No, such has never been a rule. However a quick retort can enhance a bluff immensely. In the case of compont I would likely have replied something like "archaic for component." or perhaps "multiple section bridge, from the French pont." As neither player may reference the dictionary except to resolve a formal challenge, nothing is lost by such tactics.

I remember of a story of someone who put down "reached" and declared that it meant "ached again". The other player challenged and lost.

To be fair, if that was a rule it would almost certainly be precisely to prevent people from "bluffing" using invented-but-real-sounding words. I have to confess that I have absolutely 0 idea about competitive Scrabble, but to my casual behind this sounds a lot like behavior that's not in the spirit of the game, on the verge of unsportsmanlike conduct. That said, I am happy to stand corrected by somebody who actually plays or watches competitive Scrabble.

Ok, google says this is apparently an OK strategy in competitive Scrabble (entertainment.howstuffworks.com/leisure/brain-games/…). The more you know ...

I wonder if your opponent also imagined the definition had to be correct? So if a word was valid but your definition was wrong would they claim you had made an invalid play. If that wasn't a requirement you could define every word the same way "A gravant is a type of xulog. "I was garfunk lepol when I atlankog a gravant""

This sounds like a house rule made for a household with children, where Scrabble was being used as a teaching tool to some extent.

"I need to come up with a word that looks like a reasonable word but also come up with a plausible definition for it". This is the "Dictionary game". All make up a word, except the dictionary player, who picks a real one. All words and definitions are read aloud. Players try to guess the real word. Points if your word is picked or if you choose correctly.

While this isn't an official rule, it's one I like to use. It makes it easier for novices to compete with players who have tried to memorise all the two and three letter words without learning what they mean.

Further to @ForgetIwaseverhere's point, the existence of Official Scrabble Words in book form is a pretty strong hint that definitions are irrelevant - it's just a list of valid words. My copy is ancient but still hefty enough to throw at your friend

@EricNolan "Good morning, that's a nice tnetennba"

Seems like an unnecessary rule unless you've agreed to "Bluff", If you are doing this, be sure to say beforehand that you are playing "Bluffer's Scrabble" or some such because you are not playing the agreed-upon game of "Scrabble". If you pulled this with me I would never play another game with you, ever. period. If you are playing competitively then I guess you can do whatever you can get away with, I mean people still try steroids I guess? Is it cool to "Bluff" at chess by moving a pawn if the other guy doesn't notice? It's certainly a strategy I suppose.

@BillK - That's an interesting perspective. Are you saying that it is unfair to play a word that I don't know the definition of? Or only if I reasonably know it to not be a valid word? The question does mention bluffing, so I think you are on to something here. You should write it up as an answer.

@DougDeden I'm saying it's unfair to make up words that sound like a good word (possibly having a made-up definition in place) to try to make your score better than an opponent that isn't playing by those rules. The rules are "Only dictionary words". Also since there is no cost to challenge, it would just make the game suck if I have to say "I challenge that" after every word you place because you are a known cheater. Plus what a pathetic jerk you'd be trying to beat someone that way--is it so important to you to win? To make me feel bad?

@xLeitix Years ago some friends and I actually created a Scrabble variant we called Convoluted Scrabble. The requirement was to invent a new word, which could not be an existing word, but had to look like it could be real. A definition had to be provided, and challenges were decided by popular vote. It was actually quite fun.

@BillK I think in competitive Scrabble there is a hefty cost on unsuccessful challenges - loss of next turn, as far as I know? So I guess in that environment bluffing is fair game, but it's certainly not the kind of game I sometimes play with my friends (there repeatedly getting caught making up words would get you thrown out).

@BillK, well, you're pretty much on point about why the very first answer I wrote said to talk it through with the friend. There are differences between the various Scrabble rules on that part, the Hasbro rules online basically say that whichever player was wrong, loses their next turn. But in essence, that rule also means that you can bluff if you're convinced no other player will not risk it. Now, if that rule makes for a fun game, I'll leave it to everyone to decide.

@user3153372, you could also just plain old ban all two-letter words ;)

@ikkachu Me? Oh, we on it. Ox is OK. Zo is no so OK.

@user3153372 That's an entirely reasonable way to study a game in order to try to get better at it. It's a good thing.

@xLeitix No, Scrabble already has a way for a player to call the opponent's bluff: challenging and the dictionary. If you think your opponent's play is invalid, challenge, and if all the words they made are in the dictionary, it's OK. Regardless of whether or not they or you know what they mean.