What's the problem with encrypted signals?

[Fluffy]

crash on aces is a typical example

[gwnn]

There is also encrypted drury:

 

1S-2C = drury, precisely one of A/K of spades

2D=I also have one of A/K

 

From here on, responder can bid shortness with the K or length with the A. Opener can do the same.

[nige1]

And what would the "key" be in an encrypted bidding system? What can you or your partner know about the other's hand (or anything else) that the opponents don't know and you don't have to reveal to them? I find it hard to believe that you could establish a key at a low enough level of the auction so that encryption would be useful.

Another example is encrypted pseudo-psychic controls that depend on agreed holdings: e.g. you may "psych" your 1♥ opener, only if you have four deuces. If partner (or an opponent) can see a deuce, he knows your bid is genuine.

[mycroft]

http://www.blakjak.org/crypto.htm. Sure and it's probably really hard to execute this in practise, but still.

[whereagles]

I don't think encryption will become very popular... the slight advantage it gives requires users to keep switching their style. Perhaps pros can benefit from it, but other than that...

[Free]

I don't think encryption will become very popular... the slight advantage it gives requires users to keep switching their style. Perhaps pros can benefit from it, but other than that...

That's short through the corner imo, because encryption is banned in it's infancy. Perhaps evolution in system design would make it much more popular, who knows. Technically Blackwood is also encrypted (0/4 Aces can only be deciphered if you have at least an Ace) and it became popular worldwide...

[rhm]

http://www.blakjak.org/crypto.htm. Sure and it's probably really hard to execute this in practise, but still.

I think this the heart of the matter.

If somebody finds an easy way to execute method, which makes encryption practical, the ban will get enforced and rightly so.

I also do not understand why some pretend they do not understand.

Phantomsac and I have clearly outlined what the issues are and some still prefer to pretend to be naive.

 

In the end the point is: Claiming that a player has the right to agreements of opponents partnership means he has a right to know what underlying information is exchanged, whether this information is true or false.

Encryption simply tries to avoid this by providing the agreement but not the underlying information.

In that sense giving suit preference holding the ace and count otherwise is encrypted and forbidden.

 

Another common practical example:

 

Declarer holds

 

xxx in dummy opposite AKQT in hand and declarer does not know whether to play for the drop or finesse.

So he plays KQ and looks what opponents signal.

 

For that reason, some sophisticated high-level partnerships have the agreement they will give their normal count only if they do not hold the jack and reverse their count when holding the jack.

Clever, since declarer will never know how the suit breaks, but in principle this is a simple form of encryption and not allowed.

In fact one could claim these partnerships are cheating and you might be cheating for years!

 

Rainer Herrmann

[aguahombre]

Declarer holds

 

xxx in dummy opposite AKQT in hand and declarer does not know whether to play for the drop or finesse.

So he plays KQ and looks what opponents signal.

 

For that reason, some sophisticated high-level partnerships have the agreement they will give their normal count only if they do not hold the jack and reverse their count when holding the jack.

Clever, since declarer will never know how the suit breaks, but in principle this is a simple form of encryption and not allowed.

In fact one could claim these partnerships are cheating and you might be cheating for years!

 

Rainer Herrmann

I find it hard to believe that high-level partnerships would feel the need to signal to each other at all in cases like that. I certainly, as declarer, would not be basing the decision on their methods for that particular phase of the play. Well, maybe a little bit...if I know their methods are encrypted, I might be less inclined to assume coffee-housing when there is a break in tempo --rather just plain confusion.

 

Anyway, encrypted signals by strong players would not be bothersome to me whether legal or not. By the time they have established their key the time for useful signalling is past. The mysteries are pretty much solved and they should be putting cards on the table they don't wish to keep in their hands.

 

Lesser players could have serious problems using encrypted signals while maintaining some semblance of ethics, probably a lose-lose situation where heads they screw it up, tails they break even and/or get caught.

Edited August 8, 2014 by aguahombre

[oldboltoni]

In the spirit of the game, the defenders can see their cards and declarer not. They may draw inferences from what each of them can see and declarer not. They don't have to disclose their holdings to declarer in order to allow declarer to have the same inferences.

 

By the same token, encrypted signals cannot be against the spirit nor the rule of the game. The system is fully disclosed to declarer, and declarer must make what inferences he/she can from the cards played.

[mycroft]

By the same token, calls can mean anything the people want them to mean, provided it is disclosed fully and correctly. Therefore forcing pass systems cannot be against the spirit nor the rule of the game.

 

But in most of the world, they are; and they are because it is considered by the regulating authority that being forced to defend except with an opener as dealer is against the spirit of the game as we would wish to play it, and the rulesmakers have chosen to allow Regulating Authorities to regulate according to their (players') wishes in this context. The relevant rule is L40B1a:

 

In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as special partnership understandings. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament.

[rhm]

In the spirit of the game, the defenders can see their cards and declarer not. They may draw inferences from what each of them can see and declarer not. They don't have to disclose their holdings to declarer in order to allow declarer to have the same inferences.

 

By the same token, encrypted signals cannot be against the spirit nor the rule of the game. The system is fully disclosed to declarer, and declarer must make what inferences he/she can from the cards played.

You apparently do not get the point.

Nobody is forced to signal and disclose his holding to declarer.

For example if you play an individual with an unknown partner you need not disclose anything and can tell on request I have no agreements.

However, once you decide to disclose information about your holding to your partner based on agreements. you have to disclose this information in principle to declarer too.

What you can not do is just tell declarer how you encrypt the information without providing declarer with the key, which "unfortunately" is only available to the defenders. with the intention to disclose information to partner without disclosing this information to declarer.

I do not believe this is in the spirit of the game.

 

There is in fact an article about Bridge and quantum physics, which suffers from the same misunderstanding:

 

http://journals.aps.org/prx/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.021047

 

Rainer Herrmann

[jogs]

lets just say I have 234 of H and declarer is out of H the 3 will be known to my partner as a middle card while declarer wont know, however this bonus knowledge will only apply to H. When you play cryptic the knowledge difference difference is in all the suits, you are using an disclose information to spread the disclosure in all the suits. So its clearly against the spirit of the game.

 

Its a good example of spirit of the laws vs letter of the laws.

 

Encrypted signals goes against the spirit of full disclosure. Also BIT means the signal is off.

[Mbodell]

There is also encrypted drury:

 

1S-2C = drury, precisely one of A/K of spades

2D=I also have one of A/K

 

From here on, responder can bid shortness with the K or length with the A. Opener can do the same.

 

You can also play 2-way encrypted drury. 2♣ shows 1 of A or K, 2♦ shows 0 or 2. The 2♦ isn't without risk if both players have 0, but that is unlikely on hands that want to explore game. I did this for a while in a mid-chart strong club system where we were playing encrypted drury in all seats. It was more for fun than merit, but worked out ok.

[dake50]

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?

[redtop]

I believe it has been claimed that encrypted signals are inherently difficult to give in tempo. However, the same was claimed of odd-even, which was banned for a while. (It is now permitted only on the first discard.) I believe that Bobby Wolff claimed that people playing odd-even would tank to show that they didn't have the right card to play (i.e. holding KQ64 they would tank, then play the 4, while holding KQ63 they would quickly play the 3).

 

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? 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?

 

I think that if someone wants to do the extra work to play encrypted signals AND can do so in tempo, let 'em. Hard work and good theory should be rewarded.

[PhantomSac]

 

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

 

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