Flame

Free, i dont understand you. You have this habbit of posting not to the point on my threads, i took it as a joke when you talked about the 4433 hand on an example i gave and stuff like that, but now i think its just that you dont give me any credit, i can live with it, since you dont know me, but i think i have the right to tell you that i wouldnt have post this if the system that he wanted to play was 2+c,4+d,5+M, i also gave an example that with 6 card diamond he asked me to open 1cl. I hope this wont be deleted because its better to say things as they are.

You really might want to learn something about encryption before offering these types of explanations. The example that you propose has NOTHING to do with encrypted bidding structures as they are "traditionally" understood. The example that you propose is one in which the security of the system depends on mental laziness on the part of the opponents. In contrast an encypted signalling system is one which depends on a hidden "key" that is shared between two players. The security of the system rests on the security of the key. The Bridge World offers the following examples: Encrypted call (sometimes Encrypted auction) a call that is encrypted by agreement. [Example: North-South agree that a two-notrump response to a major-suit opening is a game-forcing raise promising either the ace or king of trumps but not both, and that opener's new-suit rebid shows a short suit when responder has the ace of trumps or a long suit when repsonder has the king of trumps. Opener's new-suit rebid is encrypted, because it can be deciphered only by a player who holds or later discovers the location of the ace or king of spades. Note that, under this agreement, opener might well choose not to use a new-suit rebid when he lacked both top spades.] Encrypted signal a defensive card-play signal that is encrypted by agreement. [Example: East-West agree that when declarer first shows out of a suit in which the defenders' distribution is not clear by the end of that trick, future East-West fundamental signal meanings will be determined by Plan A (high encourages, high even, high suit-preference for high suit) when West has the defenders' lowest remaining card in that suit, or by Plan B (low encourages, low even, low suit-preference for high suit) when East has that card. Should such a situation arise, East-West's later signals are encrypted, because they can be deciphered only by someone who knows or later discovers the location of that lowest card.] You are wrong about my knowlege of encryption. What you say is that a key should be something that is known only to the partnership and not to the opponents like the placement of the A/K in our hands. I agree with you that it would be much better to use this kind of key. What i didnt understand is are those 2 examples you mentioned forbidden ? I still believe that we already play some sorts of encpyption that we just didnt think about before. example is a convention which was common before RKB, 4nt was asking for aces and the answers were : 5c = 0-4 5d :1-3 5h: 2 aces of the same color , 5sp= 2 aces of different color. saying 2 aces of same color is same as saying: the key is the A of spade, if you got it a bid of 5h shows the A of club, if you dont have the key A, then 5h shows the A of diamond and A of heart. are 0/3 1/4 in rkb considered encrypted ? i think they are.

If he played that i wouldnt post here.

read part 1 and it looks very nice. In general i realy dont like the idea of making bids to full your oponents, and prefer to do good myself rather then have them go wrong, for this resson i prefer natural systems, I dont psyc, and prempt to our own total trump , and stuff like this. But i think those idea mentioned here are not about deseption, and shurly not about giving up our accuricy inorder to kill thiers, we get to deliver more information and as a byproduct also give the opponents less info. I agree with forbidding encrypted bids/play if those are ment to take undvantage of the opponents less ability in encryption, for example, if my partner and i will a lead of a card that if you multiple it by 7 add 22 and divide by 6 you get a number with X.y and if the y is less then 5 its enc while if its higher then 5 its discarage, now we will memorized the numbers or have an easy way to calculate it while the opponents wont, this is oviously shouldnt be alowed, but when the encryption is one that opponents can analyse at the table with no special problem like, if there is an A in trump on the table then we signal attitude, and if there is no A of trump at the table we signal count, this should be allowed.

6♠ is a better contract. I wouldnt reach it. the only way i see to get there is by bidding 2sp rather then 3cl, this could be done if your system is flexiable enough that partner would accept a bid like 6d as a final contract. setting spades as trumps with 2 spade, put you in a good spot for checking slams, since the cards you miss are clubs and heart controlls and the KQ of spades. The other way i thought about first, is bidding 4nt after the 4c which should imo be for spades (since can make a forcing bid for diamond and cant make one for spades) however i dont see how you can ask for aces when you dont have the suits controlled.

I played with a guy named devir_bg from bulgaria. He insisted on playing that an opening of 1cl deny 5 card major and also denying 3 card clubs, i had 6 diamonds and 4 clubs and he wanted me to open 1 club with it. We had a languege comunication problem and i couldnt understand if this is a known system, he insisted that if i will just think a little i will understand that its ovious that 1d should deny 3 clubs, unfortunetly i am not talented enough to see the logic behind this after a little thinking. might have something to do with the name "fr bidding" which he keep saying when he made wired bids lol.

Gijsh and I play Ambra. You can find our last version (if Gijsh have updated it) on Gijsh's site. AMBRA and more beside that you can find version 1.5 in italian on the italian version of Davide site AMBRA 1.5 italian our version is based on those two versions with some changes of ourselfs. we still change it alot.

Hi Thxs for the comments , i figured someone did that before. what exactly in the WBF rules forbid this ? I see mostly rules about openings. WBF system policy

This is as far as i know a new concept which i'm proude to share with you This method was inspired by the serious vs not serious discussion here. Using this concept you manage to squeeze more information into your bid and therefore free other bids for other meanings (for example you will not need a serious or non serious 3nt) a secondary advantage is keeping the opponents in the dark giving them unsprecific information. The idea works when we investigation for a goal which needed two items. with one lack of one of the items the goal shouldnt be reached The best way to explain how it works is through examples. I'll give 3 examples example one : 2/1 GF with fit found Goal is slam item 1: strength item 2: control of a suit both players are unlimited squence: 1sp 2H 3H this is were usually a 3nt serious/non serious is used. a cue bid shows either serious with no control in the suit or non serious with a control in the suit. since the cue bidder an not have both the suit control and extra streagh, his partner with lack of any of them can see that no slam exist and therefore will continue to slam only when he got both the conditions himfelf, meaning both having extra streagh and having a controll in the suit from here on the bidding take common sense and i will avoid the continuation to save space for other examples example two: inverted minor Goal: alternative game , 5 of a minor of a 4-3 fit major item 1: strength (5 minor and 4/3 major fit ,take more strength to make then 3nt) item 2: a non stoped suit (if the suits are stoped we want to be in 3nt) squence : 1C- 2C a cue bid shows either a stoper in the suit and extra strength or a non stoped suit with minimun hand partner will bid 3nt whenever he got a minimum hand or with a stoper in the suit, only with extra and no stoper he will keep checking for other games. again continuation is logic and wont be discussed here. example three: Major raize Goal: Major game items one : strength for game item two : no unblocked suit (or watever you want to check in your suits) 1sp - 1sp A cue bid shows either extra strength with losers in the suit, or no extra with good suit. partner with minimum or with losers in the suit will close in 3sp with extra and some stop in the suit will continue to 4sp. like with simple cue bidding there are alway an Implications by not choosing a different bids. if you are having problems rmemebering what the cue bidder shows, its easiest to remember that the cue bidder partner will only reach to the goal when he got both items himself, lacking one of the items he will settle down for the non goal bid.

Thxs. I guess you are right.

As far as i know (scoring is one of my weak spots) when making imp results its normal to exclude some extreme results of both sides for the avarage calculation, for example not calculate the best and worth result for NS. I noticed that this isnt done in BBO, and i think its a mistake, especially on a field of large veraity of players level with many pickuped partnerships, there are times when an extreme result ruin the results in all other tables. sometime its a bridge stupidity like a redouble contract down alot, but sometime it can even be a non bridge like when opponents both leave a table and the couple who left claim all tricks and no one is there to reject the claim. I think its best to exclude X% of the results.

Very good point chris, i didnt think about it before, and now i have much more confident that the non serious way is better.

Mike i think you are laying to yourself here, trying to find excuses and missing the point. All three hands i gave you have 4 card fit, all have about the same streagh and all have no problem loosing 2 fast tricks (meaning no cue bidding will help much here) what distinguege this hand is the playing tricks avaliable from the club suit on the first hand and not on the other 2 which you wont find in system of showing shortage or cuer bidding.

Hi misho The point in the examples is to deliver a message, its best understand when you see an example, and those examples were ment to show why it is importent for the opener to know about a good 5 card side suit, which is a source of tricks. From my expirence bidding slams is done best when you amagine or sometimes know where are the tricks going to come from, this is extremly true when talking about grands. counting tricks is easier when partner show his suit. You can see many rookies bid slams after checking they got the necassary controls, so they are right , they dont have 2 quick losers, but sadly they dont have 12 winners either. for a slam you need a source of tricks. In modern style cue bidding and other non natural bidding are used after a major suit fit is found, i play like that too, but i am not certain its better then a natural way. example 1sp-2sp-4c maybe this can be better to show a 5-5 hand then for splinter as most play it?

Hey Ben what do you think my suggested method from the previous page, can it work ?

I wouldnt blame the 5sp bidder i think he got his bid, the 4sp is more of a question since his hand isnt too ofensive, the A of spade and Qs of minors are defensive values, and doublton heart isnt good either, maybe its better to bid this as a 4 card supprt at the 3 level.

I totally agree with you, there are better used to the 3nt when atleast one of the players is limited, even the natural choice of game can work especially at MP.

Ben I can agree with you that if what needed is for the weak hand to show a controll so that the strong hand will know what to do then you are right and serious 3NT is supiriour, however i dont know if thats true, i reffer to cue bid as cooperation by both players, not one saying where is controll and the other one know what to do, for this type of investigation there are asking bids. Now you may be right, i dont know, but you might consider this approach. using non serious 3nt, and asking bids. 1sp - 3sp 3nt = non serious 4x asking bid of this suit. this way when you are strong and you usually want to know about one thing in partner hand you will learn more this way then the cue bidding way, while when you are weak you will bid 3nt. after non serious 3nt there could be two choices either simple cue bidding, or you might think asking bid is better. i would say cue bidding will be better now. in general cue bidding is good when both hands are strong and have something to say, while asking bids are better when one hand is stronger and can ask about what it's looking for. what do you think ?

These hands are getting worse every time! These days partner can have a 4-3-3-4 distribution, as well as a 4-3-4-4... :( :D lol i changed it so many times. ill corect.

I gave you this example when i was declarering in 3nt (down 1) so it wasnt the best example, but still ill bid 7 here which will have lots of chances. Lets try another example: KXXXXX AX AX KQX vs AQXX XX XX AJXXX my bidding - 1sp - 2c 2sp - 3sp 4nt - 5sp == two aces + the Q of trump 7sp == counting to 13 now you show me how you bid this to 7sp after 2nt. when you do that remember that partner can have AQXX QXX QXX AXX when you can only take 11 tricks. or can have AQXX KQX QXXX XX again only 11 tricks here sry for changing this post so many time, Ben you probebly seen another version of this.

if you open 1sp holding KXXXX X AKXX KJX parner responde 2c you rebid 2d and partner 2sp. now even without a sefisticated slam bidding ,you can RKB and if p have AQ of spade and 2 aces you can bid 7, counting 13 tricks. now show me how you do that after 2nt.

Just one more thing, the LTTC idea isnt a sub idea of the serious 3nt. Its a general cue bidding idea called cue bidding squeeze. for example 1sp -3sp- 4d- 4h is showing ther club control rather then the heart one

Ben i didnt say that playing non serious 3nt will always lead to better cue bidding process, what i did say and you just emphsis it, is that a good cue bidding process is one that begin as low as possible, and the process will be better if the first cue bidder will accidently happend to be the one with the club cue bid. this is basicly exactly what you have showed. and like i said when you are strong there is more chance that you hold the club cue then when you are weak.

Dont forget 7c score is much higher then 6sp. Its hard to calculate which one is better 7c or 6sp, because to do that you should know the chances for right lead, and the bids at the other tables (this is needed for MP) but I think 7c is better, surly in imp and probebly also in MP

Ben you gave a good example for the resson i gave before. look at your bid 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠ 4♥ 4NT 5♣ 6♠ Pass your cue bid processing was very weak regarding the amount of imformation extanged, now lets see this with non serious 3nt 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠ 3NT 4♣ 4♥ more information passed in the process. now lets take the K of club from responder and put it in opener's hand the bidding with serious 3NT: 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠ 3NT 4♦ 4♥ = LTTC doesnt say anything about the heart suit just about the club suit an with non serious 3NT 1♠ 2♦ 2♠ 3♠ 4♣ 4♦ 4♥ = since we already bid the club controll we dont have to spare 4H to show it.