[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-January-29, 12:43, said:

I once played a round against a pair who pre-alerted that they do not play new suits by responder as forcing. So (1H)-pass-(2C)-pass-(pass) was a typical auction for them They were quite sure they were on to something. Or maybe just on something.
For some reason I have not encountered this approach since then.

It is part of my system Ken, so you have come across it if you have been reading my posts at all...

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2016-January-29, 19:06, said:

It is part of my system Ken, so you have come across it if you have been reading my posts at all...

I read a lot of your posts, and with interest. I somehow have missed this.

[kenberg]

mgoetze, on 2016-January-29, 15:11, said:

The reason is surely that you live in ACBL country, where all the other bits needed to actually make such a system good (transfer openings, artificial INV+ relays, etc.) are proscribed.

(Actually I haven't come across such a system in Germany either, even though it would be allowed here. But I'm sure it can be workable.)

When I encountered it, their set of agreements definitely needed work. I'll take your word for it that this can be done. For all I know, a system where a spade overcall shows 2 to 4 spades can be made to work, although it is hard to see just how.



As I recall with my encounter: Rho opened 1S, I overcalled 2C, and they were not clear on whether, after my overcall, 2H was still non-forcing. One thought it was, the other thought it wasn't. Sort of a reverse negative free bid agreement. If I pass over 1S, their 2H is non-forcing. If I overcall, their 2H is forcing, or so one of them thought.

I have played against unusual systems that seem to have merit. This, as they played it, wasn't one of them. I never saw them again.

But still, it wasn't like the 6D bid. That was not any sort of system, however ill-advised.