[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...

Quote

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...