[WellSpyder]

 bluejak, on 2013-February-05, 05:58, said:

Sure, you give a meaningless example, but encrypted signals are clear enough.

I really think this is just wrong. I am generally a supporter of the idea that you will know something when you see it, but I find it very hard to apply this principle to encrypted signals when you look at it carefully. In some cases the contortions involved are clear, but in many other cases I think the changes in description that appear to convert encrypted signals into non-encrypted signals of vice versa are quite reasonable. The example of signalling whether you have an odd or even number of small cards seems a case in point - or, indeed, signalling whether you have an odd or even number of major suit cards.

[Trinidad]

Just my $0.02:

IMO it is very hard to define encrypted signals. Furthermore, I don't see any real reason to disallow them. Sure, if everybody will start using encrypted signals, the game will change. But I think it is for the better: There will be one vague rule less than before.

To me, signalling honestly without the ace and dishonestly with the ace is (in that order):
1) a good tactic
2) an encrypted signal

So what?

Rik

[barmar]

The last hand in Enigma Club has the protagonist having a nervous breakdown when he can't get the opponents to tell him which suit was shown by an encrypted suit preference signal. He'd had a pretty good first session, but in the second session got a bad result on every board, mostly due to the opponents playing encrypted bidding and defensive systems.

Declarer not being able to read defensive signals will definitely change the game. Not much for low-level players, who barely know how to signal themselves and rarely look at the defenders' signals, but advanced and expert players depend on it.

[aguahombre]

Moving, if I may, up from the specific situation where defender is holding up the Ace because his partner is giving accurate count, to the more general:

Does the belief that partner doesn't need our signals on a particular hand meet the definition of a "key"?

Is playing or discarding a card we don't want to still have in our hand after the trick ---without regard to count, attitude, or suit preference --- considered a signal?

The underlying question is whether, under current laws, we are allowed to ignore our own general carding agreements when we don't feel the need to transmit information, without some SB calling it illegal encrypted signalling.

No, David, I don't consider "need to know" carding an unethical attempt to skirt regulations, or that the regulations even apply. Agreeing to change to a different signalling method based on some key unavailable to Declarer is Encrypted signalling, but choosing not to use our method is Bridge.

Our obligation to disclose when asked, that our carding is "need to know" is obvious.

[mycroft]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-04, 15:37, said:

Yes, the ten is an honor.

Ed, I can read... How many times have you seen "low from an honour, nth-best from small" and lead the nth from T8xx?

"Do you, when choosing which signalling method to use, consider the ten an honour?"

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2013-February-05, 13:00, said:

Ed, I can read... How many times have you seen "low from an honour, nth-best from small" and lead the nth from T8xx?

"Do you, when choosing which signalling method to use, consider the ten an honour?"

Sorry, Mycroft. If I'd noticed who asked the question I'd probably not have bothered answering, but I didn't notice. There was a question, so I answered.

My answers to your two questions, on the assumption they're directed at me, are that if I agree to lead low from an honor, then I lead low from T8xx, and "yes".

[aguahombre]

Our answer is no. We know the ten is considered an honor card by a lot of people; we just don't happen to be among them, for the purpose of attitude based leads.

[blackshoe]

<shrug> "Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty

[aguahombre]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-05, 18:06, said:

Our answer is no. We know the ten is considered an honor card by a lot of people; we just don't happen to be among them, for the purpose of attitude based leads.

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-05, 20:04, said:

<shrug> "Words mean what I want them to mean, neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty

That retort would apply, if we were in a different context ---perhaps disclosure, for instance. But I think you will find many situations where players use the word "honor", but exclude the ten. It doesn't mean they don't necessarily know that once upon a time the ten was part of 150 honors when they played rubber Bridge.

Posts which describe a holding of "HXX" in a suit usually refer to an Ace or face card.

Many (most?) pairs who lead low only from an "honor", would lead some other spot from T8XX(X).

Mycroft (in effect) asked whether you distinguish between (say) a Queen and a Ten in your signalling methods --- he didn't really care about your general definition of an "honor card". You answered for you; I answered for me. The question was valid, the answers were valid. Humpty Dumpty can choose his own agreements.

[blackshoe]

The laws say the ten is an honor. If you want to call it something else, have at it.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-05, 21:48, said:

The laws say the ten is an honor. If you want to call it something else, have at it.

The laws don't tell us whether we have to include the ten with other honors in our carding agreements. They do tell us we have to properly disclose those agreements; if you want to campaign for people to say "We lead nth from one or more high card points.", have at it.

Some very good players who have been burned by assuming common usage, now ask "Do you consider the Ten an honor in your agreements?".

[Zelandakh]

For the purposes of Journalist NT leads, the 9 is also considered an honour. It is clear that honour for the purposes of explaining carding agreeemnts may often mean something different from honour in the Laws. As for the question regarding signalling the number of small cards in a suit, I would hope this is legal or Fantunes are going to have a few issues at their next tournament. And as for the Enigma Club, it is a work of fiction. You could just as easily write about a player having a nervous breakdown because he could not work out which major RHO preempted with after a Multi 2♦ opening.

[Cthulhu D]

It's obvious the defintion of encrypted is bunk though, because it's very easy to redefine signals such that they are not encrypted. I struggled with this when I asked for the sterotypical 'shows an odd or even number of black cards' signal was encrypted or not.

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-05, 21:48, said:

The laws say the ten is an honor. If you want to call it something else, have at it.

Agree with Blackshoe. Misunderstandings about meaning already hamper our communication without deliberately and unnecessarily adding to that confusion. I wish the law-book defined even more of its basic terminology and more accurately.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-February-05, 21:48, said:

The laws say the ten is an honor. If you want to call it something else, have at it.

Often people refer to "high honors" or "royals".

In the context of signalling, definitions are often fuzzy, because we can recognize that a card may have more or less significance in a particular situation than it might ordinarily have. So we might treat a high spot card as an honor when it looks like it will play as one.

The most obvious case of this is words like "high" and "low". I've had opponents ask, after we make a signal that might be suit preference, which suit it's asking for, i.e. is the 7 high or low. In my case, it's high if we have lower spot cards, it's low if we have higher ones (I realize there are some partnerships that actually have specific rules that certain spot card ranges are high, middle, or low, although this seems even worse than odd-even in the way you may not have the appropriate cards).

[mycroft]

Sorry to cause all that kerfuffle over a throwaway (a legitimate throwaway, but one nonetheless). And I'm sorry my response was less civil than it could have been.

What I meant by those two questions (what about from two honours? Do you count the ten as an honour?) *in response to hearing* "From an honour our count is upside-down; from n small we signal right-side-up" was that the descriptions needed to make "normal" "encrypted" are not as trivial as they seem; not what do you (for each version of you) actually do.

I still have an issue with "we signal only what, and when, partner needs to know"; in that part of "when partner needs to know" is based on information I'm not allowed to have (the contents of signaller's hand), and some on bridge skill that I may or may not have; but some - a lot - is based on agreements I'm entitled to, and have yet to see any way to get an acceptable, and sane answer to it that contains all the AI without any of the UI. And I also believe that many who write that - against non-experts, anyway - are actively attempting minimal disclosure in a situation where it is clearly to their benefit to do so. Even if it is accurate.

In response to "is the 7 high or low", I like barmar's response as an at-the-table, better even than my current "It depends on what other cards he has in his hand"; but I've always liked "well, you tell me what cards you hold in that suit, and I can give you an accurate answer". Obviously, not at the table, and only for education, to show them that they really are asking "tell me what cards you hold in this suit". And given that the 2 was a high card last week (well, the highest I could afford to play),...

[bluejak]

 pran, on 2013-February-05, 06:32, said:

I do come a long way with bluejak here, but I would like his specific comment on an agreement like:

High-low signals show the count of cards in the suit ignoring Aces (or alternatively Aces and Kings).

So {AKxxxx, Kxxxx,} Axxxx and xxxx will all be signalled as containing an even number of (small) cards.

I don't know if a signalling agreement like this would have any merit, but my question here is if such a signal can be considered encrypted?

In principle it is not encrypted, since if you show an even number of small cards there seems an equal likelihood of declarer and the other defender knowing the key, ie who has the ace and king. Encrypted signals only apply when the key will be known by the other defender but not declarer.

 WellSpyder, on 2013-February-05, 06:40, said:

I really think this is just wrong. I am generally a supporter of the idea that you will know something when you see it, but I find it very hard to apply this principle to encrypted signals when you look at it carefully. In some cases the contortions involved are clear, but in many other cases I think the changes in description that appear to convert encrypted signals into non-encrypted signals of vice versa are quite reasonable. The example of signalling whether you have an odd or even number of small cards seems a case in point - or, indeed, signalling whether you have an odd or even number of major suit cards.

I did not mean that it is always obvious whether a signal is encrypted, just that the principle of what encrypted signals means is clear. Certainly there are dubious cases.

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-05, 10:22, said:

Just my $0.02:

IMO it is very hard to define encrypted signals. Furthermore, I don't see any real reason to disallow them. Sure, if everybody will start using encrypted signals, the game will change. But I think it is for the better: There will be one vague rule less than before.

To me, signalling honestly without the ace and dishonestly with the ace is (in that order):
1) a good tactic
2) an encrypted signal

So what?

This thread is about legality. The EBU has said that this encrypted signal is legal because it is considered a good and normal tactic. But ti is illegal under other jurisdictions without reference to whether it is a good tactic.

 mycroft, on 2013-February-05, 13:00, said:

Ed, I can read... How many times have you seen "low from an honour, nth-best from small" and lead the nth from T8xx?

"Do you, when choosing which signalling method to use, consider the ten an honour?"

I lead the 8 from T8xx, but when asked to describe my small card leads I say "Fourth from an honour, second without an honour: for this purpose the ten does not count as an honour".

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-05, 21:37, said:

But I think you will find many situations where players use the word "honor", but exclude the ten.

Similar to them excluding the 'u', perhaps.

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2013-February-10, 16:37, said:

 pran, on 2013-February-05, 06:32, said:

I do come a long way with bluejak here, but I would like his specific comment on an agreement like:

High-low signals show the count of cards in the suit ignoring Aces (or alternatively Aces and Kings).

So {AKxxxx, Kxxxx,} Axxxx and xxxx will all be signalled as containing an even number of (small) cards.

I don't know if a signalling agreement like this would have any merit, but my question here is if such a signal can be considered encrypted?

In principle it is not encrypted, since if you show an even number of small cards there seems an equal likelihood of declarer and the other defender knowing the key, ie who has the ace and king. Encrypted signals only apply when the key will be known by the other defender but not declarer.

Fair enough. How about the case where:
- defenders know that declarer can't hold the ace (e.g because it would give him too many points for his 1NT opener)?
- defenders must assume that declarer doesn't hold the ace (since otherwise the contract would unbreakable) and, therefore, the signal is only relevant when the key is indeed "known" by the defenders?

Rik

[aguahombre]

 Trinidad, on 2013-February-10, 18:14, said:

Fair enough. How about the case where:
- defenders know that declarer can't hold the ace (e.g because it would give him too many points for his 1NT opener)?
- defenders must assume that declarer doesn't hold the ace (since otherwise the contract would unbreakable) and, therefore, the signal is only relevant when the key is indeed "known" by the defenders?

Rik

And? You think declarer is entitled to know something, there? Like which one is signalling and which one isnt?

[Trinidad]

 aguahombre, on 2013-February-10, 18:51, said:

And? You think declarer is entitled to know something, there? Like which one is signalling and which one isnt?

No, I don't. But then again, I said that I think encrypted signals should be allowed.

My question was not whether this should be allowed (for me that is a clear yes). The question is whether it is an encrypted signal (to me that is also a clear yes).

You seem to define an encrypted signal as a signal that isn't allowed. And since the above situation should be allowed, this cannot be an encrypted signal. The usual order is to define things first and then say whether they are allowed.

I asked this question because David claims that this isn't really an encrypted signal because the defenders don't know more than declarer about the key (the ace). So I ask him for his opinion if the defenders do know the key and declarer doesn't, by giving two situations:
- one where the defenders know explicitly that declarer can't have the ace.
- one where the defenders know by inference that declarer can't have the ace. (If he has the ace, it doesn't matter what they signal: the contract can't be broken.)

To me, those are encrypted signals. I don't have a problem with those, since I would allow encrypted signals anyway. But if I see signals with an encryption (right side up or upside down) and a key (possession of the ace) that determines the encryption then I will say that these signals are encrypted.

Rik