What's the problem with encrypted signals?

[Mbodell]

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]

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]

 

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]

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]

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...