[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

agree with Nigel, and hope people start using encrypted bids. great way of getting around disclosure in the few cases where opening lead is critical, and finding out which king is missing after seeing dummy is too late. And when it goes into use, I will have the following auction:

1NT* alerted as 15-17, unless our last board at the previous table was a N/S hand, in which case it shows 12-14. The opponents have not yet played that board, so they do not get to know. they can guess, based on their holdings, so everything is OK.

Aquahombre...

Postings like you last do nothing but expose your own, rather startling, level of ignorance. I strongly recommend that you try to get at least a passing familiarity with the topics being discussed before any proceeding any further.

[aguahombre]

hrothgar, on Aug 18 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

agree with Nigel, and hope people start using encrypted bids.  great way of getting around disclosure in the few cases where opening lead is critical, and finding out which king is missing after seeing dummy is too late.  And when it goes into use, I will have the following auction:

1NT* alerted as 15-17, unless our last board at the previous table was a N/S hand, in which case it shows 12-14.  The opponents have not yet played that board, so they do not get to know. they can guess, based on their holdings, so everything is OK.

Aquahombre...

Postings like you last do nothing but expose your own, rather startling, level of ignorance. I strongly recommend that you try to get at least a passing familiarity with the topics being discussed before any proceeding any further.

while I agree with most of your contributions, I don't understand the attack, when I already admitted ignorance to the reasoning behind encrypted bidding, and can only conclude that the reason is to beat disclosure. If someone can explain how it is benefitial to use the method and why their failure to disclose what they showed partner is all in good faith, then, I will be content. Your entry does not do that.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 11:53 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 18 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

agree with Nigel, and hope people start using encrypted bids.  great way of getting around disclosure in the few cases where opening lead is critical, and finding out which king is missing after seeing dummy is too late.  And when it goes into use, I will have the following auction:

1NT* alerted as 15-17, unless our last board at the previous table was a N/S hand, in which case it shows 12-14.  The opponents have not yet played that board, so they do not get to know. they can guess, based on their holdings, so everything is OK.

Aquahombre...

Postings like you last do nothing but expose your own, rather startling, level of ignorance. I strongly recommend that you try to get at least a passing familiarity with the topics being discussed before any proceeding any further.

while I agree with most of your contributions, I don't understand the attack, when I already admitted ignorance to the reasoning behind encrypted bidding, and can only conclude that the reason is to beat disclosure. If someone can explain how it is benefitial to use the method and why their failure to disclose what they showed partner is all in good faith, then, I will be content. Your entry does not do that.

The point is that the disclosure is encrypted and unless you have the key you cannot decipher it.

As I said earlier proper disclosure would be say after ...

4NT 5♦
5NT 6♦

Both ♠A and ♦K OR no ♠A and ♣K

Until the opponent's learn who has the ♠A they cannot determine who has the ♦K or vice-verca.

This could be crucial as you might wish to lead through the king or ace in dummy but not around to the honour if it is held by declarer.

It is full disclosure it is just less useful information for the defenders. It is not less useful for the bidding side since they have the key - they know who has the ♠A.

Similarly in card play. An encrypted agreement after declarer ruffs the opening lead might be standard with an odd number of cards in the suit ruffed and UDCA with an even number of cards.

This can be fully disclosed. Say spades were ruffed. Then High-Low means even total number of spades and diamonds (or whatever suit is relevant) and Low-High means an odd total number of spades and diamonds.

Again declarer has full information - disclosure is complete. It is just that the information is not so useful. Declarer often doesn't care about the spades but may well care about the diamonds.

Why these card play conventions are illegal does not make any sense to me.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 02:53 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 18 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 02:26 AM, said:

agree with Nigel, and hope people start using encrypted bids.  great way of getting around disclosure in the few cases where opening lead is critical, and finding out which king is missing after seeing dummy is too late.  And when it goes into use, I will have the following auction:

1NT* alerted as 15-17, unless our last board at the previous table was a N/S hand, in which case it shows 12-14.  The opponents have not yet played that board, so they do not get to know. they can guess, based on their holdings, so everything is OK.

Aquahombre...

Postings like you last do nothing but expose your own, rather startling, level of ignorance. I strongly recommend that you try to get at least a passing familiarity with the topics being discussed before any proceeding any further.

while I agree with most of your contributions, I don't understand the attack, when I already admitted ignorance to the reasoning behind encrypted bidding, and can only conclude that the reason is to beat disclosure. If someone can explain how it is benefitial to use the method and why their failure to disclose what they showed partner is all in good faith, then, I will be content. Your entry does not do that.

I have two (major) issues with your previous posting

1. You clearly don't under how encrypted bidding actually work; none the less you decided to post a very opinionated post.

If you don't understand what people are discussing then, by all means, feel free to ask questions.

If you do understand what's being discussed then, its perfectly reasonable to offer an opinion.

If you don't understand the basics of the topic being discussed AND you decide to offer a strongly worded opinion you should expect to get called on it.

For future reference no one who advocates encrypted bidding has ever suggested that the "key" can be based on the final contract from the previous round. If you observe, ALL of the discussions in this thread have used examples in which they key is based on the cards that one membership of the partnership holds on this specific hand. Moreover, all of the discussions involve inference: Under what circumstances can the members of the partnership infer the value that the key takes.

2. You really might want to be more careful before throwing around terms like "beat disclosure". There is a very significant difference between

Failing to disclose your methods
Designing methods that do not leak information

I'll point you back to the following exchange between you and Rob

Quote

Quote

A question based on my ignorance: When, after the auction is over, you are explaining it to the opponents, do you say "6D showed the club king"? Do you say, "6D showed the club King if I have the Spade Ace, and the Diamond King if I don't."?

I believe the latter is the correct full explanation.

In what way is Rob failing to disclose his methods?

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on Aug 18 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

The point is that the disclosure is encrypted and unless you have the key you cannot decipher it.

This could be crucial as you might wish to lead through the king or ace in dummy but not around to the honour if it is held by declarer.

It is full disclosure it is just less useful information for the defenders.  It is not less useful for the bidding side since they have the key - they know who has the ♠A.

Now that is helpful....confirming that the whole idea is to beat the system (full disclosure), not to improve slam bidding. I am no longer ignorant.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 12:32 PM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 18 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

The point is that the disclosure is encrypted and unless you have the key you cannot decipher it.

This could be crucial as you might wish to lead through the king or ace in dummy but not around to the honour if it is held by declarer.

It is full disclosure it is just less useful information for the defenders.  It is not less useful for the bidding side since they have the key - they know who has the ♠A.

Now that is helpful....confirming that the whole idea is to beat the system (full disclosure), not to improve slam bidding. I am no longer ignorant.

That is a twist.

It is full disclosure it is just that the information we are choosing to exchange is more useful to our side than it is to the opponents.

Everyone practices or attempts to practice this. e.g. we don't determinedly give count when we judge that it is more benefit to the opponents than it is to partner.

This is just another tool to that same end.

[Mbodell]

One simple place for encryption that I've used is a form of 2-way drury where 2♣ shows a limit raise with 1 of the top 2 trump and 2♦ shows a limit raise with 0 or 2 of the top trump. Over 2♣ you can encrypt your game tries based on who has the A and who has the K (our simple rule was the person with the A bids "normally" while the person with the K reverses normal in a sort of 2-way shortness or length try). You can use 2♦ over 2♣ to say I don't have the other top card and want to make a "normal" game try non-encrypted. You can also decide to try the encrypted tries over the 2♦ initial response on the theory that it is rare that both players are missing both top honors.

Overall I'd say it is a net loss in that a natural nf 2♣ or 2♦ might be better, but it is fun.

It isn't about trying to get around full disclosure. It is about trying to not leak information. There is a difference as opponents are entitled to our agreements, understanding, and style issues. They are not entitled to what is in my hand.

[Cascade]

Drury a net loss - why am I not surprised?

[rbforster]

aguahombre, on Aug 18 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

I am no longer ignorant.

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?

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 03:32 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 18 2009, 07:19 PM, said:

The point is that the disclosure is encrypted and unless you have the key you cannot decipher it.

This could be crucial as you might wish to lead through the king or ace in dummy but not around to the honour if it is held by declarer.

It is full disclosure it is just less useful information for the defenders.  It is not less useful for the bidding side since they have the key - they know who has the ♠A.

Now that is helpful....confirming that the whole idea is to beat the system (full disclosure), not to improve slam bidding. I am no longer ignorant.

Huh...

My reaction is that you are still quite ignorant and showing genuine signs of stupidity.

Disclosure has a very specific meaning. There is a fundamental difference between

1. Disclosing your agreements
2. Describing the contents of your hand

You don't seem to grok the difference.

If you frame your discussion in terms of "minimizing the amount of information disclosed to the opponents" rather than "beat disclosure" your posts probably won't get quite as vocal responses.

[akhare]

aguahombre, on Aug 18 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

Now that is helpful....confirming that the whole idea is to beat the system (full disclosure), not to improve slam bidding. I am no longer ignorant.

Hmm..., there's a huge difference between "hiding information" and "hidden agreements / hidden methods".

In this case, the methods (the encryption algorithm if you will) are being completely disclosed to the opps, but the information that's encrypted (or specifically the key used to encrypt the information) isn't.

Consider the following hypothetical relay auction:

1S - 1N* - 2C - 2♦* .... 6♦ * = relay

In effect, responder has skillfully used relays to improve slam bidding and has effectively obfuscated his own hand. Basically, at the end of the auction you have absolutely no information about declarer's hand.

The methods being discussed here are just an extension of the information obfuscation principle. As before, the methods themselves (relays, etc.) are being completely disclosed, the information that's transmitted isn't.

If you look around, you will find numerous instances of conventions tailored to obfuscate information and this is simply an extension of those methods.

[aguahombre]

I guess I am the only one who believes there is a difference between systems where one player asks questions without revealing to anyone, including partner, what his/her hand is --and systems where one player asks questions and the answers are encrypted so that he/she is the only one who knows what the answers are and doesn't have to tell the opponents --or gets to tell the opponents cryptically. If thinking that is against the spirit of disclosure is stupid, I proudly accept the label.

[akhare]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

I guess I am the only one who believes there is a difference between systems where one player asks questions without revealing to anyone, including partner, what his/her hand is --and systems where one player asks questions and the answers are encrypted so that he/she is the only one who knows what the answers are and doesn't have to tell the opponents --or gets to tell the opponents cryptically. If thinking that is against the spirit of disclosure is stupid, I proudly accept the label.

In that case, do you have objections to DCB responses too? In a lot of cases the (correct) disclosure at the end of the auction goes something like "he either has AKQ of <blah> or nothing...either A/K of blah...etc".

Of course, relayer often has complete knowledge of the exact holding. In other words, the relayer knows the exact answer and is telling the information cryptically to the opps.

Is this against the spirit of full disclosure also? If not, how does it differ?

[oxyde]

4NT 5♣ = 1 or 4 keys

Do I have to tell it is 1 or 4 ?
If not, then door is open to encryption.
I am not fully sure but I guess we do not have to reveal, so...

------------------------
But to come back to initial aim of the topic

Such a method is based on the asumption that we are able to share the key :
1) Are we supposed to build the key based on our hand only ?
This I think is regulated and I guess answer is yes.
At least there must be a sentence somewhere in the laws stating that bidding shoud be based on our hand only.

If answer to 1) is Yes
It means we have to lose bidding space to first share between us the key.
2) Basically this means we have a less efficient bidding system.
Nothing to debate there.
3) How could we ensure that we both have understood the key ?
Tricky one. OK when talking about BW because we know we will stop if missing 2 keys (something like a CheckSum). But in other cases ?

[rbforster]

oxyde, on Aug 19 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

Such a method is based on the asumption that we are able to share the key :
1) Are we supposed to build the key based on our hand only ?
This I think is regulated and I guess answer is yes.
At least there must be a sentence somewhere in the laws stating that bidding shoud be based on our hand only.

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.

Quote

It means we have to lose bidding space to first share between us the key.
2) Basically this means we have a less efficient bidding system.
Nothing to debate there.

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.

Quote

3) How could we ensure that we both have understood the key ?
Tricky one. OK when talking about BW because we know we will stop if missing 2 keys (something like a CheckSum). But in other cases ?

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.

[aguahombre]

akhare, on Aug 19 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 10:14 AM, said:

I guess I am the only one who believes there is a difference between systems where one player asks questions without revealing to anyone, including partner, what his/her hand is --and systems where one player asks questions and the answers are encrypted so that he/she is the only one who knows what the answers are and doesn't have to tell the opponents --or gets to tell the opponents cryptically.  If thinking that is against the spirit of disclosure is stupid, I proudly accept the label.

In that case, do you have objections to DCB responses too? In a lot of cases the (correct) disclosure at the end of the auction goes something like "he either has AKQ of <blah> or nothing...either A/K of blah...etc".

Of course, relayer often has complete knowledge of the exact holding. In other words, the relayer knows the exact answer and is telling the information cryptically to the opps.

Is this against the spirit of full disclosure also? If not, how does it differ?

the difference is that if the answer was --in fact -- an either/or answer, and the asker knows which it is because of his own hand, disclosure that the answer showed either/or is fine. But if the answer was exact, based on some code related to a holding in a different suit, and that code is only known to the side with the holdings in that suit --then full disclosure should be "his answer showed the Club King". this would not violate the bidding side's right to keep their holding in the code suit to themselves. They simply don't reveal the encryption method, only what the answer meant.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

I guess I am the only one who believes there is a difference between systems where one player asks questions without revealing to anyone, including partner, what his/her hand is --and systems where one player asks questions and the answers are encrypted so that he/she is the only one who knows what the answers are and doesn't have to tell the opponents --or gets to tell the opponents cryptically.  If thinking that is against the spirit of disclosure is stupid, I proudly accept the label.

You're welcome to whatever beliefs you want. However, you should be very careful not to accuse people of practicing poor disclosure just because you disapprove of their methods.

As an example, I might (privately) believe that you like to bugger small children. However, I don't call you "aguahombre the pedophile" on this newsgroup. My subjective beliefs are quite irrelevent to the discussion at hand and labelling you as a pedophile really isn't a good way to engage in polite discourse.

In much the same vein, you have skewed and inaccurate ideas about the rules regarding disclosure. You should probably refrain from labeling people based on these, equally subjective, theories.

[hrothgar]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 07:59 PM, said:

the difference is that if the answer was --in fact -- an either/or answer, and the asker knows which it is because of his own hand, disclosure that the answer showed either/or is fine.  But if the answer was exact, based on some code related to a holding in a different suit, and that code is only known to the side with the holdings in that suit --then full disclosure should be "his answer showed the Club King".  this would not violate the bidding side's right to keep their holding in the code suit to themselves. They simply don't reveal the encryption method, only what the answer meant.

As interesting as this answer might be, it is the complete opposite of how the rules of disclosure actually work...

[akhare]

aguahombre, on Aug 19 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

But if the answer was exact, based on some code related to a holding in a different suit, and that code is only known to the side with the holdings in that suit --then full disclosure should be "his answer showed the Club King".  this would not violate the bidding side's right to keep their holding in the code suit to themselves. They simply don't reveal the encryption method, only what the answer meant.

Not revealing the encryption / encoding method is a violation of Full Disclosure. The "how" of the transmitted information must be revealed, the "what" i.e., specific contents of the message may not be obvious to all involved parties, depending on their specific holdings.

You can think of the encoded information a boolean expression, i.e., if (X == true) then Y else Z.

The boolean expression and the possible output values (Y or Z) must be revealed, but there's no obligation to reveal whether X is true or false...

[OleBerg]

Rob F, on Aug 19 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

Quote

It means we have to lose bidding space to first share between us the key.
2) Basically this means we have a less efficient bidding system.
Nothing to debate there.

Sometimes you might get the key for free.

Assume a relay-system with this response-scheme to ace-asks (Taken from Viking-club):

1.step = 0 or 3
2.step = 1 or 4
3.step = Suited aces
4.step = Minor or Major aces
5.step = Hard or soft aces

Anytime a 16+ hand has asked for aces, and partner ha replied step 3, 4 or 5, you have a free encryption for your further relays.


Come to think of it, this corresponds to the 4NT - 1 Ace, 5NT scenario described earlier.

But since I've made the post, I'll post it.