[kgr]

We play HESO leads:
Lead Highest of a sequence with an Even number of cards.
Lead Second of a sequence with an Odd number of cards.
In our last match our opps told us that this is an encrypted signal. Because if I a have the A and my partner leads the K then I know that he has an even number in that suit and opps don't know it. But if the leader has the A then he knows it and I don't.
..Is this an Encrypted signal?
I don't think so.
Additonal question: What is an example of an Encrypted signal?
Thanks,
Koen

[gwnn]

I think it is not encrypted, encryption means it's specifically designed to make it more difficult to find out from declarer's POV than partner's. For example if they have an invitational sequence and arrive at 3NT we can sort of assume we have 15 hcp between us. So we can do "3/5 leads if I have 0-7 hcp, 2/4 if I have 8+". This will be usually readable by the other defender but never by declarer. I think heso is no more an encrypted method than 0/2 higher, declarer can also find out, in fact declarer is more likely to find out than the other defender since he usually has more hcp.

[mjj29]

I agree that it's not encrypted in the same way that if you lead 4th from 4 or 5, and you lead the 3 then whichever player holds the two knows you have precisely 4 cards in the suit, and the other does not.

An example of an ecrypted signal which I would like to be able to play (but can't) - encrypted bidding is legal, so in one of my partnerships the sequence 1M-2NT shows exactly 1 of the AK of the suit. A response outside trumps shows the other one and either shortage or length depending which one. This establishes a key which we could use as defence with a small discard asking for the lower outside suit if holding the king and the higher outside suit if holding the ace. This is encrypted and illegal because we have established that the location of the Ace and King is known by us, but not by declarer

[helene_t]

1/3/5 leads would be encrypted by the same argument: If declarer has denied length in the suit being lead, partner may be able to see that it's 5th, while declarer can't.

I never understood why encrypted signals are illegal in most jurisdictions and maybe one could think of borderline systems which some people would consider encrypted and other's wouldn't. Say I lead the deuce (1/3/5) from a suit in which declarer has shown 2-3 cards. Partner now has the count of that suit but declarer hasn't. I suppose this would be legal because it is a normal lead method that just happens to become encrypted because I happen to have the deuce. But suppose we only lead 1/3/5 if we have 3 or 5 cards with the deuce and some other leads otherwise.....

[bluejak]

Let us see. The basis of an encrypted lead [signal, discard, call] is that its meaning changes dependent on a key known to the side bidding, but not to the other side. So if you are defending a hand with a Stayman sequence - or any other sequence where you are confident the declaring side has exactly eight trumps - you play 4th/2nd leads and standard signals and discards if you have an odd number of trumps, but 3rd/lowest leads and reverse signals and discards if you have an even number of trumps. The number of trumps is the key, and is known to the defence before a card is played. Of course, the whole system must be disclosed to declarer, who will know what the carding means once he discovers the trump situation.

In the case of a HESO lead the key is whether you have an even number of cards or an odd number of cards. But that is not "known to the defence and not declarer". So they are not encrypted.

Consider a king lead: if partner has the ace he immediately knows it is an even number of cards, and declarer does not. Very true. But suppose declarer has the ace? Then he immediately knows it is an even number of cards, and leader's partner does not. So it is not encrypted.

Quote

1/3/5 leads would be encrypted by the same argument: If declarer has denied length in the suit being lead, partner may be able to see that it's 5th, while declarer can't.

When a lead is encrypted the meaning changes based on the key. In 1/3/5 leads the meaning does not change, so they are not encrypted.

Quote

Say I lead the deuce (1/3/5) from a suit in which declarer has shown 2-3 cards. Partner now has the count of that suit but declarer hasn't. I suppose this would be legal because it is a normal lead method that just happens to become encrypted because I happen to have the deuce. But suppose we only lead 1/3/5 if we have 3 or 5 cards with the deuce and some other leads otherwise.....

Same argument: there is no change of meaning so they are not encrypted.

Quote

I never understood why encrypted signals are illegal in most jurisdictions ...

I cannot tell you why the EBU banned them because it was before my time on the L&EC! I am not sure how long I have been on it, but count the Chairmen and their years: Burn [3-5], Barnfield [5], Burn [2-3], Pool [5], Dhondy [1]. So at least 16 years, maybe 19.

However, I can tell you why it is still banned: there has been no application to play an encrypted lead/signal/discard while I have been on the L&EC. Every so often there is a complaint, usually from a player who is both good and lazy, as to why something is "banned", and the most common answer is that no-one has applied for it to be permitted.

I like this spellchekka! I misspelled 'Dhondy' and it corrected me!

[blackshoe]

Generally speaking, if a player (particularly an opponent) expresses an opinion about the legality of something you're doing, particularly when he does so in absolute terms, that opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it — i.e., nothing. I would tell such player that I disagree with him and that absent a ruling from the director I will continue to do whatever I was doing. If I suspect he might be right, I'll call the director myself.

[paulg]

The Bridge World provides some definitions in its glossary.

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answers!!
One last question: Are encrypted signals always and everywhere prohibited? Or is it allowed on high level tournemente or on local club tournements (because these locals don't have any specific regulations beside the law book).

[paulg]

Encrypted signals are prohibited in WBF and EBL tournaments. All the places that I've played, including the ACBL, EBU and SBU, prohibit them.

Other countries may vary.

[blackshoe]

Local club regulations are an interesting question, at least around here. In theory, they're supposed to publish whatever regulations are in force, but in practice, they don't. In fact, I showed one club owner/TD here a message from the club department at ACBL headquarters which specified that clubs are supposed to do that. His reply was "I've been running this club for 25 years. I've never done that before, and I'm not about to start now."

In practice, what happens is you either ask the TD if you can play whatever method you want to play, and he decides "yes" or "no", or you just go ahead and play whatever, and hope that when he gets called to the table, he decides in your favor. In either case, you will have no idea ahead of time how he will decide or what criteria he will use to make the decision.

Some years ago, I started playing simple Romex with my then partner. The system includes a (GCC legal) artificial 1NT opening. One of the players at the club, who had been a bridge teacher, while she didn't say anything to us, and did not call the TD while at our table, did complain to him privately that other players — not, of course, her — might have problems defending against this convention. I'll note that to the best of my knowledge none of those other players had complained, or even suggested they had a problem. The TD nonetheless walked up to us in the next to last round of a session, confirmed we were playing the convention, said "that bid is banned in this club" and walked away. Yes, I know that clubs can set whatever regulations they like. However, most players assume the default is that the GCC is allowed, and the aforementioned position of the ACBL is that any modifications to that chart should be published in advance. We did not think to ask the TD about the convention ahead of time because it is GCC legal.

My then partner passed away shortly after this incident. I have not played where this director directs since. Nor will I. This incident isn't the only reason, it was simply the last straw. Anyway, the point is that if your local club hasn't published specific regulations, you'd probably do best to ask before you play something you haven't already seen at that club.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Nov 21 2009, 07:52 AM, said:

However, I can tell you why it is still banned: there has been no application to play an encrypted lead/signal/discard while I have been on the L&EC. Every so often there is a complaint, usually from a player who is both good and lazy, as to why something is "banned", and the most common answer is that no-one has applied for it to be permitted.

Well, now there has been an application to play encrypted carding and it was turned down )-:

The minutes aren't up yet and I didn't get any more information about it.

[campboy]

mjj29, on Apr 19 2010, 02:18 PM, said:

bluejak, on Nov 21 2009, 07:52 AM, said:

However, I can tell you why it is still banned: there has been no application to play an encrypted lead/signal/discard while I have been on the L&EC.  Every so often there is a complaint, usually from a player who is both good and lazy, as to why something is "banned", and the most common answer is that no-one has applied for it to be permitted.

Well, now there has been an application to play encrypted carding and it was turned down )-:

The minutes aren't up yet and I didn't get any more information about it.

Told you so

Did your other applications get turned down too?

[bluejak]

It happens. But you may get my sympathy if you apply and fail: you will not if you do not apply. After all, I have the only separately listed agreement that is permitted at Level 5 - see the minutes!!!!!

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on Apr 19 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

Did your other applications get turned down too?

My application to allow a strong 1♣ on some hands with 15 points even if they don't satisfy the extended rule of 25 was turned down.

So was my application to allow this for the strong option fo a 2-way 1♣, even though the argument that watering down the lower limit of a strong opening bid may affect the right way to defend against it clearly does not apply in the context of a 2-way opening.

[mjj29]

campboy, on Apr 19 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

Did your other applications get turned down too?

Yeah )-: Including the one to include "has a potentially unexpected meaning" in the regulations for alerting doubles and redoubles, which is the one I actually had a hope of going through

bluejak said:

It happens. But you may get my sympathy if you apply and fail: you will not if you do not apply. After all, I have the only separately listed agreement that is permitted at Level 5 - see the minutes!!!!!

There's a level 5?! I will see the minutes when they are available, not on the EBU site as of lunch time though.

[jeremy69]

Quote

The minutes aren't up yet and I didn't get any more information about it.

Quote

I will see the minutes when they are available, not on the EBU site as of lunch time though.

Let me see. The meeting finished at about 5p.m. last Thursday and the minutes weren't up by lunchtime today. What are these people doing? I guess the first draft will be written this week and shown to me and a draft copy will appear on the website but not until the committee have had an opportunity to comment on accuracy.

There has been something of a discussion on encrypted signals(two to three years ago) because precisely one situation is allowed which is if you play Smith Peters and declarer plays towards an entryless dummy and your signal is that you Smith Peter if you hold the Ace and you give count if you do not.

Quote

Yeah )-: Including the one to include "has a potentially unexpected meaning" in the regulations for alerting doubles and redoubles, which is the one I actually had a hope of going through

It is the case that most applications did not get accepted this time. There was some sympathy for this one but only a few months ago the L&E had consulted on changing the alerting regs. regarding doubles and the message from the club committee and others was loud and clear. DO NOT change anything at this stage. So we didn't. However I would think this probably does have some chance if the application is repeated. I think it is a good idea so that's one vote already!

[jallerton]

jeremy69, on Apr 19 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

Quote

Yeah )-: Including the one to include "has a potentially unexpected meaning" in the regulations for alerting doubles and redoubles, which is the one I actually had a hope of going through

It is the case that most applications did not get accepted this time. There was some sympathy for this one but only a few months ago the L&E had consulted on changing the alerting regs. regarding doubles and the message from the club committee and others was loud and clear. DO NOT change anything at this stage. So we didn't. However I would think this probably does have some chance if the application is repeated. I think it is a good idea so that's one vote already!

As I understand it, what the Club Committee did not like was the idea of making a major change to the alerting rules (and indeed one which arguably goes against the whole principle of alerting) relatively soon after the last major change on 1st August 2006.

Matt's proposal would not have affected the alertability of 99.99% of doubles. As for the other 0.01%, I suspect that most club members (and perhaps also most Cub Committee members!) would expect take-out doubles with highly unexpected additional implications to be alertable already.

To put it another way, Matt's proposal is not to make any change to the principles behind the current alerting rules, merely to correct an unintended effect of the original wording.