[rbforster]

Here's a link to my version of encrypted Drury, as I described previously. It shows how you can use encryption to both help conceal game tries, as well as to make it less clear whether a 3rd seat hand has opened light or not. Note in particular that the two "sign off sequences" that include the light opening hand could also be a sound opener showing a balanced minimum and declining partner's invitation. Balancer beware if you guess wrong which one opener has shown.

[awm]

I'm not that convinced by the encrypted drury argument. The issue is that opponents have already passed in second chair, passed over the third seat opening, passed over the drury call (even though it allows for some cheap bids below 2M). In some cases they have also passed over opener's 2♦ rebid. The odds that opponents want to balance here after passing at so many safe opportunities are not really all that high, and the nature of opener's hand will be clear after the opening lead in any case (since encryption will be broken when dummy is exposed).

As for the encrypted game tries, do you find that opponents typically make much better opening leads based on the knowledge of what your game try was? I don't find that this matters all that much. A "long suit" game try can be based on a strong side suit missing an honor or on a much weaker holding. It's not like slam bidding where knowledge of "who holds which ace" often helps the opponents substantially on lead.

Honestly I'd rather have a natural 2/1 bid available in one of the two minors than have this encryption.

This problem is pretty common with encryption schemes for things other than slam bidding. Encrypted bidding only helps during the auction and on the opening lead (since the key is blown when the dummy is exposed). But in a real competitive auction you are often cramped for space (unlike a drury sequence where opponents are passing and passing again) so establishing a key is really hard. So it's primarily an opening lead thing, and a lot of the information that can potentially be hidden doesn't compellingly effect the opponents on lead anyway.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on Aug 20 2009, 04:59 AM, said:

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.

I assume therefore that everytime you bid Blackwood and then continue to 5NT or its equivalent confirming possession of all key-cards that you disclose explicitly which aces partner has if asked.

If not then the only difference between what you do and what another pair do who use encryption is that they utilize the fact that the opponents do not know their holdings while you do not. Your disclosure is identical to theirs.

[rbforster]

awm, on Aug 19 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

I'm not that convinced by the encrypted drury argument. The issue is that opponents have already passed in second chair, passed over the third seat opening, passed over the drury call (even though it allows for some cheap bids below 2M).

Of course all of this is required for a normal Drury rebid by opener to be made uncontested. I agree we're talking about a less likely auction at this point, but I don't think that's a flaw in the methods, just that the methods apply to a somewhat unlikely situation.

Quote

...In some cases they have also passed over opener's 2♦ rebid. The odds that opponents want to balance here after passing at so many safe opportunities are not really all that high, and the nature of opener's hand will be clear after the opening lead in any case (since encryption will be broken when dummy is exposed).

Honestly I'd rather have a natural 2/1 bid available in one of the two minors than have this encryption.

Consider a "slightly too weak to X" takeout of hearts hand in 4th chair:

---

After (P)-P-(1♥)-?, you judge to pass (or adjust the hand accordingly to be a maximum pass with takeout shape). The opponents continue:

P-P-1♥-P
2♣*-P-2♥*-?

If 2♣ is regular Drury and 2♥ shows a light opener, you are probably willing to double here, at least at some colors. However, if 2♣ is encrypted Drury and now 2♥ shows either a light opener with the A♥ or a balanced 11-13 with the K♥ (not interested in game), you're risking a lot more by doubling. Furthermore, you know that since you're the only one from your side with shortness, the auction will end in 2♥ if you don't double. Note that here the side wanting to bid hasn't really had more than it's initial opportunity to pass and this is clearly a much more difficult position for the 4th chair than normal Drury.

All of this is not to say I don't agree with you that a natural 2/1 in a minor might not be better or that there's little value gained in the lead, but I just want to make the point that encryption can create harder bidding problems for other side even if it doesn't do anything else.

Quote

As for the encrypted game tries, do you find that opponents typically make much better opening leads based on the knowledge of what your game try was? I don't find that this matters all that much. A "long suit" game try can be based on a strong side suit missing an honor or on a much weaker holding. It's not like slam bidding where knowledge of "who holds which ace" often helps the opponents substantially on lead.

Certainly the slam case is more clear, but I wouldn't typically lead a long or help suit bid by opener as a defender, and I would expect that if I lead it (by accident against a less informative auction) it would probably not work out as well as other choices. I certainly haven't done a rigorous study of this, but this is my impression.

Quote

This problem is pretty common with encryption schemes for things other than slam bidding. Encrypted bidding only helps during the auction and on the opening lead (since the key is blown when the dummy is exposed). But in a real competitive auction you are often cramped for space (unlike a drury sequence where opponents are passing and passing again) so establishing a key is really hard. So it's primarily an opening lead thing, and a lot of the information that can potentially be hidden doesn't compellingly effect the opponents on lead anyway.

I agree that opportunities are not that common to apply encryption in competitive bidding, but the Rosencrypt double is a good example. Once you show a high honor in partner's suit, you can now encrypt your strong raise and your competitive raise during the bidding. Of course partner won't know if he doesn't hold the other honor, but he often will most of the time for his overcall.

Perhaps if people knew more about the benefits of encryption, they would arrange to have bidding situations come up that show encrypted meanings.

[oxyde]

I think I have a good one :
- if partner showed 12H+ in the bidding and the answer to our BW was the low choice (0 out of 0/3 for instance), then we answer to King question the first King we do NOT have. Otherwise we answer the King we have.

You might very well advocate that this is for COMPRESSION purposes as your method assume partner is more supposed to have 2 than 1 when having the low choice before.
Don't see why this would be not allowed.

[FrancesHinden]

As we seem to have got on to the disclosure discussion, here's a poser for you.
You are playing a pairs tournament with two-board rounds. You don't bother looking at the opponents' convention card. One of your opponents is declarer on the first board, and it is played out without comment.

On the second board, you are declarer. You ask your LHO about their carding. You are told
"We play standard count & attitude if the first card below a ten played from dummy on the previous board was even; otherwise we play UDCA"

You can't remember what the first non-honour played from dummy was on the previous board.

Or even, the key is based on the parity of the first pip played from dummy on this board. Lots of people will have difficulty remembering this.

(Note this isn't the same as basing your key on a hand played against different opponents)

Is this legal? Should it be legal? [Obviously it won't work more than once.]

I can't see anything in EBU regulations that makes it not legal, but it makes me uncomfortable.

And this is coming from someone who thinks that 'normal' encrypted signalling should be legal.

[oxyde]

1) As you are playing a non-standard carding system, you should inform your opponents as soon as you come to their table.

2) Again, you are using a key that is not based on the current board, so I guess it is not allowed - or at least it will never be allowed if some encryption was to become allowed.

[FrancesHinden]

oxyde, on Aug 20 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

1) As you are playing a non-standard carding system, you should inform your opponents as soon as you come to their table.

2) Again, you are using a key that is not based on the current board, so I guess it is not allowed - or at least it will never be allowed if some encryption was to become allowed.

1) There is nothing in the EBU regulations that says I have to inform the opponents verbally, as long as it is clearly marked on my convention card.

2) The method I propose is not encrypted, in that the key is in principle freely available to declarer. So I can't see any regulation that forbids it. The EBU does have a regulation that I think could be used to prevent a similar agreement in the auction (e.g. we play weak or strong NT depending on a similar key) but that only applies to calls, not to carding agreements.

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 20 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

Is this legal? Should it be legal? [Obviously it won't work more than once.]

My guess is that it would be illegal to use a key from the previous board, but probably legal to use a key from the current board.

At least, that is how I think it should be. If the key is not related to the current board, you must say what carding you are playing. Even though the first board was played against the same opps, it should be considered external information. Like saying that our carding depends on whether the 357th decimal in pi is odd or even.

[Echognome]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 20 2009, 08:51 AM, said:

oxyde, on Aug 20 2009, 05:24 PM, said:

1) As you are playing a non-standard carding system, you should inform your opponents as soon as you come to their table.

2) Again, you are using a key that is not based on the current board, so I guess it is not allowed - or at least it will never be allowed if some encryption was to become allowed.

1) There is nothing in the EBU regulations that says I have to inform the opponents verbally, as long as it is clearly marked on my convention card.

2) The method I propose is not encrypted, in that the key is in principle freely available to declarer. So I can't see any regulation that forbids it. The EBU does have a regulation that I think could be used to prevent a similar agreement in the auction (e.g. we play weak or strong NT depending on a similar key) but that only applies to calls, not to carding agreements.

I first heard about this as a story about Brian Senior either doing this or saying this would be a funny method. I cannot verify that it actually came from Brian or that he ever played it.

However, I can say that my partner and I tried it out for a little while. We did it so that we could concentrate on pips and, I'm sure, for the comedic/annoyance factor to the opponents. We did put the method in bold and highlighted both on the front of our cards and in the signalling area in the back.

We played it for about a month or two. Most people never noticed or cared. We often forgot at least one board a session. It did have an upshot of having to figure out the best way to defend without being able to rely on your partner's signal. The one or two times opponents did notice, they just rolled their eyes and played on. So we just scrapped it and went with upside down signals.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 20 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

Or even, the key is based on the parity of the first pip played from dummy on this board. Lots of people will have difficulty remembering this.

I remember playing against a pair who did this. They'd got through two days of the Brighton Teams without getting into trouble.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Aug 20 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 20 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

Is this legal?  Should it be legal?  [Obviously it won't work more than once.]

My guess is that it would be illegal to use a key from the previous board, but probably legal to use a key from the current board.

At least, that is how I think it should be. If the key is not related to the current board, you must say what carding you are playing. Even though the first board was played against the same opps, it should be considered external information. Like saying that our carding depends on whether the 357th decimal in pi is odd or even.

I concur with Helene's line of reasoning
I also believe that this is consistent with the Laws

[rbforster]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 20 2009, 09:41 AM, said:

Or even, the key is based on the parity of the first pip played from dummy on this board. Lots of people will have difficulty remembering this.

Or for more fun, let the carding key be based on the parity of the first pip played by 3rd hand on the first trick. This way you can figure out if you want to play UDCA or standard for this hand and choose your pip accordingly .

[akhare]

helene_t, on Aug 20 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Aug 20 2009, 03:41 PM, said:

Is this legal?  Should it be legal?  [Obviously it won't work more than once.]

My guess is that it would be illegal to use a key from the previous board, but probably legal to use a key from the current board.

At least, that is how I think it should be. If the key is not related to the current board, you must say what carding you are playing. Even though the first board was played against the same opps, it should be considered external information. Like saying that our carding depends on whether the 357th decimal in pi is odd or even.

Another way of looking at it is that the pair likes to randomly switch between udca / standard and the last pip played, nth digit of pi modulo board number, etc. are just being used as source of entropy.

As such, I have no objections to such methods as long as they are willing to disclose the current state if queried. A prudent declarer would be well advised to ask third hand before playing from dummy at T1.

However, they might run afoul of regulations that require stipulatation of carding on the convention card -- however, I guess you can always tick both the udca / standard boxes .

[rbforster]

Here's a simple way to add an encryption attempt early in your strong club relays. After any positive response, for example a transfer positive:

1♣*-1♥* strong; showing spades

now opener uses his first and second steps as relays showing if he holds exactly one of the AK in partner's suit. So

1♣-1♥-1♠ relay, shows 1 of the AK♠ by opener (attempted key exchange)
1♣-1♥-1N relay, shows 0 or 2 of the AK♠ by opener (continue with unencrypted relays)

If opener shows 0 or 2, relays proceed unencrypted with responses of 2♣+, having lost one step of bidding space in the attempt. If opener shows 1, responder bids the cheapest step (1N) to confirm the encryption or bids 2♣+ as before to deny a high honor and without encryption.

1♣-1♥
1♠*-2♣+ showing 1 of AK♠; unencrypted relays denying the other

1♣-1♥
1♠*-1N* showing 1 of AK♠; confirming the other
2♣-... encrypted relays proceed with 2♦ and higher responses

So when you fail to get a key, you have lost 1 step for trying (2♣+ relay responses instead of 1N+). When you get a key, you'll have lost 2 steps (start relays with 2♦+). Note that if you are going to eventually ask for honors in partner's primary suit, such as with denial cue bids, you will be able to skip this step and regain the "lost" space on those auctions.

Since this is a simple modification that anyone can make to their favorite strong club system and since it preserves the normal suit-showing first responses (in case of interference), it seems like this would be a fun thing to test to see if the encryption helps.