Encrypted bidding

[fromageGB]

The EBU does not allow encrypted signals, but I have not read anything about encrypted bidding. Presumably this is not allowed either?

 

I am using here "encrypted" in the sense that the information conveyed by the bid is available only to your partner, not the opponents. To take a silly example, you could say that the suit controlled, indicated by a cue bid, depends on whether we declared the first board on the previous round : it means the suit above if "yes", but the suit below if "no". When they ask the meaning of the bid, that explanation does not help them, but partner knows. Are they allowed to ask a follow-up question "did you declare the first board on the previous round?"?

 

Having answered that, now consider the king-showing method where in response to a say 5NT king ask, with one king you bid that suit, and with two kings you bid the suit of the king you do not have. That could be explained to the first question as to meaning, but can they then have a follow-up question to the bidder's partner to ask "do you have that king?"?

[steve2005]

When asked you would still have to describe truthfully what bid meant.

Opps know what happened on previous board also.

So I see no point in this method that isn't nefarious to say the least.

Board rules prevent me from saying what I really think <sarcasm maybe>

[awm]

My impression is that meanings which depend on something external to the current hand are either illegal, or permit opponents to ask further. So the first example, where the meaning depends on some previous hand (or what you had for dinner the night before, or the month of partner's birthday, etc) would not be allowed.

 

But methods where a bid shows one of two possible meanings (that partner has to figure out by looking at his own hand) are generally allowed. These come up a lot in relay methods; even something like keycard blackwood ("zero or three keycards") will often be something partner can guess based on combined point totals and his own keycard holding, whereas opponents may be in the dark as to which was held. So the "either this king, or both other kings" seems like it should be allowed.

[hrothgar]

I was happy that the ACBL adopted one of my suggestions wrt how to define Encrypted Signals during the last revisions of the convention charts

 

"An encrypted signal is one where the ordering of the cards for the signal is dependent on information known only to the defenders"

(Rather than saying information, I would have preferred to have said "a pre-arranged key that is dependent on specific characteristics of the hand")

 

I think that similar principal could be applied to define encrypted bidding...

 

To me, a 5♣ response to RKCB is not encrypted because there is no key.

 

However an agreement that a 5♣ would show

 

• 0/3 Key cards if Opener holds the King of Trump
  
• 1/4 Keycards if opener does not hold the ing of Trump
  

 

is encrypted

[hrothgar]

Using who declared on the previous hand is not permitted by the laws because it relies on something external to this board.

 

(In a similar vein, you can't vary your mean based on where the round clock is showing an odd or an even number)

[blackshoe]

(In a similar vein, you can't vary your mean based on where the round clock is showing an odd or an even number

True, but considering that in most cases a player in a club here who wished to look at the round clock would have to make considerable effort to do so (during which time the clock will have changed probably at least two or three times) I suppose one might ask why he's going through all those gyrations. Not to mention that his partner has to go through the same gyrations, and to do so in such a way that he's looking at the clock at the same time the original player is looking.

[FelicityR]

It's a long time since I played in tournaments but surely any conventional bid used must be consistent with what's on a convention card. If it isn't then effectively it is cheating in my book.

[pescetom]

It's a long time since I played in tournaments but surely any conventional bid used must be consistent with what's on a convention card. If it isn't then effectively it is cheating in my book.

 

It certainly must be consistent with what's on the card, and if not written on the card itself it should be in notes.

But much more important and realistic, "Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal."

So taking account of other circumstances is not legitimate.

Looking at the clock may be impractical, but encrypting based upon other circumstances such as number of table, number of board, gender of opponents etc. etc. is clearly not, and come to that there is always coughing, blowing one's nose, position of bidding cards, etc. etc.

It makes little difference, cheating is cheating.

[hrothgar]

True, but considering that in most cases a player in a club here who wished to look at the round clock would have to make considerable effort to do so (during which time the clock will have changed probably at least two or three times) I suppose one might ask why he's going through all those gyrations. Not to mention that his partner has to go through the same gyrations, and to do so in such a way that he's looking at the clock at the same time the original player is looking.

 

Depends on whether you are collecting low order bits or high...

[hrothgar]

 

Looking at the clock may be impractical, but encrypting based upon other circumstances such as number of table, number of board, gender of opponents etc. etc. is clearly not, and come to that there is always coughing, blowing one's nose, position of bidding cards, etc. etc.

 

 

Perhaps, but none of the proponents of encrypted bidding advocate using the table number or gender of opponents as the "key", let alone out of band signals like coughing or the position of bidding cards. Rather, they suggest using a portion of the (earlier) bidding space for key exchange.

 

It makes little difference, cheating is cheating.

 

I don't disagree, however, what I see here you making is a set of ignorant assertions.

 

Go away.

Learn something about the actual topic being discussed.

Once you've done so, please let us know what you discover.

 

The January '81 copy of The Bridge World is a good place to start...

 

Alternatively, http://blakjak.org/brx_win1.htm has a useful example...

[pescetom]

Learn something about the actual topic being discussed.

Once you've done so, please let us know what you discover.

 

The January '81 copy of The Bridge World is a good place to start...

 

Alternatively, http://blakjak.org/brx_win1.htm has a useful example...

 

Sorry, I only saw the last few messages and thought they were all, thus missing the point of the discussion.

[barmar]

When asked you would still have to describe truthfully what bid meant.

Opps know what happened on previous board also.

The suggested key is what happened in a previous round, when you were playing against different opponents.

[pran]

The suggested key is what happened in a previous round, when you were playing against different opponents.

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:

(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or

[...]

so information derived from a different board is extraneous. It doesn't matter against whom the different board was played.

[weejonnie]

Using who declared on the previous hand is not permitted by the laws because it relies on something external to this board.

 

(In a similar vein, you can't vary your mean based on where the round clock is showing an odd or an even number)

 

Is it? Law 16A

 

(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law

7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

[steve2005]

The suggested key is what happened in a previous round, when you were playing against different opponents.

Wow, well you know what we call that around here!.

[steve2005]

The suggested key is what happened in a previous round, when you were playing against different opponents.

So you ask opps what 2♠ means?

They say it shows spade if board 1 was a plus and shows hearts if board 1 was a minus.

Just kick them out of the tournament.

 

 

 

[Phil]

Had a former partner have an agreement with someone else that played standard carding if dummy played an even card at T1, UDCASP otherwise.

[blackshoe]

Had a former partner have an agreement with someone else that played standard carding if dummy played an even card at T1, UDCASP otherwise.

That wouldn't be a problem so long as it's fully disclosed before trick one is quitted.

[steve2005]

That wouldn't be a problem so long as it's fully disclosed before trick one is quitted.

If disclosed.

Then it is just an extra thing for declarer to think about so they might make a mistake on carding or elsewhere. This does not seem to be any advantage from a bridge standpoint. Method is trying to gain an advantage just by confusing or outright deceiving if opps didn't ask. I have never asked opponents are you playing encrypted signals.

[blackshoe]

The thing about encrypted signals is that the key is not available to declarer. In this case it would be available if and only if he knows to look for it at trick one. If he does know, they're not playing encrypted signals. If he doesn't, they are.

 

Note that I am not positing that declarer has to ask. He doesn't.

[Phil]

They stopped because it was so infuriating to the opponents. I mean, why should you ask at T1 when you can ask at t2?

[helene_t]

Looking at the clock may be impractical, but encrypting based upon other circumstances such as number of table, number of board, gender of opponents etc. etc. is clearly not, and come to that there is always coughing, blowing one's nose, position of bidding cards, etc. etc.

It makes little difference, cheating is cheating.

But what you refer to is not encrypted bidding.

 

Encrypted bidding is based on a key which partner has access to by looking at his own hand. An example would be

 

2♣-2♠

3♠-4♣

 

Suppose you have the agreement that the 2♠ bid shows two of the three top honours while that 3♠ bid confirms the 3rd top honour. Now both partners know each other's honour holding in spades so they can agree that the 4♣ opening can have three different meanings, depending on which of the honours is held by opener. This means that both partners will know what the 4♣ bid means but opps don't.

 

This is not cheating. It is just a convention which may or may not be allowed, depending on local regulations.

[fromageGB]

OK, so this is not only legal, but presumably acceptable by national jurisdictions. The examples quoted here do not give anything other than obfuscation, as the same information may be given by open means, so could be deemed by Steve as nefarious ; except perhaps for my initial kings example, which does actually have a merit in that it is simpler than other methods if you want to find all kings. I infer from the replies given here that the defenders are NOT allowed to ask which king(s) are shown.

[fromageGB]

Law 16 seems in need of a revamp. The clauses are linked by ORs, and (d) effectively says "anything goes". (But not looking at the clock, because it has to be information gained before withdrawing the cards.)

 

Specifically 16A2 says you may use the traits of the opponents in this, so if you play against Steve you are allowed to use all the obfuscation you can muster, where you may play straight with others.

[Tramticket]

This discussion is interesting. I was aware that encrypted carding is generally not allowed by the EBU and it had never occurred to me that you might also be able to use encrypted bids. It would seem illogical to ban encrypted carding but not ban encrypted bidding and this suggests a few questions:

- Is the failure to ban encrypted bidding an oversight? Or because it is seen as less disruptive? Or because in practice nobody uses encrypted calls?

- It seems to me quite easy to design encrypted carding methods, which will be useful and easy to operate. I quickly thought of "defender with majority of the defensive high-card strength gives attitude, defender with minority of the defensive high-card strength gives count" (may or may not be effective but ...). It seems less easy to design encrypted bidding methods that are useful but do not disrupt the requirement to find the correct strain and level. I can't imagine such a method working in a competitive auction, or a part-score auction and possibly not in a game level auction. Maybe this is the reason that the EBU doesn't bother to regulate?