[helene_t]

One of my partners likes playing against weak 2♥/♠:
x=11-15, 4(5) in other major
dbl2NT=11-15, 3- other major
3♣=16+, 4+ other major
3♦=16+, 3- other major

This post has been edited by helene_t: 2013-May-29, 04:14

[Zelandakh]

I hope you have informed the TD about this (or at least pointed out the issues to that partner).

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2013-May-29, 02:32, said:

One of my partners likes playing against weak 2♥/♠:
x=11-15, 4(5) in other major
dbl=11-15, 3- other major
3♣=16+, 4+ other major
3♦=16+, 3- other major

Ingenious. But what does he do if he has a bidding box with only one kind of double card in it?

[32519]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-29, 02:43, said:

Ingenious. But what does he do if he has a bidding box with only one kind of double card in it?

You got me in fits reading this. I must go and look if I can gippo a bidding box and then make sure I am sitting N/S in a Mitchell movement or the sitting pair in a Howell movement. Then I can use this as well (or some variation of it).

[helene_t]

oh lol , sorry, it should be
dbl=...
2NT=....

[ahydra]

At university there was the odd bidding box with D/RD cards instead of X/XX, and we used to make jokes about that (e.g. D = penalty double) - similarly, the "sideways" boxes (where bids go 1C top right down to 1NT bottom right - that style box should be outlawed btw) have rectangular PASS cards whereas the "right-way-up" boxes (1NT top left to 1C top right) have rounded-edge PASS cards, and when these got jumbled up then a rectangular PASS became a forcing pass.

However, the best use of the D card was, imo, putting it on top of a regular XX card to form a laughing face.

ahydra

[32519]

Beat this for the worst agreement:
1NT = 16+ HCP, distribution is totally irrelevant
Responses are:
2♣ = Waiting, I got something for you partner (just like some respond 2♦ as waiting over a big 2♣ opener)
2♦ = A complete bust, you are on your own partner!

I'm not kidding. We had a pair at our local club who played this. They have since left.

[TylerE]

That's not that insane actually. Moscito is also first step positive, second step negative, and it works very well. Of course, that's over a 1♣ opening...

[Trinidad]

32519, on 2013-May-29, 12:34, said:

Beat this for the worst agreement:
1NT = 16+ HCP, distribution is totally irrelevant

This looks a lot like the Vienna system. Paul Stern designed it and had considerable succes playing this.

In short: it may be outdated by about 80 years, but it can't be the worst, since it beat the other systems of those days. And as Tyler points out: They may well have improved on it!

Rik

[ggwhiz]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-29, 02:43, said:

Ingenious. But what does he do if he has a bidding box with only one kind of double card in it?

Before bidding boxes I played the first round against a pair when she had a severe case of laryngitis. Her pard produced a pad and told her he had written all her bids down so she could just flash them to the table.

First auction she started flailing, squeeking and finally glaring at him. He didn't give her any notrumps.

[32519]

How about this agreement, also from our local club. This pair still pitches up now and again to play.
Their crazy agreement: ALL THREE LEVEL PRE-EMPTS ARE FORBIDDEN!
They're afraid of getting too high on weak hands? Sheesh. Isn't that the whole point of it? Effectively you never see a minor suit pre-empt from this pair. The 2♣ bid is used for the big 22+ hands and the 2♦ bid is vacant. With 7-cards in ♠ or ♥ but an otherwise weak hand, they pre-empt with 2♥ or 2♠. This would still be (almost) acceptable when the suit is ♠ as you can still bid 3♠ over 3♥. The problem here of course is now you're at the 3-level anyway, so why not just start off with 3♠? The number of part score battles that they have lost by opening 2♥ with a 7-card suit keeps mounting up. The opponents are now given the opportunity to find their fit in ♠ on level-2 where they may have backed down over a 3-level pre-empt.

Lovely game this. There is room for everyone no matter what crazy agreements you may have.

[Vampyr]

ahydra, on 2013-May-29, 04:29, said:

the "sideways" boxes (where bids go 1C top right down to 1NT bottom right - that style box should be outlawed btw)

Totally -- they are just awful.

[PhilKing]

http://www.bridgebas...065#entry732065

Not "at the table", but surely a five-star contender if it did!

[yunling]

I was west and the bidding went

---

Dummy appeared to be a 5-5-3-0 9 count.

[Cthulhu D]

RunemPard, on 2013-May-23, 14:15, said:

Comedy gold..

I open 1C sitting east with some decently strong hand. Partner(west) replies 1H, followed by north bidding 2H with some 9-11 HCP hand and AQxxx in hearts. Knowing the two players, this is natural. With Kxx in hearts and the opps red vs. our white, I double. After south takes 15 seconds to find a pass card, my partner goes to 3C. This is when North finds the 3H card, followed by my 2nd double.

5 down for -1400. The true comedy begins when north decides to explain to his partner loudly that her passing my double was an absolutely HORRIBLE bid!

Had a similarly ridiculous action last week, where which went something like:

NV vs NV North deals and opens, I am west holding a good 16 count with a stiff spade.

(2D)-P-(2S)!-X (2D being multi and 2S being a paradox response showing hearts).
(XX)-P-(3C)-X
(3S)-P-(P)-X
All Pass

Open has corrected back to spades on KTxxxx and goes several off. This was the first board of the segment so we got to put up with North chewing out south about bidding three clubs for the next three boards, and how they should have passed the redouble? I'm pretty sure that turned -1000 into -800 regardless of anything else.

[manudude03]

Probably better than what one of my partners play.

6/7/8 says nothing, 2/4 asks for the higher suit, 3/5/9 asks for the lower suit, honor leads are standard.

[32519]

Free, on 2013-June-24, 13:41, said:

- Discarding method 'Revan' because it just sucks... For those interested: 2/3/4 asks for a certain suit, 5/6/7 asks for another suit, and 8/9/T ask for the third suit.

I just got to try and match this for craziness. So here it comes:
1. A discard of a low red card asks partner to return the lower of the black suits (and vice versa).
2. A discard of a high red card asks partner to return the higher of the black suits (and vice versa).

Give it whatever name you want.

[barmar]

32519, on 2013-June-25, 03:02, said:

Give it whatever name you want.

Color-coordinated suit preference?

[inquiry]

An "inkle" bid. While in college, my partner and I were invited to play bridge against two lovely coed's in their campus apartment. One or two hands in, one said, "I inkle a spade". After questioning them for a while, they said an inkle bid is like a pass, but it shows your partner that you ALMOST wanted to bid whatever suit was "inkled." Normally, we would have stomped off, but, having knowledge what the opponents held helped us more than it helped them, and besides, these were really lovely coeds who provided food and drink as well. So of course we stayed.

[ArtK78]

inquiry, on 2013-June-25, 12:51, said:

An "inkle" bid. While in college, my partner and I were invited to play bridge against two lovely coed's in their campus apartment. One or two hands in, one said, "I inkle a spade". After questioning them for a while, they said an inkle bid is like a pass, but it shows your partner that you ALMOST wanted to bid whatever suit was "inkled." Normally, we would have stomped off, but, having knowledge what the opponents held helped us more than it helped them, and besides, these were really lovely coeds who provided food and drink as well. So of course we stayed.

What else did they "inkle?"