[EricK]

I occasionally play in a club. Most of the people there are weak players. Because this is England, they mostly play Acol of some variety - but some of the common agreements are dubious at best.

For example, it is fairly common to play, in response to a Weak NT (12-14), that 2♠ shows exactly 11 points and 2NT shows exactly 12. This, I hope you'll agree, seems a ridiculous way to use two bids. Now it is not too surprising that weak players have bad agreements, but where exactly do they get them from? I have never seen the aforementioned use of 2♠ and 2NT recommended in any book, or any website purporting to teach Acol. So anybody looking to any outside source for a system opposite 1NT would find something different (and better). So how can something like this take hold?

Is there anything similar happening where you play?

[steve2005]

Rodwell-Meckstroth play 2♠ as either a range ask or ♣

many play 2♠ as just a range ask none come to mind right now, but their using 2N for something else not another balanced inv

[manudude03]

I think it's just that people were playing 2NT as an invite to 3NT, and 2S was redundant, so they decided to play 2 invites for "more precision"

[Bbradley62]

Some "advanced" player or club manager decided (s)he liked it, and taught the flock.

[gwnn]

Both 2S and 2NT is taught as an invitational hand and some people attended both lessons.

[nige1]

gwnn, on 2014-June-29, 10:47, said:

Both 2S and 2NT is taught as an invitational hand and some people attended both lessons.

Gwnn's seems a likely explanation. Some weak notrumpers play that over 2♠, opener rebids 2N with a MIN, 3♣ with a max. Thus 2♠ can be 2 or 3-way:

• About 11 points flat.
• ♣.
• Baron.

[helene_t]

This 2♠ as a weak limit raise has been reinvented many times independently I think - it is kinda obvious. People learn to play transfer transfers to major suits, leaving 2♠ undefined. At the same time, they very often have the dilemma whether to accept an invite or not when they hold the middle number of points of their notrump range.

Here in Harrogate, a number of player play "modified Hackett" which was, I think, invented by one of the local players here. This is more difficult to explain. It goes like this (opps open 2M):
x=11-15, 4-card in the other major
2nt=11-15, no 4-card in the other major
3♣=16+, 4-card in the other major
3♦=16+, no 4-card in the other major

It looks a bit like a solution in search of a problem, and the drawbacks (what to do with long clubs? how to respond with a weak hand to 3♦, which is presumably unlimited?) are so obvious that you might think it would go out of fashion quickly. However, people always forget the convention, so they are probably left with the impression that it might work great if they just remembered it.

In the Netherlands, there is a very common misconception that says that an overcall denies opening strength and that dbl just shows 12+ any shape. I have no idea where it comes from.

[manudude03]

helene_t, on 2014-June-29, 13:00, said:

In the Netherlands, there is a very common misconception that says that an overcall denies opening strength and that dbl just shows 12+ any shape. I have no idea where it comes from.

That's fairly easy, people are taught the the minimum strength for an overcall is less than that of an opening, and that a double can be a hand too strong for an overcall. Unfortunately, the word "minimum" tends to be cut off from the course in the belief that it was implied.

[helene_t]

Many club players have an aversion against bidding notrumps. I have heard the explanation that it's because it feels natural to bid hearts when you have hearts, while bidding notrumps when that is appropriate is something that requires some knowledge of bidding theory. Another explanation I have heard is that beginners find it easier to play suit contracts than notrump contracts.

But I think there is a third reason, which may be more important: if you bid notrumps and subsequently end up playing notrumps and the defenders set up their long suit and run it, it is humiliating, and easily attributable to a notrumb bid that was made with "only one stopper in an unbid suit" or whatever partner might complain about. This conditions the player strongly against playing notrumps in the future. OTOH, if one fails to bid notrumps and it leads to a bad result (or if one fails to find a fit because partner can't trust that you bid out you shape since you might simply just be avoiding bidding notrumps, or if showing the stoppers helps the defenders beat whatever contract you end up in), it is much less likely to elicit the same feedback.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2014-June-29, 13:00, said:

In the Netherlands, there is a very common misconception that says that an overcall denies opening strength and that dbl just shows 12+ any shape. I have no idea where it comes from.

I think this idea may have been popular in England many years ago. If I am not mistaken, I have seen it in books by Reese and others.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2014-June-29, 15:22, said:

I think this idea may have been popular in England many years ago. If I am not mistaken, I have seen it in books by Reese and others.

It's about the only thing I've ever refused to play (other than Ghestem) when I've played with a pickup, it's still around

[whereagles]

Where they get their ideas from? From their heads, I guess...

[Zelandakh]

EricK, on 2014-June-29, 07:22, said:

I have never seen the aforementioned use of 2♠ and 2NT recommended in any book, or any website purporting to teach Acol. So anybody looking to any outside source for a system opposite 1NT would find something different (and better). So how can something like this take hold?

It was definitely in at least one official Master Series book from the late 80s or early 90s - the ideas from these books still have a strong influence on the EBU player base. It is also common to see it in the BBO Acol Club. It is not really any worse than playing Strong Twos or weak takeouts in 3 suits, which are also mainstays of Acol players. And all of these are better than overcalling 1♠ with 2♣ on Ax/Jxx/Kxx/Kxxxx, which is routinely done by weaker players all over the world.

The main alternative use for 2♠ in England, also popularised at the time of the aforementioned book, is Baron. That is seen as too complicated by a good cross-section of players so they naturally choose the simple option. It might seem strange to more advanced American players but 4 way transfers never really took off in the lower reaches of the EBU, at least not whilst I was there. When I was playing there I also used the 2♠ Baron option but in combination with 2NT showing clubs, with diamonds shown via Stayman. In my Puppet scheme 2NT shows an invitational hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts, so something completely different. Since the hand is quite specific, it would be easy to consider this a waste of a call too.

[StevenG]

I asked three (appropriate) players this morning how they learned the game. All had taken classes and been taught traditional Acol with strong 2s. After that they had just played amongst themselves. They had converted to Benji at some stage, but mainly by learning from their peers. Ordinary players, in general, do not play socially with strong players, and never get the improvement in their game that would result.

Most players aren't interested in "system" (despite what the maths-geek types who inhabit this forum might think), nor do they read books. They just play, and they're happy.

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2014-June-30, 06:06, said:

. It is not really any worse than playing Strong Twos or weak takeouts in 3 suits, which are also mainstays of Acol players.

These treatments are extremely rare among Acol players, at least those who attend clubs. You may find these methods played in individuals.

[ahydra]

Vampyr, on 2014-June-30, 07:51, said:

These treatments are extremely rare among Acol players, at least those who attend clubs. You may find these methods played in individuals.

I don't know - we get around 12-18 pairs a night at the local clubs, and I'd say at least 3-4 of those would play strong twos. Weak takeouts after 1NT are somewhat rarer though, perhaps a maximum of two pairs playing them, normally just the one.

Pretty much everyone plays the 2S = 11, 2NT = 12 thing though, so much so that it's actually the de facto standard for pick-up partnerships :/

ahydra

[Fluffy]

I think it was helene who faced the dreaded "canary diamond" system, where after a 1 club opening reponder shows his strenght on steps from 0 to whatever (I think in 2 HCP steps). This was for long the only system played in the Canary Islands.

Why?, because there was not a single strong player in the area, except for a Bulgarian (I don't know if he is advanced or expert), who quickly became the local guru, and since he learnt playing precision, he taught a form of precision to everyone, a version that they could understand, and all played the same. 1♦ showed anything 12-16 without 5 card major.

[barmar]

The sequence I always wonder about is 1m - 1X - 3NT. The "standard" meaning of this is that opener has a good opening hand and a long running minor. But many bad players will bid this with a strong balanced hand, even though that's what a 2NT response would have shown as well. They essentially have two bids for the same hand, and no good explanation for when they bid one versus the other.

I think this one just comes from old fashioned "bid what you think you can make". For some reason, they're worried responder will pass them in 2NT when game would make.

[Bbradley62]

1m-1X-3N might depend on opening nNT ranges. My (house bridge playing) parents play 16-18, 22-24, 25-27; I'd expect the 3N rebid with 20-21 and the 2N rebid with 19.

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2014-June-29, 13:00, said:

In the Netherlands, there is a very common misconception that says that an overcall denies opening strength and that dbl just shows 12+ any shape. I have no idea where it comes from.

The explanation is simple: Double shows an opening hand. So, if you have an opening hand, you need to double. Hence, any other bid denies an opening hand.

Many people simply don't see the flaw in this reasoning and simply forget the other requirements for a double that the teacher has told them.

Furthermore, bidding this way is really easy: Opponents open, you double, and then the bidding continues as if you have opened "something". Partner responds at the one level, "promising 6 HCPs", and it is forcing for one round (just like after an opening).

The only time that it can go wrong is if advancer is broke. But that means that probably responder "won't let those guys keep him out of the auction". Responder will bid, and advancer can pass with his Yarborough. But even if responder passes, this rarely goes wrong.: Advancer bids on his Yarborough and the doubler (with a whale) makes a simple rebid (which he thinks is forcing, of course, since a rebid in a new suit by opener normally is). Advancer sees that he doesn't have the 6 HCPs that he "promised" and will pass, and again there is no problem.

So, since this rarely goes wrong in the field where these people play, the perps don't get punished. Therefore, they think this is a good method. They probably think that an expert responder who chooses to pass with values to watch their auction derail is unethical.

Rik