[broze]

---

South deals

1♦ - 1♠
1NT - 2♣*
2♠ - 4♠

*NMF


In this hand NS have reached 4♠ and declarer must pick up the ♥ suit for 3 winners to make. EW play coded leads meaning East leads the 9 from QT9x. On this deal therefore coded leads lose as the lead of the 10 denies the Q and the ♥ position becomes immediately known to declarer. He can comfortably play to drop the Q♥ doubleton.

Here is my idea for "hyper-coded leads" - it's probably been thought of before but I've never heard of anything like it:

Both defenders have information that declarer doesn't on this hand, that is the split of the trump suit since the auction shows that the opps have exactly 8. It is therefore possible on hands like these to further code your leads. For example, when leader has an odd # of trumps he can lead the 9 from this suit and when he has an even number he can lead the 10. That is just an example but it demonstrates the principle I'm trying to indicate which is that the ♥ position then becomes evident to the defence but not to declarer since at that point he is unaware of the ♠ split. When East gets in again with the A♠ he can lead another ♥ and force declarer to guess.

I hope that all makes sense. Is this implementation legal or even useful? I have my doubts because I've never come across any discussion about it. Obviously it could only be used when the defenders have an exact count of the opps trumps from the auctio,n but like I say it is the principle I am theorising about.

[Phil]

Quote

Both defenders have information that declarer doesn't on this hand, that is the split of the trump suit since the auction shows that the opps have exactly 8.

Ergo the lead is cryptic based on a key only known to the defense. Not allowed.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Ergo the lead is cryptic based on a key only known to the defense. Not allowed.

Meh, I could define is as: "from hands containing even amount of trumps we give natural count but from hands containing odd amount of trumps we give upside down count" and now the system should be legal...

On the other hand many commonly played and legal agreements could be phrased as "cryptic" and still be logical equivalent.

[ArtK78]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-30, 09:36, said:

Meh, I could define is as: "from hands containing even amount of trumps we give natural count but from hands containing odd amount of trumps we give upside down count" and now the system should be legal...

On the other hand many commonly played and legal agreements could be phrased as "cryptic" and still be logical equivalent.

Such a carding method would still be encrypted, as the key to determine the meaning of the lead is known only to the defense. Declarer can discover the key by pulling trump, but that is not the issue. Encrypted leads and carding are not allowed at any level of competition in the ACBL.

When encrypted leads and carding were allowed (there was a short period of time that this was true) I played in one partnership that if one of us held an even number of trumps (or a key suit in which the number of declarer's cards was known) that such player's carding was upside down but if one of us held an odd number of trumps (or the key suit) that player's carding was standard, but as soon as the key became known to declarer all carding reverted to upside down (our preferred method). Theoretically, this should have been an advantage to us, but it really did not make too much difference.

[broze]

If you are right ArtK78 and such leads and discards are illegal then it seems to me to be distorting the game of bridge somewhat. Are they also illegal in the EBU? Or at the highest professional level where most laws about psyching and conventions are much less strict? I can understand you might not expect the average club player to be able to counter this tactic but I would expect the pros to.

If the law forbids such agreements (which one btw?) then it seems to be distorting the equality somewhat by giving declarer an advantage. His systems have revealed the layout of a particular suit and so surely it is not unreasonable for him to be punished in this slight way. There are a myriad of examples where the layout of the hands becomes clear to declarer before the defence. Why should the defence not try and counter this advantage? It certainly raises interesting ethical questions.

ArtK78, on 2012-January-30, 09:48, said:

it really did not make too much difference.

As you say, it will make a difference very infrequently. This is why I chose a hand where the advantage is clear.

[ArtK78]

broze, on 2012-January-30, 10:16, said:

If you are right ArtK78 and such leads and discards are illegal then it seems to me to be distorting the game of bridge somewhat. Are they also illegal in the EBU? Or at the highest professional level where most laws about psyching and conventions are much less strict? I can understand you might not expect the average club player to be able to counter this tactic but I would expect the pros to.

If the law forbids such agreements (which one btw?) then it seems to be distorting the equality somewhat by giving declarer an advantage. His systems have revealed the layout of a particular suit and so surely it is not unreasonable for him to be punished in this slight way. There are a myriad of examples where the layout of the hands becomes clear to declarer before the defence. Why should the defence not try and counter this advantage? It certainly raises interesting ethical questions.



As you say, it will make a difference very infrequently. This is why I chose a hand where the advantage is clear.

No law forbids such agreements. It is a matter of the regulatory authority of the various NCOs to allow or prohibit such agreements. The ACBL chooses to prohibit encrypted signals at all levels.

The ACBL also prohibits the use of multi-meaning carding except at a defender's first discard. There is some reason for this. At a player's first discard, it should be relatively easy to choose a card which conveys the meanings that a player wishes to convey (if any). Therefore, there should not be any break in tempo. As the play progresses, the availability of cards which convey the desired information diminishes. A player may find it more difficult to choose his or her discard, causing breaks in tempo. Such breaks in tempo convey UI. Furthermore, it is fairly clear why the player is pausing, so the UI conveyed can be very clear.

The issue with encrypted signals is different. It is a matter of full disclosure. While you may argue that it is full disclosure to state that a player will signal using one method of signals if he holds an even number of trumps and the same player will use a different method of signals if he holds an odd number of trumps is full disclosure (and, indeed, it does convey the entire agreement), the fact that both defenders know whether that player holds an even number or an odd number of trumps but declarer does not is both the point of encrypted signals and the reason that they are not allowed. The fact that the defenders know something about the hand through entirely legitimate means that declarer does not know and the defenders can alter their methods accordingly strikes many as being fundamentally unfair.

[brian_m]

ArtK78, on 2012-January-30, 11:09, said:

The ACBL also prohibits the use of multi-meaning carding except at a defender's first discard. There is some reason for this. At a player's first discard, it should be relatively easy to choose a card which conveys the meanings that a player wishes to convey (if any). Therefore, there should not be any break in tempo. As the play progresses, the availability of cards which convey the desired information diminishes. A player may find it more difficult to choose his or her discard, causing breaks in tempo. Such breaks in tempo convey UI. Furthermore, it is fairly clear why the player is pausing, so the UI conveyed can be very clear.

And that ban is, of course, grossly unfair on those pairs who prefer this system and know how to play it LEGALLY. I like odd/even carding throughout. When I partnered my wife, I made it clear to her when I taught her the method that she absolutely HAD to keep tempo, even to the extent of possibly giving me a false signal if she couldn't work out which card to play without breaking tempo.

TDs are used to dealing with the use of UI from hesitations in bidding, and there is no logical reason why hesitations in play should be treated differently. Throw the book at the players who do pass UI with a dual-meaning carding scheme, by all means, but those who take pains to play them without passing UI should be allowed to do so.

Fortunately I no longer play offline bridge, so the ACBL can stick its regulations where the sun don't shine.

[ArtK78]

Brian:

I understand your frustration at not being allowed to play odd/even carding throughout a hand. But the fact is that, in practice, even players at the top levels of competition in the ACBL who employed such methods routinely faced difficult carding situations. As this became common knowledge, the ACBL was left with little choice but to ban such methods, as it was felt that the conveyance of UI through the difficult carding situations created by such methods would be unavoidable.

Personally, I don't see why it is necessary or even desirable to play odd/even carding, Lavinthal discards, etc., at any situation other than at one's first opportunity to discard. But that is just my opinion.

[petterb]

broze, on 2012-January-30, 09:10, said:

... since the auction shows that the opps have exactly 8.

Not true. North could have 6♠ and 4♥.

[broze]

petterb, on 2012-January-30, 11:47, said:

Not true. North could have 6♠ and 4♥.

Yes, you're right. It was only really a loose practical example to supplement an otherwise theoretical topic.

[mycroft]

Again, given "Oxford, UK", ACBL regulations aren't really relevant except as examples.

However, the EBU has a similar rule barring encrypted signals.

It's a regulation, though, so as long as you can explain it simply and in a way the opponents can understand, then anywhere there isn't such a regulation - like most of BBO - go right ahead.

[blackshoe]

brian_m, on 2012-January-30, 11:19, said:

And that ban is, of course, grossly unfair on those pairs who prefer this system and know how to play it LEGALLY. I like odd/even carding throughout. When I partnered my wife, I made it clear to her when I taught her the method that she absolutely HAD to keep tempo, even to the extent of possibly giving me a false signal if she couldn't work out which card to play without breaking tempo.

TDs are used to dealing with the use of UI from hesitations in bidding, and there is no logical reason why hesitations in play should be treated differently. Throw the book at the players who do pass UI with a dual-meaning carding scheme, by all means, but those who take pains to play them without passing UI should be allowed to do so.

Fortunately I no longer play offline bridge, so the ACBL can stick its regulations where the sun don't shine.

"Passing UI" is not illegal, unless it's done deliberately.

Don't play in any online ACBL tournaments.

[brian_m]

blackshoe, on 2012-January-30, 15:04, said:

"Passing UI" is not illegal, unless it's done deliberately.

Don't play in any online ACBL tournaments.

Well, I guess I should thank you for the advice, Ed, but the fact is I don't play in ANY tournaments, ACBL or otherwise. They're too slow for my taste. I think I tried one or two a few years back, and that was enough for me. Too much sitting around waiting compared with standard club play.

The statement about passing UI was because the various regulatory bodies appear to have decided that in the case of dual-meaning carding, it is the creation of UI, rather than its deliberate use, which is the problem.

[brian_m]

ArtK78, on 2012-January-30, 11:40, said:

Brian:

I understand your frustration at not being allowed to play odd/even carding throughout a hand. But the fact is that, in practice, even players at the top levels of competition in the ACBL who employed such methods routinely faced difficult carding situations. As this became common knowledge, the ACBL was left with little choice but to ban such methods, as it was felt that the conveyance of UI through the difficult carding situations created by such methods would be unavoidable.

Personally, I don't see why it is necessary or even desirable to play odd/even carding, Lavinthal discards, etc., at any situation other than at one's first opportunity to discard. But that is just my opinion.

I'm sorry, but I still do not see the difference between UI caused by a tempo break in the bidding and UI caused by a tempo break in the play. Both are evidence that the player has a problem. Procedural penalties are the answer to partnerships who routinely use such information - I think that those who couldn't play them legally would very quickly stop using them after being handed a few quarter-top penalties.

[dake50]

"Passing UI" is not illegal, unless it's done deliberately.
**
Passing gas is not impolite, smelling it is?

[bluecalm]

Quote

Such a carding method would still be encrypted, as the key to determine the meaning of the lead is known only to the defense.

No it's not. Signal just says: "From subset of all my possible hands I have either odd amount of trumps and even amount out of said suit or even amount of trumps and odd amount of given suit". In other words: "parity of trumps and that suit is the same or different, low card says same, high card says different".
It can't be considered encrypted because then all "sophisticated" attitude signals would be encrypted too ("we either have honors in that suit or we don't want obvious switch" as commonly played by people).

Common count signal: "I have either 2 or 4, you figure it out depending on your hand" is also encrypted. Defender almost always knows real count based on amount of cards in their hand while declarer needs to play some side suits cards to figure it out.

I realize that in the end it comes down to what directors says but I am just pointing out that definition "key which is only available to defenders" is silly and if applied literally it would lead to ban of almost all signals played by people.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2012-January-30, 11:58, said:

Again, given "Oxford, UK", ACBL regulations aren't really relevant except as examples.

A number of posters have trouble coping with this concept!

Quote

However, the EBU has a similar rule barring encrypted signals.

As I mentioned in the recent other thread about encrypted signals, they are disallowed at all levels by the regulatory authorities of Scotland, Wales, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. I do not have information about other RAs. Also they are not permitted in the EBL or WBF.