[ggwhiz]

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".

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on 2013-February-04, 10:45, said:

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".

Along those lines: (1M) 3M requesting partner to bid 3NT with a stopper because we have a long solid minor was dubbed "Reverse Treadwell", after he jokingly said his partnership agreement was that it showed a stopper so partner could bid 3NT with a long solid minor.

[WellSpyder]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 11:20, said:

his partnership agreement was that it showed a stopper so partner could bid 3NT with a long solid minor.

This convention is well known on this side of the Atlantic, where (in England at least!) it is know as an Irish cue-bid.

[aguahombre]

WellSpyder, on 2013-February-04, 11:23, said:

This convention is well known on this side of the Atlantic, where (in England at least!) it is know as an Irish cue-bid.

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

[mycroft]

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).

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

I played 2♣ Minor Suit Flannery in my "twist the GCC so hard it screams" system.

[Cthulhu D]

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

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]

mycroft, on 2013-February-04, 15:29, said:

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]

mycroft, on 2013-February-04, 15:29, said:

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]

aguahombre, on 2013-February-04, 13:01, said:

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]

Cthulhu D, on 2013-February-04, 21:31, said:

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]

ggwhiz, on 2013-February-04, 10:45, said:

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.

[mycroft]

Mbodell, on 2013-February-05, 01:53, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-05, 09:06, said:

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.

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]

mycroft, on 2013-February-05, 12:41, said:

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]

blackshoe, on 2013-February-05, 09:06, said:

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]

jeffford76, on 2013-February-05, 15:15, said:

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?