EricK

Encrypted signals are where the precise meaning of a signal depends on a piece of information that only the defence know. eg If your lead style is 4th highest if you have an even number of trumps and 3rd & 5th if you have an odd number, then whenever both sides know opener's exact length in trumps (eg he's opened a weak 2, or they've had a relay auction), both defenders know whether the opening lead is 4th highest or 3rd & 5th, but the declarer doesn't (at least until he's drawn trumps). When it comes to agreements about signalling, bridge, it seems to me, is largely a game of trust. You ask the opps what their signalling agreements are and they are expected to tell the truth and you are expected to believe them. So before encrypted signals were made illegal, the answer to number 3 was that they told you that they were playing them. Now they are illegal, of course, you won't be told they are playing them! But the rest of your questions really apply to any system of signalling. How do you know if they are actually using it? Suppose a pair say they play their small cards at random (with the plausible sounding justification that signals, on average, might help declarer more than the defense). This is practically indistinguishable from a set of encrypted signals.

Using 3♣ to show the weak minor two-suiter is probably better than using 2NT (as LHO doesn't have a "free" double to show general values). That, of course, leaves you what to do with a weak ♣ single suiter. Is the following structure allowed? Is it any good? 2NT = pre-empt in either minor 3♣ = minor two suiter 3♦ = pre-empt in either major 3♥ = major two-suiter 3♠ = any solid suit nothing outside (right-siding the gambling 3NT) 3NT = 4-level pre-empt in either minor 4♣,4♦/4♥,♠ = strong/weak 4 level major pre-empts It seems quite logical, so probably isn't original (and seems to have drifted way off topic!)

What would 3♠ instead of 2♠ mean? What would 2NT instead of 3♣ mean? In a GF sequence, one or other player should have some way of giving their slam suitability early on. Maybe instead of a non-serious 3NT you could play non-serious 2NT in this sort of sequence.

Surely if there is any doubt from West's point of view whether he should reopen it is about whether partner's marked 10 or so points are mainly in ♦ or mainly outside. Does the question clear this up?

Hasn't East got exactly what West would expect with or without the question? West has 10 points, South is a passed hand, North opened a weak 2.

With this shape and a singleton honour, it seems fine to risk a 1♣ opening. There is a slight risk of missing a makable game if partner doesn't respond and neither opponent bids, but not only will it prevent us getting too high if partner is broke, it also might make it easier for us to find a slam in one of our suits (especially ♣).

I don't really like 1NT with so much strength in the minors. Put some honours in the majors and 1NT looks a lot better. I don't like the agreement you have for a double of 2♣ (showing the majors). I think it is best played as showing balance of strength and the ability to penalise at least one of their suits. Once North has chosen 1NT and South has been forced, systemically, to pass, then North is stuck on the second round as partner could have nothing. South has then been railroaded into doubling because he was unable to make the "balance of strength" double on the first round. And North is now on a total guess as he doesn't feel able to introduce a new suit at the 4 level with no guarantee of support opposite, but he hasn't got enough in ♥ to pass or bid 3NT. North's opening (even if I think it is a bad bid) can't really be blamed for the disaster, though, as he would have been in exactly the same position if he'd had the ♠Q intead of the ♣Q - and then there is no real alternative to opening 1NT. But then South was stuck due to the defensive system chosen. So probably it is your competitive agreements which are to blame.

I think we're all agreed that the South hand is too strong for 4♠. But is the ♥ shortage more important news than the 4 ♦ tricks? I realise not everyone plays them, but my first thoughts were that South should start with a fit jump of 4[diamonds.

Are you mistaking "non-forcing" for "sign-off" or some such? A bid can be non-forcing without being weak - it just means partner can pass with a minimum. A non-forcing reverse is not (necessarily) a "weak bid that sounds strong", but could very well be a "strong bid which sounds (to some) very strong". And I don't know how these are regulated anywhere. As an aside, if responder has a partially mis-fitting 5 or 6 count opposite a "normal" reverse (eg ♠Qxxxx ♥xxx ♦Kxxx ♣J on the bidding sequence 1♣ 1♠ 2♥), what are the chances of game? It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to bail out into a playable part score at a low-level (especially at MP). It doesn't even seem unreasonable for this to be systemic, especially bearing in mind that when partner is strong he is likely to be at the bottom end of his range. So I'm not convinced that such a bid deserves to be ridiculed.

There are two questions: Is 1♠ forcing? If it isn't, should you pass? Most pairs (I think), play 1♠ as non-forcing. Opener is meant to jump if he has 18+ points. Personally, I prefer to play 1♠ as forcing in principle but responder is allowed to pass if he made a sub-minimum response for some tactical reason. That having been said, I think this is a clear raise even if 1♠ is NF. This hand is much better than a minimum response in support of ♠. So my main reason to bid is to tell partner what I've got!

I have just come across Larry Cohen's rule for opening marginal hands in 4th seat: Forget the rule of 15. If you have a borderline opening in 4th seat, evaluate your opponents. If they are much better than you, pass it out; if you are much better than they, open.

To me that is only evidence that he intended to call for a heart and believed he called for heart. There is also the evidence that neither of the opponent nor dummy seems to have heard him call for a heart, and all acted as if they heard him call for a club. At least where I play, if dummy played a card which declarer hadn't stated, there would be some indication from the opponents - either voluntary or involuntary - that something was amiss. Declarer must have been looking somewhere at the time dummy played the ♣. If it wasn't at the table, and wasn't at either opponent, where was it? And surely he would have to look at the table when RHO played a card? Why didn't he spot dummy's error then? The evidence suggests to me that it was declarer who had a major lapse of concentration.

Doesn't the vulnerability put you off? Don't you need more than 6/6.5 playing tricks for a 4 level vulnerable pre-empt?

If the bidding had gone 1♥ (P) 2♥ (P), I can't imagine any South staying out of game. Even if the 2♥ in a competitive auction doesn't promise quite as much, after North freely rebids 3♥, South just has to bid game IMO. Personally, I think South has a 4♥ bid on the second round, as North really ought to have something for his raise, either in ♣ or ♠, either of which must be useful.

I open 3♣ and pass 3NT. In general, if I am not prepared to pass 3NT, then I don't open at the 3 level.

Isn't it the "job" of the person short in ♣ to bid? i.e do we expect partner to balance with a middling hands with 3♣ (eg 4423)?

It depends whether you are happy to risk playing a 4/3 or 5/2 fit at the 2 level when you have the balance of the points. Most 4252 hands will find an 8 card fit most of the time, and a seven card fit the rest of the time. With a 4351 hand the odds of finding an 8 card fit are even higher, I'd have thought.

I would have thought that people who play it as takeout will be guaranteeing 4♠ (and not enough strength to reverse). They will also be prepared for any response from partner if he doesn't also have ♠.

It doesn't strike me as fair that when a pair who plays a "frequent alert" system is up against a pair who plays a system which is basically natural, the former gets the whole auction time to think about the hand, and plan the defence etc, whereas the latter, if they don't ask about alerted bids as they go along, have to wait until the end, and have to try to assimilate all the information from the auction in one go.

How strong do you need to be to make a free bid of 2♠ here, with no guaranteed fit? Would you make it on say a 15 point 4-1-5-3 hand? Or a 16 point 4-2-5-2 hand?

So are you bidding 5♣, or are you bidding 6♣ - but very reluctantly?

I would open 4♠. I would like to open 1NT to see what happens, but I never have the nerve. Maybe my New Year's resolution should be to "pluck up the courage" more often.

On each hand, the double dummy play is to take the ♥ finesse, because, even if it loses, the computer sees that on every hand it can pick up the ♦ (double dummy). It is only later in the play, when it actually has to play a ♦ that it "realises" that it doesn't know where the ♦Q is

Why is it bidding 3♠ at all? If it gave preference at the 3 level, it wouldn't feel the need later to guess to do it at the 5 level.

In many books on cardplay there's a hand where you have, say, ♥AQ ♦AJ2 opposite ♥32 ♦KT3 with ♠ trumps, and the correct play is to draw trumps eliminate ♣, then play ♥A followed by ♥Q, and thus throw the opposition in and so pick up the ♦Q. Are there any computer bridge programs which are capable of finding this sort of play? My understanding is that they approach each cardplay decision by dealing out various hands consistent with the bidding and play to date and working out what works most often double dummy. If that is so, won't they always see the ♥ finesse as a free shot at an overtrick, because they assume they will always pick up the ♦? If there are any which get this right, how do they do it?