rbforster

If you want to play a reasonably easy relay system, use the modern transfer-oriented symmetric relay responses to 1♣ strong, and play natural openings besides 1♣ (rather than transfer openings). 5 card majors and 2/1 for the rest of the system is fine. You'll probably have some luck finding at least a few other people who also know this and might play it with you.

One approach I used for a while is to keep the 1♥ purely relay (strong, 20+), and use 1♠ to show a non-strong 2-suiter. The simple version of this would be: 1♣-1♦: 1♥ art, any 20+ or equiv 1♠ min 5/4+ 2-suiter except both minors 1N 17-19, including 5M332 and 4441's 2♣♦ 5+ suits, unbal and limited 2♥♠ 6+ suits, unbal and limited 2N 5/5+ minors, limited Over 1♠ (I treatment I like), I use the following: P to play (weak long spades) 1N asking for the longer suit (major if equal), most invites 2♣ p/c for the cheapest suit 2♦ asking for longer major 2♥ to play (weak long hearts)

For all the times you find a lucky heart game, isn't it more likely that partner has a good hand with 6 spades (6-4 or even 6-3 in his suits) and will raise your 2♠ preference? There are lots of awkward strong hands playing standard and, as responder, showing your tolerance for opener's major suit seems like a very reasonable choice. I think I even remember a hand like: [hv=s=saqxxxxhaxdakxcxx]133|100|1♠-1N(f) 2♦-2♠ 3♠-4♠[/hv] where you don't really want to jump rebid to 3♠ without a good suit and soliciting partner's major preference seems very useful. I suppose I'd have raised 2♥ to 3♥, but then we're likely in the wrong strain and it's unclear if we get back to spades. I suppose I could believe that if partner was always going to pass (or pull to 2♠ with long spades), then maybe 2♥ is reasonable with a good 5 card suit. But we're sure of a 7 card fit in spades vs a 5 card one in hearts, so it seems like if game is still possible we should be showing the more likely fit rather than the less likely one.

Or for more fun, let the carding key be based on the parity of the first pip played by 3rd hand on the first trick. This way you can figure out if you want to play UDCA or standard for this hand and choose your pip accordingly :P.

Of course all of this is required for a normal Drury rebid by opener to be made uncontested. I agree we're talking about a less likely auction at this point, but I don't think that's a flaw in the methods, just that the methods apply to a somewhat unlikely situation. Consider a "slightly too weak to X" takeout of hearts hand in 4th chair: [hv=s=sqxxxhxxdajxckxxx]133|100|[/hv] After (P)-P-(1♥)-?, you judge to pass (or adjust the hand accordingly to be a maximum pass with takeout shape). The opponents continue: P-P-1♥-P 2♣*-P-2♥*-? If 2♣ is regular Drury and 2♥ shows a light opener, you are probably willing to double here, at least at some colors. However, if 2♣ is encrypted Drury and now 2♥ shows either a light opener with the A♥ or a balanced 11-13 with the K♥ (not interested in game), you're risking a lot more by doubling. Furthermore, you know that since you're the only one from your side with shortness, the auction will end in 2♥ if you don't double. Note that here the side wanting to bid hasn't really had more than it's initial opportunity to pass and this is clearly a much more difficult position for the 4th chair than normal Drury. All of this is not to say I don't agree with you that a natural 2/1 in a minor might not be better or that there's little value gained in the lead, but I just want to make the point that encryption can create harder bidding problems for other side even if it doesn't do anything else. Certainly the slam case is more clear, but I wouldn't typically lead a long or help suit bid by opener as a defender, and I would expect that if I lead it (by accident against a less informative auction) it would probably not work out as well as other choices. I certainly haven't done a rigorous study of this, but this is my impression. I agree that opportunities are not that common to apply encryption in competitive bidding, but the Rosencrypt double is a good example. Once you show a high honor in partner's suit, you can now encrypt your strong raise and your competitive raise during the bidding. Of course partner won't know if he doesn't hold the other honor, but he often will most of the time for his overcall. Perhaps if people knew more about the benefits of encryption, they would arrange to have bidding situations come up that show encrypted meanings.

...only 3 losers, after all. who says you need enough defense if partner doubles if they bid over your strong 2♣, you weren't sitting for it anyway.

Here's a link to my version of encrypted Drury, as I described previously. It shows how you can use encryption to both help conceal game tries, as well as to make it less clear whether a 3rd seat hand has opened light or not. Note in particular that the two "sign off sequences" that include the light opening hand could also be a sound opener showing a balanced minimum and declining partner's invitation. Balancer beware if you guess wrong which one opener has shown.

I agree. I believe this falls under playing the same system throughout the event. This precludes things like basing your bidding on the prior hand's outcome (at the last table) and other such things I think everyone agrees are not allowed. It's true you must allocate bidding space to attempting to establish a key. This may not be successful either, so space could be wasted. The efficiency of the bidding system however should include whatever advantages you gain from successful encryption, the probability of favorable leads or less good defense that might arise from giving away less information. Overall, I think that you're correct however that typically encryption will lead to a less efficient bidding system. That said, there are some opportunities (like Blackwood) where the costs are low or even zero and others where some bids didn't have useful meanings anyway so it's not a big cost to allocated some of those bids to attempting encryption. Typically you'll need a response, perhaps the cheapest step, to confirm that the key has been understood and initiate an encrypted dialogue. When the key fails to be understood ("I have the A or K", "I don't have the other"), now you can either revert to natural bidding, having lost a little space, or perhaps try again to re-establish a key. In addition, you will have told the defense (at least whichever holds the other honor) information that your partner won't have.

Sadly I see we've already got an example of how poor understanding and common misconceptions about encryption that lead these methods to be banned. Full disclosure does not require showing your opponents your hand - sometimes they can figure things out, and sometimes they can't and that's just how it is. 1♠-3♠-4♣-4♦...6♠ opp "What does 4♦ show?" me "cuebid showing A or K of diamonds" opp "Which? You must tell me if you have the other so I can lead the suit when you don't since I'll know my partner has it" How ridiculous is that? The bid shows one of two possibilities and if they can't figure it out by looking at their hand, too bad for them. This is exactly the same situation as the encryption examples: 4N-5♦ 5N-6♦ showing either (A♠+K♦) or (no A♠, but K♣) Again the response shows one of two possibilities. You give a full explanation of what the bid shows in your system, and if that information not helpful to them then that's not your problem. In fact, it's probably a sign that your system doesn't give away unnecessary information to aid the defense. Encryption is just a way of making this more likely. Two-way game tries are a similar example of reducing information given to the defense during the bidding: 1♠-2♠ 2N*-3x * what is the cheapest help suit you would accept? 4♠ Compare this with a "normal" auction where opener makes a natural bid showing values in a suit. The Kokish game try players are effectively hiding opener's hand. Are you going to demand that these players have opener reveal his best side suit to the defense just so they can know what not to lead because it offends your sense of fairness?

I believe the latter is the correct full explanation. They aren't entitled to know whether or not you have the Spade Ace, just like they don't get to know whether a RKC sequence showed 1 or 4 (even if asker can tell) or if an A-or-K cuebid was the ace or the king.

Yes. One of our regulars here asked the ACBL specifically about this and was surprised when they said that encrypted bids where allowed under GCC (subject to tempo and other conventional restrictions). There is nothing about encrypted bidding specifically being disallowed, and so long as you can make the conventional bid in question legally - such as a jump raise showing support (ala Bergen), a game forcing artificial response, or any constructive call starting with opener's first rebid - you're welcome to give it a try.

Asking a question where you can likely guess the answer among two possibilities is compression. However, it sets the ground for encryption after that since you can use as a key which possibility is shown. This was in my example about encrypted king asks where you start with RKC, confirm all the keycards, and then use who holds a particular ace to encrypt the answer the kings question.

In relay bidding, denial cue bids sometime group honor holdings like "AK or neither" or "AKQ or none", on the assumption that the strong hand can almost always tell which. You can then encrypt later responses to honor location based on if it was all or none. Combining this with keycard or similar alternatives to denial cuebidding for when opener has a wide open suit, and you could be pretty sure that your side would know what was being shown. Adam's example of first responses to a strong club could still have potential. Even if there are more possibilities, if you have responder show a likely one first (and opener can read it) you're off to a great start and can encrypt responder's side suit, etc. If opener can't read it, you've wasted a little space and the remainder of that auction will be less efficient. For example, 1♣-1♥ shows a 5+ major with 1 major ace 1♣-1♠ shows a 5+ major with 0/2 major aces After this, the cheapest step would confirm the encryption and relay for shape, while 2♣ could ask responder to transfer you to his major (and continue with an unencrypted auction 1-2 steps higher). Normally you show the major and then maybe which honors much later (main suit, side suit, exact shape, honors being a typical order). But if you show the honors earlier in the sequence you can sometimes encrypt the rest. In addition, right-siding is less of a concern during relays if you're not going to give away responder's hand during the bidding on the times where he'll end up being declarer. Another couple examples of encrypted bidding: 1. disciplined weak 2 bid (2/3 top), then 2N asks for an encrypted feature based on the missing honor (which responder will usually have). 2. 3N showing a solid minor suit, and then control or shortness asking bids are encrypted based on which minor (on the assumption the asker will have an A/K/Q in the other minor to know). Of course some of the defenders may also be able to figure this out if they also hold an honor in the other minor, but they might not be the one on lead.

That's correct. Bidding conventions aimed at setting up encryption aren't restricted any more than any other conventional raises or artificial calls, at least in the ACBL.

I've always been interested in applications of encryption to bridge and was recently reminded of this when I ran into Peter Winkler at the DC Nationals (who first introduced these approaches to bridge - see some articles here). He's got a new book coming out, Crypto-Bridge, and was even kind enough to give me a copy :). Anyway, this got me thinking about some of the opportunities for encryption in bridge, and I thought I'd offer a few and hopefully others could add their suggestions. Here are a couple examples in the bidding: 1. In an ace-or-king cue bidding situation (not cueing shortness), once your side cues a suit twice you encrypt you later actions based on who holds the A vs the K. 2. encrypted king ask, like specific kings after 4N blackwood/keycard followed by 5N asking for kings (and confirming all keycards), you vary how you show your kings based on who's got the A♠. 3. pairs of special raises, like Jacoby or Drury, where one raise promises 1 of the top 2 trumps. Then you follow this up with rotated game tries or cue bids if partner confirms holding the other top honor. 4. special doubles, like a Rosencrantz redouble (1m-1M-X-XX), showing Ax or Kx in partner's major, which is later used to encrypt good/bad actions in competition In general, you first need to establish a key, such as which of the top trump honors you hold, and once the key is established, you can then use it to encrypt your subsequent bidding so the opponents will have less of an idea what to lead. In some examples, like Blackwood-then-5N, you know for sure that a key is established; in other cases, such as when one person shows a top honor in support, their partner will often but not always have the other (since they bid the suit and showed some strength), which leads to a likely but not sure key. There are even more tricky examples, a few of which are mentioned in the new book. Recalling that generally an encrypted situation arises where your partner can tell based on his hand what the meaning of your bid is, but the opponents can't tell which of several possible meanings are shown since you aren't forced to disclose the contents of your hand. An example of this is a double based on length or shortness: 1M-P-1N-P 3M-P-P-X where X is either penalty (lots of length in their suit) or takeout (shortness). Partner is expected to look at his hand and figure out which, but the opponents (especially the 3M bidder) can't tell at the time of his bid. You could even extend this to a much more common situation like 1m-X where 1m showed 2+, and double shows 5+ or 2- in that suit. While applications of encryption to bidding are pretty rare and specialized, there are lots of applications of encryption to defensive carding. Unfortunately, unlike encrypted bidding (which is generally allowed), encrypted carding is largely not allowed. Examples of encryped carding include: 1. against 3N, lead 3rd/5th from a good hand but 4th from a weak one. Figure the opps have 25 points, and your hand is "good" if you've got 8+ (more than half of the at most 15 remaining for your side). Declarer will often not be able to read the lead until much later in the hand, and your partner will be able to read it immediately (at in cases where the contract is in danger). Since many hold-up plays and blocking plays require guessing the correct layout to play for at T1 or T2, declarer may be at a disadvantage until too late. 2. leading standard or upside-down attitude against a suit contract based on trump parity, when declarer has shown a known trump length (like a stayman auction or a weak two opening). Upon seeing dummy, partner knows how many trump you have, but declarer can't figure it out until he draws trump. 3. when declarer ruffs in hand, you and your partner know who holds the smallest card remaining in that suit. all further signals, like attitude and count, are standard or UDCA based on who holds this smallest card (and you don't discard it unless you have to). If you can think of other ways to apply encryption to bridge, feel free to share them. I know some of these methods are getting forgotten since the regulators have banned them for years now, but hopefully some of the senior member can share examples from back when these were still being played in high level competitions.

about 20ish I think. More clear in the second case, where you've got a hand just strong enough to X and then bid a new suit. In the first case, you're showing a stronger NT than a direct overcall (15-18), although I suppose you aren't forced to bid over the 2♥ call so maybe that's got some additional inferences.

Edit: This was back when South hand has a stiff A♣, sorta assumed a 7th spade... I think with the extra club loser, I would probably just settle for 6♠, despite reasonable chances for the overtrick. Playing 2/1, 1N-4♥ 15-17, Texas 4♠-4N keycard 5♣-5N 0/3 (known to be 3), specific K ask 6♠-7♠ none, punt The grand is on opener covering the heart loser, and even with a minimum he'll have need a couple of quacks on top of his known 12 points in aces that make the grand on a finesse at worst. Either red queen makes it cold, and there are finesse chances with any red jack (including a favorable opening lead), setting up a long suit (diamonds here), maybe a ruffing finesse in clubs, etc. Playing my strong club relay system (and updated the for 13th card), 1♣-1♥ 16+, 4+ ♠ unbal 1♠-2♣ relay, long spades 2♦-3♥ relay, 6322 shape 4♣-4N RKC♠, 2+Q 5♣-5N ♥ control ask, King 6♣-6N ♦ control ask, King 7N-P Once you know about the red kings, North knows the grand is on spades coming in and might as well play in NT.

Other: 2♥ showing 4+ spades, 5+ diamonds and a reasonable overcall in strength :) 2♠ would be a similar hand with spades and clubs. With a weak two style spade hand, overcall 1, 3 or pass.

Ah, so with 5/4 either way or 4/4 majors they open a destructive 2♥, while with 5/5 majors (or 5/5 hearts+minor) they open 2♣. I guess that makes sense. 2♣ is a more constructive bid rather than destructive (and also is a much bigger gamble to pass).

Regarding your 2♠ showing clubs, I'm not quite sure about the followups. In particular, if under your scheme: 1N-2♠-2N any max, or min with diamond preference 1N-2♠-3♣ min with club preference I think you're not really able to sort out the "1-suited club invite" properly when opener has an acceptance. Responder will basically have to bid 3♣ over a 2N rebid by opener regardless, and now opener can't safely bid on since this could be a 1-suited signoff. My preference is to use something similar, but just have opener's 2N=♦, 3♣=♣ without regard to strength, and thereafter bidding 3m by responder is to play. This means 2♠ works well to show both minors weak or GF, as well as weak 1-suited minor signoffs. My standard strong NT system of choice is currently: 2♠ 1 or both minors weak, or 5/4+ minors GF (opener bids 2N with diamond pref, 3♣ with club) 2N natural invite 3m 1 suited invite with a good suit 3♥ 5/5 majors invite 3♠ 5/5 majors GF

These are their opening weak twos. I disagree. If you infer that they're opening 2♥ with both majors, 2♣ is really hearts & a minor. As such, responder can gamble to pass it whenever his hand has short hearts and he thinks opener has clubs or 2♣ won't go down enough undoubled. This is pretty much like 2♥ multi - there's a 50-50 chance opener will have clubs. Of course it's not quite as bad as 2♥ multi since hearts are a possible strain and maybe half the time responder will preference to 2♥ and not leave the opponents with a difficult guess regarding the minor.

Simple answer: you could use 3♦ to show both card majors (or have 3♣ and 3♦ show 1 vs 2 somehow). However, I feel that Puppet in general gives away too much information in the auction which helps the defense (especially after opener bids 3N denying either 4cM). Now you've told the defense to lead a major even when responder may be as short as 1=3 in the majors and was just checking for that rare 5-3 fit. Correspondingly, you might consider using the extra space to reverse the question and have opener ask rather than tell. 1N-2N has interest in playing in a major if opener has the right 4-5 major Now rather than have opener show, you have opener ask for a fit. There's even space to ask for an unstopped suit in case you're nervous. Here's a more detailed scheme: 3♣: do you have any unstopped suits (pick your shortest/weakest if several) .....3♦ either major ...........3♥ which? ................3♠ hearts ................3N spades .....3♥ clubs .....3♠ diamonds .....3N none, this should be easy! (Note the above scheme will never give the opponents a chance to double for lead of the weak suit shown.) 3♦: how many spades do you have? .......3♥ 4 (transfer) ...............3♠ also 4 hearts? ........................3N no ........................4♥ yes .......3♠ 2 or fewer .......3N 3 3♥: how many hearts do you have? .......3♠ 2 or fewer .......3N 3 3♠: do you have 4 hearts? .......3N no, <4 .......4♦ yes 4 (transfer) 3N: I'm not interested in looking for an alternative major game This is only one example, but manages to get almost all the major games right-side - only when responder has 4=4 majors and opener has 4 hearts (and not 4 spades) does responder declare. I've also arranged this scheme so that it's rare that responder will go past 3N in answering the questions. Consequently, there's lots of room for opener to ask questions about responder's length and then ignore the answer if he wants to be tricky on his way to 3N ;).

many small VP matches - the format of choice for those who are getting blitzed and want to go home early. for everyone who's still playing for the match, there's total IMPs.

Overcall 2♦: a1) ♦AKT9x ♥AJ9x ♠xx ♣xx; a3) ♦AKT9x ♥AJ9x ♠xxx ♣x b1) ♦KQJxx ♥JTxx ♣Ax ♠xx b3) ♦KQJxx ♥JTxx ♣A ♠xxx Double (and pass 2♣): a2) ♦AKT9x ♥AJ9x ♠x ♣xxx b2) ♦KQJxx ♥JTxx ♣Axx ♠x c3) ♦KTxxx ♥KQJx ♠A ♣JTx Pass (maybe compete later): c1) ♦KTxxx ♥KQJx ♠AJT ♣x c2) ♦KTxxx ♥KQJx ♠AT ♣Jx