[luke warm]

i was looking at my major suit structure, and it made me wonder about something.. right now i use 4c and 4d as big balanced raises, with 4c showing either 2 of the top 3 honors (if 4 card support) or the A or K if 5 card support.. 4d shows same strength but without the honor support

my question comes about after the 4c bid... imagine opener has one of the top 3 honors and hears a 4c response.. now he *knows* responder has 5 cards with the A or K else 4 cards with A,K or K,Q or A,Q... can a cuebid now be either showing OR denying a control, based on the honor opener has, legally?

i know i'm not explaining this very well.. say you open 1h with K or Q 5th and pard bids 4c... you know he has A,Q or K,Q or just A, based on your own holding... further suppose you bid 4d now, and alert it as "diamond control if i have the A of trumps, no diamond control if i have the K or Q"

it's true that partner knows whether or not you hold a diamond control, but does this constitute u.i.? it seems to me that i don't *have* to tell the opps which honor i have, and the fact that partner knows doesn't seem to matter... but i could be wrong

heck, the possibilities seem endless... ben, for example, plays 2nt over 1M as limit plus... if he just added the caveat that it means limit+ with either of the top 2, can't denial cuebids be used here also?

i think i have a headache

[inquiry]

What you are describing is encyptic bidding. In theory this should be legal, but in fact, I think it is might be specifically outlawed. Here is a cute link first one) and seriouis one (second) describing other examples of this concept (can also apply to defensive carding as well).

http://www.blakjak.d.../crypto.htm#top

and

http://www.blakjak.d...uk/brx_win1.htm

[luke warm]

oh that was priceless heheh... there really is nothing new under the sun, eh? the 2nd link you gave showed more articles, think i'll read them

i'm torn.. i can't imagine it being illegal, and i also can't imagine it being legal

[tysen2k]

inquiry, on Jun 25 2004, 11:23 AM, said:

What you are describing is encyptic bidding. In theory this should be legal, but in fact, I think it is might be specifically outlawed. Here is a cute link first one) and seriouis one (second) describing other examples of this concept (can also apply to defensive carding as well).

I might be wrong about this, but I think the current legality is:

encrypted bids = legal
encrypted leads = legal
encrypted signals = illegal

[inquiry]

Yes, found it in the ACBL laws at least. Encrypted carding is disallowed in all events (even Superchart), It is unclear if encrypted cue-bidding is legal or not. It depends upon your reading of the rules on the convention charts. It says, in effect that Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed. The chart does not allow control (stopper) cue-bidding specifically, but everyone does that. IT also does not allow encrypted cue-bidding (and essentially no one does that). So I don't know. Might be a good question for our ACBL certified directors.

Ben

[mikestar]

My take on this is that encryted methods are all illegal. They all involve use of information knowable to partner and unknowable to opponents. This is a violation of the sprit of full disclosure.

The case must be distinguished from the authorized information that partner has a cretain card. Let's say I bid (old fashioned) Blackwood with holding AS and AH and partner bid 5H. The knowledge that partner has AD and AC is authorized--it is a logical inference based on the assumption partner has what his bid shows.

Using such information to encrypt bidding is a convention, and because of the intrinsically private nature of the information, it is a private convention--incapable of full discloure, therefor illegal.

[uday]

I checked w/one of the higher ranked ACBL TDs years ago, and he said encrypted bidding would not be allowed.

I don't happen to agree w/mikestar's logic; is it "encryption" when you (say)
open 4H, and subsequently partner leads the HA (ruffed). Now, you later discard the H3, playing lavinthal. Is declarer entitled to know that you have the 2 ? After all, P knows who has the 2, and declarer doesnt.

[mikestar]

No, declarer isn't entitled to know that you have 2H--no partnership agreement is involved. If partner doesn't have the 2, dummy doesn't have it, and declarer showed out, the only legal possibility is that you have it. (There are illegal possibilites: declarer revoked, missing card. . . .)

In your example, partner even uses this knowlege to interpret your 3 as "high". You may have even chosen the 3 instead of the 9 knowing that partner knows you have the 2. All of this is perfectly legal and none of it involves partnership agreement--all of it is bridge logic.

In you example, the analogous situtation to the encrypted bidding discussed would be: since you are known to have 2H, we're are using upside-down signals for the rest of the hand, if partner had 2H we'd be using standard signals.

[luke warm]

mikestar, on Jun 25 2004, 08:41 PM, said:

My take on this is that encryted methods are all illegal. They all involve use of information knowable to partner and unknowable to opponents. This is a violation of the sprit of full disclosure.

The case must be distinguished from the authorized information that partner has a cretain card. Let's say I bid (old fashioned) Blackwood with holding AS and AH and partner bid 5H. The knowledge that partner has AD and AC is authorized--it is a logical inference based on the assumption partner has what his bid shows.

Using such information to encrypt bidding is a convention, and because of the intrinsically private nature of the information, it is a private convention--incapable of full discloure, therefor illegal.

well i'm no expert, which is the reason for my original question, but i'm not sure this is illegal based on mike's quote above ... if the test is what's knowable to partner must also be knowable to the opps, many bids fit that definition

mike used blackwood as an example, and called it a logical inference that certain cards are held... that's true, it is... but aren't all these bids based on logical inferences?

this is all new to me, i had no idea they had been developed at all, much less to this extent... i just find it hard to accept that 1h : 4c : 4d, alerted as "diamond control if partner holds HA else no control" is illegal... then again, i find it hard to accept that it's legal...

how about another example given in those articles? lead 4th best if 7 hcp or fewer else 3/5? that surely seems legal to me, but declarer has no clue who has what while both defenders do

[mikestar]

We can debate the letter of the law endlessly--I may be wrong, I may be right. But I take the postion that encryption violates the spirit of the laws.

Using normal methods, if you disclose something to partner, you also disclose it to the opponents. If you conceal something from the opponents, you conceal it from partner. If you falsify something to the opponents you falsify it to partner.

Now partner may be in a better position than the opponents to know what's going on due to the cards he holds; but it's equally possible for an opponent to be in a better position than partner.

What encrytion does is warp this situtation--when partner knows more due to the cards he holds, we use his knowledge to send secret messages; when an opponent knows more, he gets no extra advantage.

To my mind this is fundamentally unfair and ACBL is right to ban encryption at all levels of play.

[Trpltrbl]

I think this falls under Law 40 PDship understanding :

B. Concealed Partnership Understandings Prohibited
A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.

Mike

[Cascade]

I do not think encryption is about disclosure.

You can play encrypted methods and disclose those methods perfectly adequately.

Disclosure of your methods does not imply that the opponents will always know exactly what you have got.

The arguements against encrption seem to me to stem from a dislike of complicated methods that might give someone a theoretical advantage over simpler methods.

[luke warm]

Cascade, on Jun 27 2004, 09:36 PM, said:

I do not think encryption is about disclosure.

You can play encrypted methods and disclose those methods perfectly adequately.

Disclosure of your methods does not imply that the opponents will always know exactly what you have got.

The arguements against encrption seem to me to stem from a dislike of complicated methods that might give someone a theoretical advantage over simpler methods.

this seems to be correct... mike posted law 40, but it's slightly ambiguous... for example ".. unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations.."

the meaning is easily understood AND the meaning is fully disclosed.. "he has the king if he has the ace of trumps and he has the ace if he has the king of trumps" is full disclosure, it seems to me... true, the opps weren't told whether or not the ace or king of trumps is held, but i'm not sure they are owed that

mikestar's objection is harder to handle, mainly because a part of me agrees with it... the spirit of the law/game means different things to different people

[Free]

If you really look at it objectively, RKC blackwood for example is also an encrypted method, cause opps can't know if it's 0 or 3 kc. Control asking bids are also encrypted since opps don't know if it's the A or KQ. And many other examples like this are allowed. I actually don't see the difference, but I hope they never ban these!!!

[flytoox]

good question raised by jimmy, and greatk linked articles by Ben. Hope i can try this some time. I like this idea a lot.


i also hope this is legal. i think it would be legal in china:) coz we dont have much rules about bridge.
hongjun

[Shrike]

The encrypted bids above are legal in the ACBL, including under the General Chart: from "ALLOWED" "Responses and Rebids" under the GC: "7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opener's second call." (emphasis in original)

[luke warm]

i have no earthly idea what that means, but i'll take your word for it

[mikestar]

A good definition of encrypted bidding and signals:

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=b...y&f=glosse.html

[luke warm]

very nice, thx mike