[PhantomSac]

 redtop, on 2014-August-08, 18:06, said:

So you hold Axxx in a suit and the K is in dummy and partner encourages. Is it illegal that you know that partner has the Q and not the A because of your hand?

No, because if the discard really shows the ace or the queen, then declarer might hold the ace and would know that the discard shows the queen. This is not encrypted, signalling honestly always to show the queen or the ace has risk.

Quote

When partner shows the trump Q in a keycard auction and you hold it, is it unfair that you know partner has extra trump length and the opponents don't?

No, if over the queen ask your acceptance shows the queen or extra length, an opponent may hold the queen and thus know you have extra length. This is not encrypted.

However, if you lead the Ace and King of the suit, and the declarer ruffs, you both know who holds the 9. If you signal upside down if you have the 9 or standard if you don't, then you both know something declarer does not 100 %. That is encrypted. Or if you agree whoever has the most odd numbered cards in the suit (and if you're equal, whoever has the lowest outstanding odd card plays ud, the other plays standard), that is encrypted.

[cherdano]

 PhantomSac, on 2014-August-08, 22:30, said:

However, if you lead the Ace and King of the suit, and the declarer ruffs, you both know who holds the 9. If you signal upside down if you have the 9 or standard if you don't, then you both know something declarer does not 100 %. That is encrypted. Or if you agree whoever has the most odd numbered cards in the suit (and if you're equal, whoever has the lowest outstanding odd card plays ud, the other plays standard), that is encrypted.

But how does this logically differ from:

"In NT with a long suit in dummy headed by KQJ and no side entry, I give count when I don't have the ace, and give suit preference/Smith/whatever when I do have the ace."

[gnasher]

I don't think it matters whether there's a qualitative difference between two methods. The only important consideration is whether allowing a given method would make the game better or worse. I think allowing encrypted signals would make the game better, but I understand why someone would disagree.

It's reasonable to want to allow "standard count in hearts if I have the ace of hearts, upside-down if I don't", but not "standard count in hearts if I have the nine of diamonds, upside-down if I don't", because the second method is both more complex and harder to play against.

[helene_t]

I find this restriction very strange. The only justification I could think of is that the disclosure would be so complicated that it's easier to ban them than to describe how they should be disclosed. But that doesn't seem to be the reason.

We also have an ebu ban on dual meaning signals. I am sure legal experts understand what that means. I don't and I doubt that most tds do, or even know about the ban.

[ArtK78]

Helene, I can give you an example of a dual meaning signal that I was playing for a while until they were banned.

Suppose I have a known long suit (I have preempted in the auction, and my LHO became declarer). My partner leads my suit at trick one, and either he or dummy is winning the trick. Attitude is signaled by high or low (using whatever signalling method you play in general) and suit length is signaled by whether the card is odd or even - an odd card indicates an odd number of cards in the suit, an even card indicates an even number of cards in the suit.

This method is only possible when you have a lot of cards to choose from.

[hrothgar]

 dake50, on 2014-August-08, 16:50, said:

Learn something about encrypted signals before sharing any more of your wisdom.

(Recognizing that the key to an encrypted signaling system is available for the post mortem would be a good starting point)

*** And as I posted, deviate then justify - HOW??
I used them before they were disallowed. Be sure of YOUR DISPARAGE BEFORE YOU SPEAK.
The exact problem - verify deviation was NOT by some other clue
than bridge was discussed by ACBL comp committee before sanctioning them.

Such drivel INDEED.!

"worthless troll" because you cannot verify the VERY claim I contend.
That term more applies to someone not thinking, just name calling.
Prove my assertion wrong. Catch a cheat who is allowed to encrypt his signals. HOW?

You may very well have played something that you called "encrypted signals", however, based on your lack of facility with the English language, I have little to no faith that you actually understand what you're talking about. As a practical example, I am not trying to "verify" you're claim, rather I am "contesting" it. And the reason that I didn't bother going into more detail is that my statement should be should be self-evident for anyone who actually understands these matter. However, since you are obviously pretty slow, I'll explain things in a bit more detail.

You are making the claim that it is impossible to catch a cheat who is allowed to encrypt his signals.

I counter this by saying that the security of an encrypted signally system relies on the fact that they key is secret.

As a practical example, lets use one of the most well known examples of encrypted signals.
The defenders know that declarer holds a total of 8 eight trump.
A defender who holds an odd number of trump will use UDCA.
A defender who holds an even number of trump will use standard count and attitude.

So long a declarer doesn't know the trump break, he won't know what type of signals the opponents are using. However, as soon as the "key" - the trump break - is revealed, declarer is able to decrypt the opponents signals.

Since the key is (obviously) exposed at the close of the hand, there is absolutely no difference in the information available to the declaring side during the post mortem phase. Simply put, the encrypted signal is only encrypted during the brief window during which the trump break is secret.

Please explain to me, how this makes it any more difficult to catch a cheat.

(BTW, the ACBL "comp committee" couldn't find their ass with both hands. It's fine to appeal to authorities, but they're really the wrong folks to use for anything out of the oridinary)

[PhantomSac]

 cherdano, on 2014-August-09, 02:59, said:

But how does this logically differ from:

"In NT with a long suit in dummy headed by KQJ and no side entry, I give count when I don't have the ace, and give suit preference/Smith/whatever when I do have the ace."

It does not

[awm]

 ArtK78, on 2014-August-06, 10:53, said:

"Our signals are based on the number of cards each of us holds in a key suit - a suit in which we know or can assume how many cards you hold. On this hand, since you opened 1NT and bid 2♥ over your partner's Stayman response. we assume that you hold 4 hearts. We can see that the dummy also holds 4 hearts, so each of us knows (or believes that he knows) how many hearts the other of us holds. The one of us that has an odd number of hearts will play UDCA, and the other will play standard count and attitude. Once our heart suit distribution is known to you, we both revert to UDCA unless there is another suit in which your length has become known. In this case, you ruffed a spade revealing that you held 2 spades originally. Now spades is the key suit, and our signals are based on each of our original length in spades."

It seems to me that this explanation is a good reason to ban encrypted signals. If you can't explain your signaling methods in a sentence, its going to pretty hard for declarer to parse and reason out while also trying to work out the rest of the hand. Of course, one could have a simpler encrypted method where this problem might not apply.

[aguahombre]

I see nothing which prohibits Declarer from asking, "At this moment, are your carding agreements right-side up or upside down?" and getting a correct answer(s), which might be, "His would be x". and "Hers would be y" from the two opponents...but only if the opponents have an encrypted signalling method...it would not be appropriate for instance while one defender or the other is merely ducking with an Ace in the suit being played or similar cases involving "just plain Bridge" ---just when there is a declared encrypted signalling system which has been activated via an established key.

[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2014-August-09, 04:49, said:

I don't think it matters whether there's a qualitative difference between two methods.

It matters if some use such currently forbidden methods already in specific circumstances and believe they are ethical.
They are not.

Quote

The only important consideration is whether allowing a given method would make the game better or worse. I think allowing encrypted signals would make the game better, but I understand why someone would disagree.

Hard to see why such a change would make the game better.
You do not provide any argument why and you provide no criterias, by which to judge what an "improvement" to the game is.
It would certainly make a mockery of the principle of full disclosure, since it makes disclosure of agreements worthless.
Allowing encryption would favor the defense during the play. So it would change the current balance between declaring and defending.
That looks to me a bit like the proposal that dummy should be displayed before the opening lead.

Would that help the defense? Certainly.
Would it improve the game? I doubt it
Would it change the game? The game would change fundamentally.

Rainer Herrmann

[Mbodell]

 aguahombre, on 2014-August-09, 13:35, said:

I see nothing which prohibits Declarer from asking, "At this moment, are your carding agreements right-side up or upside down?" and getting a correct answer(s), which might be, "His would be x". and "Hers would be y" from the two opponents...but only if the opponents have an encrypted signalling method...it would not be appropriate for instance while one defender or the other is merely ducking with an Ace in the suit being played or similar cases involving "just plain Bridge" ---just when there is a declared encrypted signalling system which has been activated via an established key.

That doesn't follow. Your opponents are allowed your agreements, not the cards in your hand. I don't see how this is any different than if your partner showed 3 controls (either A and K or KKK) and one of your opponents asked you "So which did he show?". Just because you happen to hold 2 K and know that he therefore showed an A and a K doesn't mean the opponent gets to know that from you. Your agreement is "right-side up if he holds the ♦9, upside down if he doesn't" or whatever.

[helene_t]

What if I describe our carding as "standard total red suit count", i.e. I play lo/high in diamonds to show an even number of red cards? If declarer's heart length is known through a reply to Stayman, this is the same as encrypted diamonds count.

It is not particularly difficult to understand. And total red suit count may even be equally useful to declarer as diamond count is.

[dake50]

[quote name='hrothgar' timestamp='1407588122' post='806169']
You may very well have played something that you called "encrypted signals", however, based on your lack of facility with the English language, I have little to no faith that you actually understand what you're talking about. As a practical example, I am not trying to "verify" you're claim, rather I am "contesting" it. And the reason that I didn't bother going into more detail is that my statement should be should be self-evident for anyone who actually understands these matter. However, since you are obviously pretty slow, I'll explain things in a bit more detail.

You are making the claim that it is impossible to catch a cheat who is allowed to encrypt his signals.

I counter this by saying that the security of an encrypted signally system relies on the fact that they key is secret.

As a practical example, lets use one of the most well known examples of encrypted signals.
The defenders know that declarer holds a total of 8 eight trump.
A defender who holds an odd number of trump will use UDCA.
A defender who holds an even number of trump will use standard count and attitude.

So long a declarer doesn't know the trump break, he won't know what type of signals the opponents are using. However, as soon as the "key" - the trump break - is revealed, declarer is able to decrypt the opponents signals.

Since the key is (obviously) exposed at the close of the hand, there is absolutely no difference in the information available to the declaring side during the post mortem phase. Simply put, the encrypted signal is only encrypted during the brief window during which the trump break is secret.

Please explain to me, how this makes it any more difficult to catch a cheat.

(BTW, the ACBL "comp committee" couldn't find their ass with both hands. It's fine to appeal to authorities, but they're really the wrong folks to use for anything out of the oridinary)

*** Of course you contend the NON-DEVIATED case. Check my actual contention.
It was deviate from the encrypted agreement then show no cheating from some other such as BIT.
How will you assure bridge's integrity then??? Never have addressed that point. Instead non-sequitors (that's name calling logical fallacy).

[hrothgar]

 dake50, on 2014-August-10, 06:22, said:

Of course you contend the NON-DEVIATED case. Check my actual contention.
It was deviate from the encrypted agreement then show no cheating from some other such as BIT.
How will you assure bridge's integrity then??? Never have addressed that point. Instead non-sequitors (that's name calling logical fallacy).

Wow... You are much more stupid than I gave you credit for. You don't even recognize that I already addressed this point.

Let's try this again:

At the end of any given hand, all parties have precisely the same information available to them, regardless of whether or not players are using encrypted signals.

Therefore, any analysis that you are doing to judge whether or not there was a deviation from the carding agreements or determine whether a break in tempo conveyed unauthorized information can be conducted using precisely the same techniques and methods that you normally would.

BTW, if you're going to use fancy sounding words like "non-sequitor" [sic], you really might want to learn how to spell them correctly...

[gnasher]

 helene_t, on 2014-August-10, 06:10, said:

What if I describe our carding as "standard total red suit count", i.e. I play lo/high in diamonds to show an even number of red cards? If declarer's heart length is known through a reply to Stayman, this is the same as encrypted diamonds count.

It is not particularly difficult to understand. And total red suit count may even be equally useful to declarer as diamond count is.

It's also not particularly difficult to prohibit, if that's what the regulatory authority wants to do. Finding a way to describe a method so as to make it sound unencrypted doesn't make it actually make it easier to decipher.

[jallerton]

 gnasher, on 2014-August-10, 14:48, said:

It's also not particularly difficult to prohibit, if that's what the regulatory authority wants to do. Finding a way to describe a method so as to make it sound unencrypted doesn't make it actually make it easier to decipher.

Yes, but all Helene's example proves is that "encrypted signals" are very difficult to define. I could equally argue that a count signal showing the mumber of red cards in my hand is clearly not encrypted and that therefore just rewording it to (say) "if she has an odd number of diamonds we give standard count in hearts, otherwise we give reverse count in hearts" does not make it encrypted.

Signalling the number of red cards is non-standard, but being non-standard should not by itself be a reason to ban the method.

[benlessard]

By reading the comments its clear that some dont understand all the consequences of encrypted signals or how they work.

The best simple key is the lowest unseen card in declarer shortest assumed suit. Its never on how suit breaks.

1S--2H
3C--3H
3NT

Here H is the assumed short suit. So the defender with the spot card 2h play "weird" signals and the other defender play your usual methods.

Assuming you normally play attitude leads.
Here right from the start if the leader got the two of H he can lead 4th best instead of your normal attitude leads or he can play some sort of UD attitude. Imagine your declarer and get a 6D lead and got no idea if its attitude or 4th best.

Dummy comedown with

AJT972 in H

so because the 2 is on dummy the lead was the normal attitude. The Key is now the 3H.

Now the guy who got the 3H (lowest unseen H) play standard (weird) and the other guy play UDCA (your normal methods) there is about 10-15% that declarer got the 3H spot card in wich case both defender will be srcewed but 85% the defense will get a edge over declarer.

With good players this will slow the game by 20-40 % IMO

[awm]

Here's a simple example not far from what some pairs play:

1. Normally attitude leads, but if opening leader has 0-2 HCP then count leads.
2. Normally signal attitude to partner's leads and suit preference to declarer's leads, but if holding 0-2 HCP all signals are count.

Are these encrypted? Certainly in a lot of auctions partner has a better idea of my HCP than declarer...