[kfay]

Ran into a problem last night with this hand:

Scoring: MP

1♠-3NT*
4♣**-4♦***

---

*Weak anonymous splinter
** Asking
*** ?

Third or fourth time playing with this partner but we'd never had this sequence. I assumed 4♦ showed short clubs and he thought it showed short diamonds (4♠ showing clubs).

Any arguments for why one method would be better than the other?

What do you do on this hand if partner is actually showing short clubs?

[pclayton]

Usually I see that 4♦ = ♦, 4♥ = ♥ and 4♠ = the suit we can't show, i.e., ♣'s.

Like Justin I would say its whatever easiest.

[kfay]

That's what I thought. The guy that I played with last night blew up when I said that to me 4♦ showed ♣ shortness. I thought about it and eventually said 'well why does it matter?' To me it makes the most sense the way that Justin described but I can totally understand why he would play the other way.

[skjaeran]

Like Justin I always prefer step answers (low/middle/high) in positions like these. I know several players who prefers showing the suit bid (shortness here, lenght in other similar positions) and the last step/trumps to show the suit that can't be shown 'naturally'.

Both ways are equally logical, you'll just have to find out what's logical for your partnership. If you can't agree on what's logical one of you have to accept to play parnter's logic.

[kenrexford]

This is such a bizarre question.

Here's a similar one:

We agreed to play that 3♣ is a relay to 3♦, after which partner will describe what he has. So, after I completed the relay (3♦), he bid 3♥. Is that (a.) natural, (b.) a short suit from a 4-by-1, (c.) a minor two-suiter with short hearts, or (d.) both majors? What do you think?

Maybe discuss anonymous splinters before playing anonymous splinters.

[ArtK78]

I have always played it as ♦=diamonds; ♥=hearts and ♠=clubs.

However, there is a reason for playing it in steps.

If you play it in steps, you are not bidding the short suit. Therefore, it is less likely that the opponent can double to suggest a sacrifice.

[cherdano]

I agree with Ken.

[Echognome]

I've always called them unknown, rather than anonymous, but bleh, it's just nomenclature.

I have played them as LMH (like Harald), but with any of my relay partners they are always HML (because everything else is HML). I have also played them as 4M = the one we can't show (which turns out being MHL!). You could obviously do any of the six permutations and it wouldn't really matter as long as you both agree and both remember.

[jdonn]

This is an issue on which partnerships should make a philosophy to always use either LMH or substitution for the one you can't bid (or something else like HML), and stick with it on all such auctions (weak splinters, short suit game tries like 1♠ 2♠ 2NT 3♣ __, certain response structures after jacoby 2NT where some bid shows any shortness, etc.) While I think LMH is technically superior, I really can't believe you would assume it undiscussed, to me it seems obvious that with no agreement it would be the suit you bid.

[Tomi2]

one argument for "up the line" would be, if you had a sequence like:
1NT - 2♦ - 2♠ - ? (2♠ is agreed as aking for exact shape)
2NT = 5 clubs, next step asking for exact shape
3♣ = 5 dias, next step..

gives you equal place to discover - what ever you agreed after the relays - keycards, controls etc. before you reach the slam in this suit, while

2nt = dias
3♣ = clubs

gives you more spade for bidding with dias and less with clubs, i think the first way is better.


but the negative is, that you very often will forget that a bid in a suit shows another in situations that you did not discuss, so you need to be concentrated on every non natural sequence. this one you gave is one, my example is one, ask for specifig kings is one, ask for shortnes if you play this is one, ok thats clear, but what about a sequence, where you found a heart fit and bid 3♥ that is agreed as "slaminterest, asking for cuebids", would 3♠ then be a ♣cuebid?
i can imagine, there are lots of sequences, that do not appear that often, where one player will think "this is natural, it cant be one of the up-the-line ones" and the other will think "its not natural..." or one will forget about playing up-the-line

on other aspect for me, and that was always most important for me, is that I have huge problems to count the steps and make no mistakes. I do not know why, but it takes me a lot of time, to think about what bid means what and what possible bids were not bid, so what does partner have and what does he not have.

for example: after 4NT blackwood I somehow learned fast, that 5♣ is 0/3 keycards and so on, but then I started playing kickback and I mus say, I really hate it, because I find it very hard to give the correct answer or to read partners answer while seeing a bid in a suit that means "i have that shortnes, I have that King etc." is no problem for me.


Is there anybody out there, who has a similar problem?

One thing, that I think both types of pdships must agree: if a answer "none" is possible, what step does it get:

2♥ = weak two - 2♠ ask for single, if you respond "natural", is
2nt = no single
3♥ = spade single or the other way round

for "up-the-line" players the question isis "no" the first or the last step

[han]

Echognome, on Sep 21 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

I've always called them unknown, rather than anonymous, but bleh, it's just nomenclature.

Agree with Matt, but I have always called them undisclosed. That's perhaps a bad term because it suggests that I know what splinter partner has but I just won't tell the opponents.

Anyway, I agree with Ken, this question should be asked before you decide to play it. Partner blowing up is completely unreasonable.

I also prefer to play low/middle/high, I find it easier to remember.

[BillHiggin]

Hannie, on Sep 21 2007, 08:11 PM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 21 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

I've always called them unknown, rather than anonymous, but bleh, it's just nomenclature.

Agree with Matt, but I have always called them undisclosed. That's perhaps a bad term because it suggests that I know what splinter partner has but I just won't tell the opponents.

Anyway, I agree with Ken, this question should be asked before you decide to play it. Partner blowing up is completely unreasonable.

I also prefer to play low/middle/high, I find it easier to remember.

Ambiguous splinter does not contain the negative connotations.

As for the "standard rebids". The best thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from (I know this should be attributed to someone, just do not know who).

[david_c]

Hannie, on Sep 22 2007, 02:11 AM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 21 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

I've always called them unknown, rather than anonymous, but bleh, it's just nomenclature.

Agree with Matt, but I have always called them undisclosed. That's perhaps a bad term because it suggests that I know what splinter partner has but I just won't tell the opponents.

It's unspecified.

[rbforster]

Hannie, on Sep 21 2007, 08:11 PM, said:

I have always called them undisclosed. That's perhaps a bad term because it suggests that I know what splinter partner has but I just won't tell the opponents. 

That would be an encrypted splinter, like 1♠-3NT* showing the A or K of trump (only 1) and unknown shortness. Now when opener asks with 4♣, you respond in your favorite way, but differently depending on if you high honor is the A or K (bid your version of "normal" with A, and cycle the suits up one with the K). For example

1♠ - 3N (weak splinter, unknown shortness, exactly one of A or K♠) - 4♣ (asking) -

4♦ - ♦ shortness (A), or ♥ shortness (K)
4♥ - ♥ shortness (A), or ♣ shortness (K)
4♠ - ♣ shortness (A), or ♦ shortness (K)

Opener, if he's interested in slam opposite a weak splinter, will often have the other high trump honor, allowing him to correctly interpret the response. It will also make it harder for the opponents to double to suggest a sacrifice, since at most one of the opponents (if they have the other high honor) will know which suit the splinter refers to. Even if doubler has it, his partner won't know.

[han]

Does anybody play that or are you making this up?

[hrothgar]

As far as I understand, so-called encrypted bidding methods are (essentially) theoretical.

The methods were proposed as a possible treatment at least 20 years ago and promptly outlawed at virtually everywhere. I don't know of any real world examples of players using encrypted bidding.

To some extent this might reflect questions related to practicality: How often do you and partner have the opportunity to pass a key to one another? I've always considered the methods to be an amusing aside and never had much interest in using them.

[matmat]

hrothgar, on Sep 22 2007, 01:03 PM, said:

As far as I understand, so-called encrypted bidding methods are (essentially) theoretical.

The methods were proposed as a possible treatment at least 20 years ago and promptly outlawed at virtually everywhere. I don't know of any real world examples of players using encrypted bidding.

To some extent this might reflect questions related to practicality: How often do you and partner have the opportunity to pass a key to one another? I've always considered the methods to be an amusing aside and never had much interest in using them.

i was under the impression that encrypted defensive signaling was outlawed, but encrypted bidding was not.

[neilkaz]

pclayton, on Sep 21 2007, 03:13 PM, said:

Usually I see that 4♦ = ♦, 4♥ = ♥ and 4♠ = the suit we can't show, i.e., ♣'s.

Like Justin I would say its whatever easiest.

That's all I've ever seen or played. But as we see, there are other methods.

[rbforster]

Hannie, on Sep 22 2007, 12:58 PM, said:

Does anybody play that or are you making this up?

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.

matmat, on Sep 22 2007, 01:11 PM, said:

i was under the impression that encrypted defensive signaling was outlawed, but encrypted bidding was not.

You are correct, at least regarding the rules in the US. The relevant section covering most encrypted bidding is this one -

ACBL General Convention Chart said:

"ALLOWED"
"Responses and Rebids"
"7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opener's second call."