Anonymous Weak Splinter

[hrothgar]

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.

Spare me the crap: There are plenty of mechanism's to identify a specific King that don't require encrypted bidding.

 

The reason that one encrypts a bidding sequence is to deprive the opponent's the ability to know which set of defensive methods they should applying.

 

You can play stupid little word games, but no one with a modicum of sense is going to believe anything different. (BTW, your claims that you play encrypted methods for constructive purposes are especially dubious when you state things like the following in your post on encrypted drury:

Personally I prefer to use 2♣ and 2♦ as encrypted drury, designed to confuse my opponents while still being constructive.

 

regardless, no need to trust me on this one: Drop a line to Memphis. Let us know if they agree with you....

 

(They won't)

[hrothgar]

We play king-ask responses showing either either the king bid or the two others. Dono if thats encrypted bidding but its legal. Coded signals are not legal (never understood why, and how one can define coded signals, but thats another issue).

 

There are also the Polish doubles, showing length or shortness in the enemy suit. Sounds like encrypted bidding as well.

Neither of these are examples of encrypted bidding: Encrypted bidding has a specific definition that hinges on the application of a two stage process

 

The first stage involves transmitting a key from one of the partnership to the other.

 

The second stage involves using that key to encrypt the meaning of subsequent bids.

 

I'm attaching a quote from Rob F where he describes his encrypted drury method (Please note that this method matches the definition that I provide. The first stage is bidding either 2♣ or ♦ which transmits the key - whether responder holds 0, 1, or 2 top spade honors. The second stage is a series of bids whose meaning depends on the number of Spades that are held...)

 

Personally I prefer to use 2♣ and 2♦ as encrypted drury, designed to confuse my opponents while still being constructive. Taking spades as an example,

 

1♠ - whenever light in 3rd seat, must have A or K of trump

1♠ - 2♣ - Drury with exactly one of the A or K of trump

1♠ - 2♦ - Drury with either both or neither of the AK in trump

 

After the 2♣ response, often opener will have the other honor - either since he is weak and must have it, or if sound, will often have it. In those cases, the game tries and signoffs can be encrypted so the opponents won't know what is going on (and in cases where we aren't sure, we revert to normal methods).

 

After 1♠ - 2♣ :

 

2♠ - light signoff (with A) or balanced minimum (with K)

2♦ - light signoff (with K) or balanced minimum (with A) or any sound hand (with neither)

2N - encrypted 2-way game try (responder shows cheapest help suit with A, cheapest missing help suit with K)

3♣♦♥ - encrypted short suit game try in suit bid (with A) or in next higher suit (with K)

 

Multi - meaning bids where everyone at the table has an equal chance to understand whats going on aren't encrypted.

[hrothgar]

I'm with Rob and Helene on this one. I think you are grossly misinterpreting this rule with regard to the treatment in question Richard.

Helene's examples have nothing to do with encrypted bidding (see my earlier post)

 

If you had half a clue about the topic being discussed you'd understand this. So please excuse me if I'm not especially impressed by a completely uninformed opinion...

[awm]

A number of relay methods in fact use encryption (although they don't state it thus). For example, in symmetric relay:

 

1♣(1) - 3♦(2)

3♥(3) - 3NT(4)

4♣(3) - 4♦(5)

4♥(3) - 5♣(6)

 

(1) Strong artificial

(2) 3-1-5-4 shape

(3) Relay

(4) 13+ hcp and 3 controls

(5) Either both the ♦AK or neither. This is the key exchange; presumably opener's strong hand is likely to contain one or more of the ♦AK when responder has neither, so opener can usually tell which possibility is in force.

(6) If responder holds neither top diamond then this shows one top club, one top spade, and no diamond queen. Typical might be ♠KQx ♥x ♦JTxxx ♣AQJx. On the other hand, If responder has both top diamonds then all controls have been located and the scan immediately moves to queens. This then shows the diamond queen, the club queen, but no spade queen. Typical might be ♠Jxx ♥x ♦AKQxx ♣QJxx.

 

Note that even if opener couldn't decipher the key after 4♦, there is a good chance he can figure out the meaning of 5♣. It's certainly possible that the opponents (one or both) can decipher this bidding as well, but the overall strength of the auction makes it less likely that opponents hold the relevent high cards.

[hrothgar]

A number of relay methods in fact use encryption (although they don't state it thus). For example, in symmetric relay:

 

1♣(1) - 3♦(2)

3♥(3) - 3NT(4)

4♣(3) - 4♦(5)

4♥(3) - 5♣(6)

 

(1) Strong artificial

(2) 3-1-5-4 shape

(3) Relay

(4) 13+ hcp and 3 controls

(5) Either both the ♦AK or neither. This is the key exchange; presumably opener's strong hand is likely to contain one or more of the ♦AK when responder has neither, so opener can usually tell which possibility is in force.

(6) If responder holds neither top diamond then this shows one top club, one top spade, and no diamond queen. Typical might be ♠KQx ♥x ♦JTxxx ♣AQJx. On the other hand, If responder has both top diamonds then all controls have been located and the scan immediately moves to queens. This then shows the diamond queen, the club queen, but no spade queen. Typical might be ♠Jxx ♥x ♦AKQxx ♣QJxx.

 

Note that even if opener couldn't decipher the key after 4♦, there is a good chance he can figure out the meaning of 5♣. It's certainly possible that the opponents (one or both) can decipher this bidding as well, but the overall strength of the auction makes it less likely that opponents hold the relevent high cards.

I hadn't seen that before: (Its cute)

 

This is one of the first encrypted examples that I've seen that I might like to build into a system.

[awm]

The above example is pretty typical of symmetric relay, I know a number of people who play such agreements in acbl events. I'm pretty sure no director would really have a problem with it.

 

I suspect the league policy on encrypted bidding is that while there's no rule that would seem to disallow it they will still probably rule it illegal based on "I know it when I see it" kind of reasoning. The de facto rules on the ground frequently bear little resemblence to a literal reading of the convention charts.

 

Note that a literal reading of the convention charts would also disallow a standard american 1NT response to a 1♦ opening (which does not guarantee a balanced hand). Obviously there's a gap between what the charts say and what the rules are. Some of this is cleared up via "secret" memos from Memphis to regional-level directors, the rest is just directors' discretion.

[jdonn]

If you had half a clue about the topic being discussed you'd understand this. So please excuse me if I'm not especially impressed by a completely uninformed opinion...

And what exactly makes you think I don't have half a clue about the topic being discussed? Because I haven't insulted everyone who disagrees with me like you do? Sorry I'll try harder to impress you.

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I posted the following on David Stevenson's Bridge Talk forums.

 

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=3225

 

I have the question about the legality of Encrypted Bidding techniques within the ACBL (Anyone who isn't familiar with Encrypted Bidding might want to consult the following article on David Stevenson's web site http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_lnks.htm#genpwkl1 )

 

I have seen some claims that encrypted bidding is legal in ACBL land at the GCC level. The proponents of this point of view cite the clause authorizing

 

8. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the Opener's First Call.

 

My own interpretation is that encrypted bidding is not authorized. Its unclear to me whether this type of bidding technique can appropriated be deemed constructive. I would even go so far as to argue that encrypted bididng might fall afoul of the claus banning

 

1. Conventions and /or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponent's methods.

 

Anyone know for sure what the deal is?

[cherdano]

Why did you post on bridgetalk? I thought this is crystal clear and everyone who thinks otherwise is worth insulting?

[hrothgar]

Why did you post on bridgetalk? I thought this is crystal clear and everyone who thinks otherwise is worth insulting?

I posted this to Bridge Talk for much the same reason that I proposed that Rob contact the ACBL. I believe that this is a fairly obvious question. It is my hope that bringing in some folks with some real qualification to rule on these issues will shut down ill informed assertions.

 

BTW, I will readily admit that my posting style can be quite acerbic at times. What I find remarkable is that you and Josh can take offense at anything like this. You both (regularly) act like first rate ass holes. I don't see where you get complaining about anyone else's behavior.

[Free]

(back to topic)

 

I like 2 methods:

- keep it simple: bid natural, 4♠ is the suit you can't bid

- a suit shows shortness in the next suit (4♦ = ♥ shortness, 4♥ = ♣ shortness, 4♠ = ♦ shortness). This has the advantage that partner can relay relatively low by bidding the shortness suit, to investigate if you have void or singleton. Most optimal in this situation obviously is 1♠-3NT-4♣-4♦-4♥-...

 

Showing shortness in another way seems pretty useless to me, although I've played similar methods in the past.

[cherdano]

Why did you post on bridgetalk? I thought this is crystal clear and everyone who thinks otherwise is worth insulting?

I posted this to Bridge Talk for much the same reason that I proposed that Rob contact the ACBL. I believe that this is a fairly obvious question. It is my hope that bringing in some folks with some real qualification to rule on these issues will shut down ill informed assertions.

 

BTW, I will readily admit that my posting style can be quite acerbic at times. What I find remarkable is that you and Josh can take offense at anything like this. You both (regularly) act like first rate ass holes. I don't see where you get complaining about anyone else's behavior.

Actually while I don't exactly like your posting style I can live with it. I was more making the point that I find it quite suprising that you think this issue is clear-cut, given that

1. ACBL regs never mention encrypted bidding anywhere, and

2. even s.th. like the legality of a 2S opening that "is exactly 5 spades, never 4 hearts, unbalanced" seems to lead to confusion in Memphis.

[jdonn]

Why did you post on bridgetalk? I thought this is crystal clear and everyone who thinks otherwise is worth insulting?

I posted this to Bridge Talk for much the same reason that I proposed that Rob contact the ACBL. I believe that this is a fairly obvious question. It is my hope that bringing in some folks with some real qualification to rule on these issues will shut down ill informed assertions.

 

BTW, I will readily admit that my posting style can be quite acerbic at times. What I find remarkable is that you and Josh can take offense at anything like this. You both (regularly) act like first rate ass holes. I don't see where you get complaining about anyone else's behavior.

I search and search and search through my posts, and yet I can't find a single time I called anyone an asshole (streak about to be broken 30 seconds from now.) And all because I disagreed with you!

 

If not having 'half a clue' was a reason to attack someone I could easily tear apart the vast majority of posts you make about bridge hands, yet somehow I manage to refrain. The times I have said something I regret to someone, I either apologized, or refrained from discussing the topic any further. This is an excellent way to avoid looking like even more of a jerk, as well as to salvage whatever dignity remains.

 

Proof I have half a clue about the topic: Et-gay a-way ife-lay asshole-way.

 

See, encryption is easy!

[awm]

To go back to the original topic, if I hadn't discussed followups to the splinter bid, I'm sure I would assume that you bid the suit you're short in. This is the closest analog to the way virtually everyone plays splinters (i.e. if 1♠-4♦ would be diamond splinter, then 1♠-3nt-4♣-4♦ is the other range diamond splinter).

 

Obviously you can agree whatever you want and consistency with the rest of the system should take priority (i.e. if you use H/M/L or L/M/H in other auctions then you should do the same here).

[Fluffy]

what about going over 4♣?

 

If you had 4♥ avaible as showing your own shortness if would be so wonderful on the given deal.

[Gerben42]

Anyway your partnership should have a METARULE for dealing with such structures. Either you say "natural if possible" then 4♦ shows ♦-shortness, or "up the line", in which case 4♦ shows ♣ shortness, or what I used to play for shortnesses

 

"up the line but never natural", which means up the line but in case of 1♥ - 3♠ - 3N, 4♣ shows ♦ shortness... (4♦ for ♠, 4♥ for ♣)

[hrothgar]

I also sent the following to rulings@acbl.org (I should probably stop bugging them with oddball questions given that I'm playing in the occasional ACBL event once more and will [likely] need to bug them with real question).

 

The example that I used to illustrated encrypted bidding was taken from the articles on David Stevenson's home page. I hope that folks won't find this example controversial (I was aiming for an example that was as simple as possible)

 

I'll let you know if I hear anything back...

 

Hello

 

I have a question regarding the legality of so-called "encrypted"

bidding methods. More specifically, can such methods be used in ACBL

events at either the GCC or the Midchart level?

 

For the purpose of this discussion, lets focus on the following

(specific) example.

 

My partnership uses the auction 1S – 2N to show a limit raise+ with

either the Ace of King of trumps (but not both). (I think that it's

clear that this 2NT bid is perfectly legal at the GCC level) Here's

where things get a bit more complicated:

 

Following the 2NT bid, the partnership defines

 

3D = A long suit game try if the 2NT bidder holds the Ace of trumps, but a short suit game try if the 2NT bidder holds the King of trumps

 

3H = A long suit game try if the 2NT bidder holds the Ace of trumps, but a short suit game try if the 2NT bidder holds the King of trumps

 

A argument has been made that this type of agreement is legal at the GCC level.

 

The GCC explicitly permits

 

"7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opener's second call."

 

I am curious whether this clause extends to the 3D and 3H rebids that I just described.

 

If encrypted bidding is not legal, would it be possible to get a brief explanation why clause 7 does not apply.

 

Thanks much

[hrothgar]

I just heard back from Rulings@ACBL about encrypted bidding: Please see the previous posting for a description of the original question.

 

Apparantly I was 100% wrong. Rulings@ACBL.org has stated that Encrypted Bidding is legal at the GCC level. There is obviously a big cavaet about being able to maintain tempo, however, the methods themselves are sanctioned.

 

I am (genuinely) shocked. I would have assumed that the constructive / destructive distinction to have come into play...

 

Richard,

 

Sorry for the delay. Mike and I have been talking about your original message. As a theoretical question it would appear these methods are all GCC legal. As a practical matter we find them to be nearly unplayable.

 

We think there are some tempo issues here when partner does not hold the exact requirements for the response he wished to make. Hence, deviations would be clear to partner based on the tempo problem.

 

What do we bid after partner opens 1S and we held T9876-AKJ-AK4-QT ? Wouldn't we like to make a forcing raise in spades?

And to make a limit raise+ what if we held T9876-KJT-AK4-T9?

 

Too, such specific agreements may have extensions to handle the lack of some specific holding. When do we get to know about those?

 

That last question was rhetorical, as we have neither the time nor the manpower to enter into extended discussions on these issues. We hope this brief response proves helpful. Too, we encourage you to renew your ACBL membership.

 

Rick Beye for Mike Flader

 

Its unclear how the comments about negative inferences regarding bids not made impact some of Ken Rexford's discussions about cue bidding...