occasions I've seen players who've progressed from ARBC to play in county or national events, with "we don't play reverses" written on their convention card. On one of those occasions the player said that he didn't really understand what it meant, but someone told him to write it on so that the other players wouldn't get annoyed with them.

I think it's a method of teaching that has a lot to commend it - and ARBC is far and away the most successful teaching club in the country.

[gordontd]

 P_Marlowe, on 2012-September-12, 02:45, said:

After a 2/1 response?

Actually it's quite widespread for a reverse not to promise extra after a 2/1 response - lots of 2/1 players do exactly that. Of course they aren't then going to be left to play in opener's rebid!

[Zelandakh]

 gordontd, on 2012-September-12, 04:29, said:

No, they just recognise that beginners have a lot of trouble understanding (and recognising) reverses

They certainly will if they are never taught the difference! Honestly, I have taught many people how to bid in a simple Acol system and have never run into anyone who was unable to grasp this. Bidding after a reverse is a different matter though. I see even very good players getting into a mess on these auctions without decent agreements in place.

[gordontd]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-September-12, 04:48, said:

Honestly, I have taught many people how to bid in a simple Acol system and have never run into anyone who was unable to grasp this.

Me too (using the concept of "the barrier", which I think is better for explaining than the odd-sounding "reverse"). They always seem to understand it when it's explained to them. And how often do they recognise it when it comes up? Never!

[Zelandakh]

I never used the term "reverse" either. I simply used a priority system and "2 of a higher ranking suit" was not on the list for weak hands. Therefore such hands automatically defaulted to "2 of original suit". Sometimes people asked why they could not bid the higher ranking suit; then I explained about it pushing to the 3 level. Mostly they just followed the crib sheets though and then internalised them as the concepts became familiar.

[Antrax]

A couple of days ago at the club my RHO opened 2♠, which was alerted as "Flannery": 5+ hearts, 4+ spades, 12+ HCP no maximum strength (I asked). Over that LHO bid 2NT inquiry and RHO replied 4♦ which shows precisely 4=5=4=0 and nothing about strength.
Probably not the worst ever but I rarely see anything other than Israeli Standard where I play, so I found it noteworthy.