My understanding is that these agreements are legal if they are accurate.

For example, if you really overcall 1S with and hand accept for a 6-5-1-1 pattern, this is a legal defense. However, if there are some non 6-5-1-1 hands that you would not overcall 1S, this could be a problem if you are unable to accurate describe these departures.

To the extent that there are problems with playing this method, its related to disclosure…

Certainly, I can see some justification for disallowing some obscure system of overcalls that is likely to be unfamiliar to the opponents IF the disallowance is propagated on a pair that has bid naturally. But once one side has opened the bidding with an artificial call (even something common and artificial, such as a Big 1C or Big 2C opening), then aren’t all the artificial defenses acceptable? In other words, the floodgates to artificial defenses are opened by actions of the offensive side employing an artificial call themselves. So, yeah, “anything goes” might be the law.

Don’t want to hear an obscure defense by opponents when you hold a huge hand? Then start using strong two bids!

A pair employing an artificial opening bid should be prepared to have created some sort of mega-agreement for how to deal with non-standard interference.

People who play those random systems tend not to last too long in the bridge world, and they do not win much against the better players. Even I, with my modest successes have methods in place to identify when it is our hand and punishment to those who bid on air is meted out with a red card.

Those that throw these weird bids in do not have the discipline needed to succeed in top events. Good players will start doubling them when they enter against strong hands and the phone numbers will pile up.

At first, they may have some good results at the club, but face bad reception from locals and club managers due to their destructive methods.

If they enjoy the game they will learn to play it better or quit and bring their erratic methods to another endeavor.

I put both the auctions

(i) 1C 1S = not a 6-5-1-1 hand
(ii) 2C 2H = any thirteen cards

to the ACBL for an opinion, and got the response

“I believe both of those agreements would not be permitted based upon Disallowed #1 from the ACBL General Convention – 1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods”.

Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness!

To all,

The above discussion has been going on for at least 45 years to which I am privy.

Cockroaches had been voted in a long ago, but little remembered, poll as the worst of all insects since they are thought to be never striving for what is good for them (or anyone else) but rather only destructive in attempting to make others unhappy.

Such appears to be the way of some bridge players who are constantly searching for new ways to be irritating. 1. opponents need to discuss counters, 2. users will never average any respectable score by so doing, occasional success but nevertheless dismal in toto. 3. ugliness and uselessness are the two u words which come to best describe their efforts.

Consequently, why let their aberrant personalities dictate attention with nothing of value to be gained?

In 1988 and during the world championship in Venice, fertilizer systems (strong pass) were in vogue with many lesser playing bridge nations almost violently in favor of their methods being accepted. From a panel podium I asked of the 200+ players in the audience, Can anyone name one recorded hand wherein their system led to them reaching the right contract? Although my guess is that there are a number of such hands somewhere listed, although not immediately known, and fortunately not a single hand went up. From that point on fertilizer began to disappear (and quickly) never, at least up to this point, to return.

Political correctness is thought to be the answer in order to deal with sloth, stupidity and random incivility. I disagree and although sometimes thought a tyrant, I do not consider myself anyone other than someone who loves the game and does not want miscreants to have the power to interrupt its natural flow.

>From a panel podium I asked of the 200+ players in the audience, Can
>anyone name one recorded hand wherein their system led to them
>reaching the right contract? Although my guess is that there are a number
>of such hands somewhere listed, although not immediately known, and >fortunately not a single hand went up.

Why is it fortunate that no one calls you on your blatant lies?
Look what you wrote. You know that this statement is inaccurate.
You admit that there hands where these systems end up in the right contact. And yet, somehow you’re proud about your bellicose ramblings.

>From that point on fertilizer began to disappear (and quickly) never,
>at least up to this point, to return.

The ego to suggest that there is a casual link here. Strong pass systems disappeared because they were legislated out of existence. “Strong” men like you needed to twist the laws to achieve what you feared you wouldn’t be able to achieve at the table.

>From a panel podium I asked of the 200+ players in the audience, Can
>anyone name one recorded hand wherein their system led to them
>reaching the right contract? Although my guess is that there are a number
>of such hands somewhere listed, although not immediately known, and
>fortunately not a single hand went up.

BTW, 20 odd years ago, I went to a Economics conference in Heidelburg. Before the first talk, my graduate advisor told me that conference in Europe are quite different from those in the US. It’s considered quite impolite to ask hard questions to the presenter or, worse yet contradict them.

My hand would have gone up. I can name several hands where our system and good judgment resulted in a great contract and score.

The best example was recently in a team game. I was playing precision as were our counterparts at the other table. They were part of a long standing and successful team in our area. I was excited to see how our systems matched up.

I picked up a powerhouse:
AQJTXXXX, A, A, KXX

With the opponents silent I opened 1C. Partner bid 1N (8-13). I bid 2S, he bid 3D showing support and 0-3 controls. I bid 4C asking for control of that suit. He bid 5C -‘total’ control (at least AQ). 7N was easy now. Our opponents only got to 6S, so we won 12 IMP’s.

Personally, I prefer 1C (or 2C)-2S to show any 13 cards.