rbforster

My percentages were approximate - there were two 2♣ bidders (out of 25 votes), Carl Hudecek and David Berkowitz. Ruben was a minority doubler and Kokish chose 1NT. Right, it's still only 7 tricks even with 24 highs. Perhaps this is an argument for 1NT afterall - bid what you can make! You can even go down one in 2♥ as a good sac against their 1♠ making if partner has enough hearts to transfer you.

I was interested to read the results of a recent poll in the Bridge World's Master Solver's Club. The problem is repeated below: [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sjxxhaxdkqxxcakqx]133|100|Scoring: MP (1♠)-?[/hv] Despite having a 19 count, you have neither a stopper nor heart tolerance, so controlling the auction if you make the "normal" values double may be difficult since you can't bid NT later or raise hearts with only two. Of the experts, ~20% chose to double ~60% chose a "heavy" 15-18 NT overcall without a stopper ~20% chose a "heavy" pass(!), planning to show the minors later with 2N if possible and a stray vote or two for 2♣ with only a 4 card suit. If most of the experts are unwilling to double with a 19 count, how far does this go? What about even stronger hands with the same shape, like: 22 count? Jxx AQ KQJx AKQx 24 count? Jxx AJ AKQx AKQx The stronger your hand gets, the worse pass looks since 1♠ is increasingly likely to be passed out (and to be a reasonable place with a friendly spade break and most of the spade honors in opener's hand). Would people here choose to double with these better hands? Still any passers or 1NT'ers with so many extra values? Do we have any takers for a 4-4 "unusual" 2NT or a 3♠ stopper ask?

Hi Richard, I play 1♥-2♠ and 1♠-2NT (e.g. 1M-[2M+1]) as a "Compressed Jump Shift," featuring an unknown suit over my limited 5 card 1M openings. This is a little lower than your 1♥-2NT unknown jump shift, which would allow for more room/hand types. I play 1♥-2N and 1♠-3♣ (e.g. 1M-[2M+2]) as Jacoby, a balanced GF raise with 4+ trumps (opposite a 5cM opener). This is similar to your 2♠ limit+ raise, and I know people who like "Jacoby" as limit+ rather than GF so you could probably play it that way if you added appropriate range rebids by opener. Effectively, switch your 2♠ and 2NT responses to 1♥. Aside from minor issues from your 4 card major style, I think this "Compressed Jump Shift" could work well for you. The idea is to include most of the hands from playing Solloway strong jump shifts, specifically 1. A slam invite or better single suiter 2. A min GF with a 4+ card fit for opener's (5 card) major and a good side suit (at least 2/3 top 5+ suit, typically) The common theme here is that responder "knows" what the strain wants to be and wants to tell opener about his hand rather than inquire about opener's holdings. You might want to change the length requirements for responder so the degree fit stays the same. The compressed jump shifter has two pieces of information to convey to opener - which is his good suit, and whether or not he has support for opener (and if so, other shortness). The first relay by opener asks for the suit, the 2nd for support/shortness. In typical relay style, you "zoom" to answer the 2nd question when giving the highest (suit) answer to the first question. While the below bidding tree may seem daunting, the rules are simple. Responder bids his strong suit naturally first. Then if he bids it again or bids 3NT he shows the single suiter (rebid is non-solid vs 3NT for solid suit). If responder returns to opener's suit, he shows support and no shortness (and values are shown by "fast arrival" if both 3M and 4M are available at that point). If responder bids a 3rd suit (besides his strong suit and opener's major), he shows shortness in that suit and support for opener. 1♥-2♠ Various GF raises with a good side suit, or slam invitational+ one suiters ...2NT 1st relay by opener, asking for the unknown suit ......3♣ natural (and after 3♦ inquires further about support) ............3♥ support, no shortness, extras ............3♠ support, ♠ shortness ............3NT solid ♣s (no ♥ support) ............4♣ long non-solid clubs (no ♥ support) ............4♦ support, ♦ shortness ............4♥ support, no shortness, min GF ......3♦ natural (and after 3♥ inquires further about support) ............3♠ support, ♠ shortness ............3NT solid ♦s (no ♥ support) ............4♣ support, ♣ shortness ............4♦ long non-solid diamonds (no ♥ support) ............4♥ support, no shortness ......3♥ spades, ♥ support, no shortness, extras (see 4♥) ......3♠ spades, long and non-solid (and no ♥ support) ......3NT spades, solid (and no ♥ support) ......4♣ spades, ♥ support, ♣ shortness ......4♦ spades, ♥ support, ♦ shortness ......4♥ spades, ♥ support, no shortness, min GF (see 3♥) I play that opener can rarely break the first relay and make a natural bid 3♣♦♥ showing a very distributional hand (probably 6/5 two suiter or at least a good 7 card single suiter). In your case, you might have to think about whether these would/could show canape shapes as well.

Having thought a little more about this, I like the 2/1 NF idea for red suits, but 2♣ as natural F1 with the invitational and GF club hands (including 5/4+ 2 suiters with clubs and another possibly longer other suit). This seems good for a couple of reasons - 1) Opener is very likely to have club length opposite a 1NT forcing bid, and thus often rebid a natural 2♣. Responder then has a very efficient GF relay with 2♦, and both 2♥ and 3♥ will be available to describe the invitational and certain GF heart hands. The reason opener is likely to have clubs is that when responder isn't balanced, the only club hand responder can have is a weak signoff with long clubs (1♠-1NT-2X-3♣ to play). All other 1- and 2-suiters with invitational or better strength will have red suits since these corresponding hands with clubs would bid a direct 2♣. 2) Most of the hands bidding 1♠-2♣ will be GF'ing, meaning you can start your game/slam explorations at a lower level than if you had to go through a forcing NT and bid clubs naturally at the 3 level. Just reserve your 3♣ rebid as invitational, and keep opener's responses at or below 3♣ whenever he doesn't have extra values and everything should work out. 3) Separating the weak and invitational club hands (in 1NT and 2♣ respectively) means you can handle long club 2-suiters effectively (e.g. 4♥6+♣). The heart fit won't be lost since both auctions stay low initially (unlike playing 1♠-3♣ invitational) and allow opener a chance to show his hearts. This is nice since the 3♣ rebid in both sequences 1♠-1NT/2♣-2♥-3♣ can show different values based on whether the first bid was 1NT or 2♣. In normal 2/1, with 4♥6♣ you're stuck with either the weak or invitational strength on this shape since you have to start with a forcing NT but your 3♣ rebid is either weak or invitational (meaning it may be unsafe to bid 1NT in the first place if you've got the wrong one, or you'll have to fudge a 2NT invite with a very unbalanced hand). I'll have some time off work this coming week and maybe I'll see if I can't work something out for this in more detail.

Think of the set of hands that you want to include in 2♣... You can have a huge variety of hands in the 2♣ response and have it be nonforcing I'm thinking of a much wider range of hands than your 1(34)5 8-12 counts. Just imagine every hand in 2/1 that starts by bidding 1♠-2♣ for example. I'd consider possibly including all of these x xxx xxx KQJTxx (weak long clubs) x Kx Qxx AQJxxxx (invite with long good clubs) - Axx KQxx AKQxxxx (slam invitational with good clubs) Qx AQxx xx AKxxx (GF with clubs and a side suit) Kxx Ax Qxx KQxxx (GF with clubs and support) xx Axx AKxxx Qxx (GF with 3+ clubs but primary diamonds) x AQJxxxx Ax xxx (GF with 3+ clubs but primary hearts) Qx xxx AKJx KJxx (GF balanced, but with an unstopped suit) etc Basically long clubs from moderate strength up, any GF unbalanced hand with 3+♣s, or any GF balanced hand worried about an open suit for NT. Since 2♣ would be forcing and the weak options are willing to play 3♣, opener gets 5 rebids (2♦-3♣) to show aspects of his hand that will help clarify his shape/values and assist in determining the correct strain opposite a wide range of GF'ing hands. I'm not saying one should include ALL of these GF hands, but you could legally (since clubs is naturally bid) and might want to. Why? The reason I think this could be useful is that there isn't much space after you establish a GF when you go through the forcing NT since there are so many invitational and weakish hands to show. For example, let's suppose we have the auction 1♠-1NT(f)-2♦ natural. Responses will be something like Pass - weak semi-balanced, preference for ♦ 2♥ - artificial GF relay (not needed as weak since 2♥ direct was NF) 2♠ - weak semi-balanced, preference for ♠ 2NT - natural and invitational 3♣ - ? GF something special (since invitational club hands response 2♣ not 1NT) 3♦ - natural raise, invitational 3♥ - natural, invitational with long hearts 3♠ - 3 card invitational spade raise 3NT - natural, to play As you can see, there aren't too many "free" bids (shown in bold above) in response to opener's rebid available to show GF hands. You've got 3NT natural for appropriate balanced hands without extras, one relay bid with the cheapest new suit (which might be as high as 3♣), and maybe another 3 level bid or two depending on how cheap opener's rebid is. Trying to cram every unbalanced GF into either 1NT...3NT or 1NT...(GF relay) while still finding the right strain and level seems like a hard problem. Playing 1♠-2♣ as forcing can help with this. Under GCC 2♣ would either have to be one of: natural 3+ (could be any values), or GF values (could be any shape). Opponents often gripe at me for playing weird things, and I don't let this stop me certainly not when it's legal! :P Well if you're willing to play a system where you put almost all your GF's into 1NT forcing, I guarantee you'll have to remember a bunch of complex continuations. Those to 2♣ will be no different, but hopefully you can split the complexity between the two responses in a way that gets your hands described effectively without getting too high in either case. Obviously it makes no sense to have both 1NT and 2♣ serve as a "forcing NT" bid. I'm not sure what split of hands you ideally want between the two, but once I figure it out, I'd certainly be happy to explain it to the opps in as much detail as they want. Maybe 1NT = "forcing, could be GF'ing," or in more detail "forcing, including constructive semibalanced hands, single suited ♦ or ♥ invitations, 3 card limit raises, GF balanced, or GF ♥♦ two suiters". In contrast, 2♣ would be "3+ clubs, constructive or better values, many hand types," or in more detail "constructive+ values with long clubs, GF single suited in any suit, or any slam invitational or better hand with 3+ clubs." I actually think that the extra space you get from having 1NT forcing makes it the better choice for a forcing bid (even if it means you can't play in 1NT), but I think it's probably better to make both of them forcing to have more options for dialogue between partners during the bidding. In a midchart context, you could play Kaplan Interchange which might help some since it moves your legal "forcing NT" bid down one to 1♠ over 1♥ which might give enough extra space to work out all or at least more of the GF hand types. Playing 1♥-2♣ as NF makes a lot more sense than 1♠-2♣ NF, but that's for kind of complicated reasons (ask me if you care).

Win in hand, play a diamond up intending to play the J if LHO follows (setting up 6 diamonds, 2 spades and a club if the Q is off). If LHO shows out of diamonds, all is not lost. Win the A of diamonds and duck a club. Win the spade return on board and finesse the Q of clubs. If clubs are 3-2 with the K on side, you'll take 5 clubs, 2 diamonds, and 2 spades.

I agree with Adam on the practical nature of playing relays under GCC - if you can get the first bid in legally (via 1NT forcing, or 1♣-1♦ (all purpose forcing), etc), you can probably continue with an artificial ask on responder's next rebid without any trouble. I have been thinking about this issue as well, and tend to agree with Adam on this point as well. In some sense, I think that using 1M-2♣ NF is a "waste" of the whole bidding tree that can result from such a cheap bid that it probably makes sense to play it forcing at least 1 round. It seems like splitting some of the hands out of 1NT and into 2♣ could help separate things. To keep it simple, you might have among others a wide range of club hands bid 2♣ F1 instead of 1NT. This could easily include the weak and invitational long club hands (opener could bid an artificial 2♦ over 2♣ to show game interest), letting both of these hand types stop in 3♣. Like I said earlier, I think working out a good system after the 1M-1N... relays would the an important part of this, and once you see what things are problem hand types in those methods you could consider moving some of them to 2♣ (instead of 1N).

I have thought a fair bit about GCC systems similar to the one you describe, although I took a more 5-card-majors approach. A number of things occur to me, in no particular order. - I guess you're putting all the 5M332 hands into 1NT, and playing 1♣ as 15+ - is 1♠-2♥ also NF? It seems to fit the style of your system, but you left it out. There might be reasons for having 1♠-2♥ be GF or F1 instead though (emphasizing major suit game bidding), so I didn't want to take that for granted. Do you have in mind the standards for your 2/1 NF bids? If you wait for 6 card suits (or very good 5's), you won't have them come up much but to require less seems risky fit-wise. - As mentioned, I'm not sure the weak 2♦ opening helps your system much. The sequence 1♦-1M-2♦ is a little sounder I guess, but it seems reasonable to have it be wide ranging as a rebid and let responder invite if the extra 2♦ opening can help your system elsewhere. In a canape system, it's not like you have to worry about 4♥=5♦ hands getting stuck with a 2♦ rebid after 1♦-1♠. - when you say "2♥ both majors," which shapes are you including? All 5/4's or better, or only certain ones like 4=5 but not 5=4? What about ones with two card differences in suits, like 6=4 and 4=6? Since you're playing 2♥ currently as a real opening (not a preempt) with both majors, it might be worth giving up the NF nature of 2♥ and use 2♦ for the majors and play 2♥ similar to your 2♠ opening if that would be helpful. - Like you, I included the same 3 hand types into the forcing NT response to 1M when playing 2/1 NF (balanced constructive values, almost all invites without a fit, almost all GF's without a fit). I think you probably still want the constructive balanced hand to be able to correct to opener's original suit with a doubleton though, e.g. 1M-1N-2C-2M. - The potential canape major/minor hands seem like they will have some trouble stopping in the right strain after 1M-1N-2m. Even assuming a preference to 2M is allowed with the (semi)balanced 6-10 hand, opener could be anywhere from 4M=5m to 7M=4m. - If you want a relay asking bid after 1M-1N-2Y, I suggest the cheapest new suit. This will work fine together with your 2/1 NF responses. You may want to play 1♠-2♣ specifically as either invitational or (constructive to invitational). This will solve the problem of what your relay is after 1♠-1N-2♥, assuming you want 2♠ as a preference (and assuming the sequence showing both majors is possible given your 2♥ opening). more discussion here of this idea. - My understanding of 1♠-1NT(forcing)-2X(natural)-relay asking bid would probably be fine GCC*. I would alert the 1NT response as "forcing, denies a fit, could be GF" or something similar to distinguish it from the "normal" forcing NT which typically doesn't have many GF hands. - Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to see a good system for how you intend to handle the GF hands in the forcing NT. This is probably possible, but likely complicated. Like I said, I used similar methods and bid lots of hands using the cheapest new suit by responder as GF relay after the forcing NT, but the auctions got fairly tricky. It was certainly hard to find the 3=5 heart fit after 1♠-1N-2♦-2♥(art GF) and start cuebidding at any reasonable level, and that's not the worst sequence either. If you want to explore for slams too, trying to include aspects of both opener's shape and his value range (9-11 vs 12-14) in his responses to the relay get pretty tough with the limited space below 3NT. Good luck with your efforts! Feel free to drop me a PM/email if you want to discuss any other aspects of this type of system. * - by this I mean that in practice no one will care/complain if you play this, and that other popular existing systems do similar things (as you mention). I seriously doubt asking for a ruling from the ACBL will accomplish anything and at worst it would get them to prohibit something that would have been 99.5% playable without asking.

I went to the flight C NAOP's at least once (maybe twice, or maybe I'm confusing it with one of the GNT C's I went to). I think we got 7th maybe, in Reno? I found the field was decent but not particularly good. It was a place were there was little outright incompetence, but plenty of poor judgment. Playing well would still outscore the field, and we didn't try to take wildly anti-field actions (risky slams) unless we were pretty sure it was right. Unlike the others comments, I didn't recall encountering a lot of unusual systems - maybe the odd weak NT or something. We played 2/1 + overcall structure then, which put it in the fairly unusual category, systems-wise. I actually learned overcall structure specifically for my first NAOP event, where unusual systems catch inexperienced people unprepared and can lead to good results even more than you deserve. Playing a strong club in similar events later on, we got a lot less aggressive interference than one might expect, and plenty of pairs who would mindlessly pass throughout your strong relay auction.

All responses are allowed GCC to a strong (15+) opening. The only restriction, not limited to strong openings, is that you aren't supposed to start your relay system until opener's first (asking) rebid, which is easy enough to do with transfer positives or other similar methods. As a matter of practice, no one seems to know what the authors of the GCC meant by a relay system anyway (Stayman?) let alone in particular if a forcing 1♣-1♦ sequence starts one, so I'd say effectively you can play whatever you want over a strong club. (Aside - what you were thinking of Matt is that you can play arbitrary GF conventional responses to any opening (in contrast to a strong opening), but only a select few allowed conventions when you might have invitational or weaker values.) I can see that clarifying the values this way makes preemption more manageable over 1♣-1♦(GF), in contrast to say Adam's version where the GF and the double negative hands are combined into 1♦. Free - what are your methods for finding fits after the double negative sequence 1♣-1♠? How do you show very strong hands there?

It's not clear to me that the proposed 2♦ opening actually includes all the hands that would normally make a natural NF 2♦ rebid after 1♣-1♦. Wouldn't hands with 4M/5-6♦ normally rebid 2♦? These would have issues in the proposed 2♦ opener when partner takes a major suit preference (which might only be 3 cards) even if they have a "fit". Similarly, hands with both minors, say 5♦5♣ or 6♦5♣ normally make a 2♦ rebid after starting with 1♣. It seems like there are getting to be a wide range of strong hands in the 2♦ opening and it may become too difficult to separate them all effectively.

People's desire to bid with hands like this remind me of why I like to play 2 suited weak two bids. At least this way you have a system bid for hands like this, instead of fudging (a lot in this case) to open 1♦ or 1♠. I think many of the passers would make weak descriptive bid if it was available - 2♦ = 5+♦, 4+ major, 4-10 points Twice as likely as a weak 2 in diamonds, and safer in terms of finding law level fits too.

Well seeing the hands makes me want to bid 4♥, but before that I would only bid 3♥ by West. A slight underbid with 4 trumps maybe, but Q♠ looks to be wasted. As West I can tell that almost everyone else at the table is on minimum values for their bids (assuming ~12 pts for opening, ~12 for 2/1 overcall, ~6 for a 2♠ raise). In particular, this means South is likely close to a minimum for his 2♠ bid, which means he's likely to have exactly 3 spades since with 4 (and likely ♥ shortness since we've got 9+) he might have preempted 3♠. If South's got exactly 3 spades and I've only got 2, partner's fairly likely to have 2-3 spades. With a likely 2 quick spade losers I'm not wild about 4♥s - if somehow we only lose one spade trick it's because partner's got the A or K wasted opposite my short suit with our 5-6 HCP only producing a single spade trick. On minimum hands, I want to have a decent suit to overcall 2♥ with only a 5 card suit. Since West can see the KJ♥, he can pretty much place the A or Q♥, probably both, with East based on both length and suit quality concerns. Thus we're also likely to have duplicated heart values, which means more outside losers. I guess it depends if you're bidding 4♥ to make or as a bluff against 4♠. It might work as a bluff to push them too high, but this only works when they've got extra spades and heart shortness. When they've got extra spades my Q♠ is getting dropped and all our heart values are worth a single trick. Am I really that sure I want to try to push them to 4♠ under these conditions?

My initial impression was to hook the T♦ and finesse again in spades. Upon reflection though, we are only making when spades are 3-2 anyway. The cases that matter consistent with the first round of spades are LHO RHO ways comments Hx Hxx 6 (need 2nd finesse) Hxx Hx 6 (2nd finesse or play A) HH xxx 1 (play A) At this point it looks like slightly odds on to lay down the A♠ just in the spade suit (7:6). Together with the entry issue and that you can pitch your diamond on the long club if all goes well, I like playing the A much better. The diamond hook line seems much worse, almost as bad as a "practice finesse".

In retrospect, it seems like this hand will evaluate to be either very good or very bad depending on if partner has a fit for us. Unfortunately it's more likely partner will have a misfit for us with either hearts and diamonds, or just hearts. Passing initially (instead of 1♠) seems like a big position to take, especially at IMPs or when partner's could have a very good hand, since 4♠ or 3N could make with a spade or club fit respectively. Suppose partner's 1♥ opening had been a limited bid (in precision say 11-15 points). Would anyone be considering passing 1♥ then?

I remember reading about some jokers playing a "comic NT" overcall where 1NT was either any weak 2 bid or a real 1NT overcall. (I doubt it would be a good idea, but) I suppose if you're using power doubles you could switch to "comic power doubles" where you either have a weak 2 bid or 15+. In overcall structure and other systems with power doubles, you often don't have a weak 2 bid overcall available since that's usually a 2 suited bid of some sort.

I'm not particularly a fan of the precision 2♦ opening in general, but your idea seems ok. I was thinking about this issue at one point as well. Admittedly I was going to use the sequence 1♣-1♦-2♦ for something else (specifically in a 2 way club system, to show the weak option, a 3-suited hand with short clubs), but I thought about this issue of moving the 16-19 long diamond hands elsewhere to free up this 2♦ rebid. Rather than putting these hands in 2♦, I don't think it's too bad to put these into your precision 1♦ opening. If partner responses with 1M, you can have a 2N rebid show the strong 16-19 diamond hand while 3♦ shows a more typical precision jump based on playing strength and fewer points (~13-15). If you play 2N as forcing one round, you can still check back for 3 card major support with 3♣ in case opener has the strong diamond hand with awkward 3 card support.

Playing 2/1 or Std American, you respond 1♠ to partner's 1♥ opening. What's your call after partner's 2♦ rebid? [hv=d=&v=&s=st7xxxhxdxcak8xxx]133|100|1♥-1♠ 2♦-?[/hv]

What conventional uses of a direct double (of a natural 1 level suit bid) have you seen or heard of? For example - 1m-(X) 1M-(X) Years ago these were penalty and never came up. Now almost everyone plays these as takeout, except for those few of us playing overcall structure where we overcall 1NT for takeout and double with a 1NT overcall or a very strong hand. Has anyone seen any other meanings assigned to these doubles? I'm not saying takeout is a bad treatment, but then again, I bet nobody thought penalty doubles were a bad idea a long time ago either (and they weren't when they came up). Just trying to keep an open mind...

I disagree. If you already had a chance to make a takeout double of a suit, double at your second opportunity is logically penalty. On the second question, this is a 2 loser hand. As such, you might want to open it a strong 2C if your style permits. Alternatively, if you like to go with a one level opening, I'd go with 1C...2H, followed up with 3H (promising 5H/6C, C longer) and probably 4C over 3N showing 7/5 shape.

1C 4S 5D

To everyone aspiring to club slams after 1♦-1NT, might your fit be in diamonds and not clubs though? Wouldn't partner respond 1NT with something like Jxx Kxx QJxxx xx While I agree introducing spades seems unlikely to help after a 1NT response, partner's 7+ minor suit cards could be anywhere from 2-5 to 0-7.

A slow 3♥ should show this hand perfectly - mildly invitational with support :D

I'm pretty damn sure that encrypted bidding structures fall into this category. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the rules, and I expect almost everyone would agree with me. The primary purpose of a 5N encrypted king ask after a RKC sequence is to find out which king(s) partner has. Likewise the primary purpose of the encrypted shortness ask I suggested above is to find out partner's shortness. These are clearly very constructive methods, with a minor overlay of encryption to make things a little harder on the opponents' opening lead. I don't know all the conventions that have been banned under the rule you cite, but the only things I've heard of discussed in this context are things like agreeing to overcall 1♠ or 2♠ over a strong club opener, with all or almost all hands regardless of their spade holding. If that's the kind of thing it takes to get banned, I seriously doubt a constructive-but-encrypted slam try would come anywhere close to falling under this rule.

I'm just making this up. But you could play it if you want, and it's pretty simple as you can see. As to whether this is a good idea, that's a separate issue. In designing your major suit raises, you have to decide if you want to allocate 2 different bids to show essentially the same hand type (one with even # of trump honors, one with odd #). If you do, say 1♠-3N (unknown weak splinter, odd #) and 1♠-4♣ (unknown weak splinter, even #), you have to decide the relative value of the lost 4♣ response (say as a GF ♣ splinter) versus the benefit of the often encrypted auctions which make it harder on the opponents during the bidding and on opening lead as compared to a normal auction. I would guess that in most cases it doesn't make sense to use encryption since the cost of giving up a second useful response seems too high to me. However, if you play RKC Blackwood for example, you might as well encrypt the 5N king ask since you'll only do this when you've confirmed all the 5 key cards so you'll both know that your side has the AK of trump and you can use your trump AK parity to encrypt the further bids. For example, playing specific kings, you can hide which is your cheapest king through encryption, or if opener makes a grand slam try asking for a specific king that can be encrypted as well. Encrypted Drury is a reasonable alternative to regular 2-way Drury which I described in an earlier discussion. You are correct, at least regarding the rules in the US. The relevant section covering most encrypted bidding is this one -