[wuudturner]

I'm trying to convince partner to play inverted Fishbein. Think about it.

[Free]

 wuudturner, on 2012-August-26, 08:03, said:

I'm trying to convince partner to play inverted Fishbein. Think about it.

I actually play "Modified Inverted Fishbein", everything is the same like Inverted Fishbein, except that the next step is considered natural.

[bluecalm]

I also think Namyats is pretty terrible when we are at somewhat standard conventions. 4m preempt is useful and benefits of namyats comparing to opening those hands with 1M dubious at best.

[beowulf]

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

[beowulf]

 bluecalm, on 2012-August-26, 14:54, said:

I also think Namyats is pretty terrible when we are at somewhat standard conventions.

I've been playing Namyats with various partners for many years. Theoretically, I love the convention. Trouble is, I don't think I've ever had a good result after bidding 4♣ or 4♦, not to mention losing the 3NT to show a solid suit.

[JLOGIC]

 bluecalm, on 2012-August-26, 14:54, said:

I also think Namyats is pretty terrible when we are at somewhat standard conventions. 4m preempt is useful and benefits of namyats comparing to opening those hands with 1M dubious at best.

Agree, but playing it in reverse where 4m= 4m preempt, and 3N=good 4M bid (whatever you'd open namyats 4C/4D with) is quite good I think. Better than gambling 3N anyways.

[Phil]

 JLOGIC, on 2012-August-27, 16:18, said:

Agree, but playing it in reverse where 4m= 4m preempt, and 3N=good 4M bid (whatever you'd open namyats 4C/4D with) is quite good I think. Better than gambling 3N anyways.

Maybe someday they will make this legal.

I've made my 3rd request this week. Fingers crossed.

[Quantumcat]

Wouldn't you be less likely to want to play in 3NT when partner has an eight-card major than when he has an eight-card minor?

[wyman]

 beowulf, on 2012-August-27, 13:35, said:

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

I play the 2H is GF in this auction, and I know a number of others on this forum do as well, so while it's not standard, I don't think it's unusual at all.

[Bbradley62]

 beowulf, on 2012-August-27, 13:35, said:

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

One tenant of the Mama-Papa bridge I learned in the early 1970s was "new suit by responder is always forcing".

[Bbradley62]

 beowulf, on 2012-August-27, 13:35, said:

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

One rule of the Mama-Papa bridge I learned in the early 1970s was "new suit by responder is always forcing".

[Quantumcat]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-August-27, 17:58, said:

One rule of the Mama-Papa bridge I learned in the early 1970s was "new suit by responder is always forcing".

Except when opener has limited his hand.

[akwoo]

 beowulf, on 2012-August-27, 13:35, said:

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

If you are not playing some form of checkback, 2♥ should be forcing for one round.

[akwoo]

And my entry to this:

I recently saw transfers as immediate responses to strong 2♣. Thinking about it, it's not completely terrible; presumably opener makes the expected bid with a balanced hand and breaks the transfer with an unbalanced one. The only drawback is that responder now has to bid 2♠ with a weak hand and no 5 card suit.

[Bbradley62]

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

[BunnyGo]

 beowulf, on 2012-August-27, 13:35, said:

Great thread! The following agreement isn't strange on the same scale as some of the other entries, but I played against a pair a few months ago where they had the following auction: 1♦ - 1♠ - 1NT - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♠. I asked if 2♥ had been forcing and was told that it was. What's more (4♠ made, by the way), they didn't seem to think this agreement was at all unusual. What do you all think?

In conjunction with Reverse Flannery (where an immediate 2H or 2S over 1D show a non-forcing hand with the advertised shape) then it makes sense to play this sequence as GF. It's what I do with wyman.

[Quantumcat]

 Bbradley62, on 2012-August-27, 19:02, said:

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

Won't be useful most of the time, because opener doesn't care about queens and jacks in his non-suits. If he does care, he is balanced, and can bid his range, and let responder add the points together to decide what level they can bid to. Better to define a positive as something useful, e.g. at least one ace and king, or two kings and a useful queen.

[Siegmund]

Quote

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

In more than one club I've played in, this is universal among the casual players to the point that you get blank stares if you ask them why they didn't alert it. (And I have learned to ALWAYS ask, or check the cc, rather than trusting the lack of an alert here.)

A prime example of a very common and very bad agreement.

[Bbradley62]

 Quantumcat, on 2012-August-27, 20:08, said:

 Bbradley62, on 2012-August-27, 19:02, said:

Does anyone play "steps" any more over 2♣ opening? 2♦=0-3HCP, regardless of shape; 2♥=4-6, etc.

Won't be useful most of the time, because opener doesn't care about queens and jacks in his non-suits. If he does care, he is balanced, and can bid his range, and let responder add the points together to decide what level they can bid to. Better to define a positive as something useful, e.g. at least one ace and king, or two kings and a useful queen.

I wasn't advocating it, I was asking in the spirit of this thread being about the worst agreements.

[Antrax]

A while back I opened 1♥ and had a 2NT overcall on my left, which was alerted. My partner inquired, and found out the bid is natural, 20-22 HCP, balanced with a heart stopper. When my partner looked surprised, the opponent further added that "we don't like that 5-5 thing, I never know what suits she has, so we just play it natural". Probably not the worst agreement, I know