[weejonnie]

The contract is 3NT by South on the highly complex system : 1NT : P: 3NT All pass

West leads a small spade, East wins and switches suit. South assumes West has led from length and makes a play that fails, when it turns out that West has led from two small.

S) "That was a funny lead?"

W) "Well I had a very weak hand so played for my partner's suit"

S) "Why did you switch suit?"

E) "Well as I had 11 points, I knew that my partner had a weak hand and so was trying to find my good suit."

S) "Director Please - EW are playing encrypted leads. East has made a play based on information which was not available to me."

Your ruling? For help here is the Blue Book Reference

7 F 2 Encrypted carding
No partnership understanding is permitted whereby the meaning of a lead, signal or discard is based in principle on information not available to declarer, so no form of ‘encrypted’ carding is permitted.

[blackshoe]

Pull the other one.

[robert2734]

East is allowed to make a play based on the cards he is looking at in his own hand. This information is not available to declarer.

[weejonnie]

robert2734, on 2016-March-08, 12:08, said:

East is allowed to make a play based on the cards he is looking at in his own hand. This information is not available to declarer.

But the MEANING of West's lead differs - if you lead a small spade and it is 4th highest if you've a reasonable hand and from the weaker major if you've a weak hand. The 'Key' is the strength of West's hand and it is available to East - but not South.

[Cyberyeti]

This does sound like a CPA though. I'd like to see what the partnership lead with 6 to the Q and out, and if the long suit, whether partner with Axx actually switches. Did he lead the card long ways or across

[hrothgar]

I agree that this fits under the definition of "encrypted" leads.
I would be shocked to find anyone ever get an adjusted score based on this.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2016-March-08, 11:49, said:

Pull the other one.

Exactly. Unfortunately, Declarer might find a director dumb enough to buy it.

[robert2734]

weejonnie, on 2016-March-08, 12:15, said:

The 'Key' is the strength of West's hand and it is available to East - but not South.

The strength of west's hand is known to east BECAUSE he is looking at 11 points. They don't have a secret agreement the lead of the 3 of spades shows a hand with 2 high card points.

One time, after 1N-P-3N, partner leads the queen the hearts. Because I have 12 hcps I know partner has the queen-jack of hearts and no other face card in his hand and that guides my play. It not a secret agreement. It's looking at your hand and applying some logic.

[hrothgar]

robert2734, on 2016-March-08, 12:27, said:

The strength of west's hand is known to east BECAUSE he is looking at 11 points. They don't have a secret agreement the lead of the 3 of spades shows a hand with 2 high card points.

One time, after 1N-P-3N, partner leads the queen the hearts. Because I have 12 hcps I know partner has the queen-jack of hearts and no other face card in his hand and that guides my play. It not a secret agreement. It's looking at your hand and applying some logic.

What you are describing is not substantively different than the key mechanisms that are used for encrypted leads and bids.

I understand that people don't like this interpretation, but the problem lies with the definition not with the logic.

[mycroft]

Now I'm waiting for the time that the switch lets through the 2nd trick that turns their average for -8 into a clear bottom for -7.

"It's clear that partner has no points from my hand" - oops, opener was on 3 and partner was on 13.

Only joking...or am I?

[nige1]

weejonnie, on 2016-March-08, 11:43, said:

The contract is 3NT by South on the highly complex system : 1NT : P: 3NT All pass. West leads a small spade, East wins and switches suit. South assumes West has led from length and makes a play that fails, when it turns out that West has led from two small.S) "That was a funny lead?"W) "Well I had a very weak hand so played for my partner's suit"S) "Why did you switch suit?"E) "Well as I had 11 points, I knew that my partner had a weak hand and so was trying to find my good suit."S) "Director Please - EW are playing encrypted leads. East has made a play based on information which was not available to me."Your ruling? For help here is the Blue Book Reference7 F 2 Encrypted carding No partnership understanding is permitted whereby the meaning of a lead, signal or discard is based in principle on information not available to declarer, so no form of 'encrypted' carding is permitted.

Another example: If your agreement is "reverse attitude" and you're dealt small cards in a suit then you know that partner's discard of a moderately high card in the suit may be encouraging. Hence the EBU concept of encryption seems wrong although it's hard to draft a better definition. Unfortunately, system regulations penalize only the few who read and try to understand them. The obvious solution is to replace all the confusing regulations with a 2-tier tournament classification:

• Simple system i.e. all play the same standard version of e.g. precision (No alterations or additions allowed),
• Anything goes (but with full disclosure and approved suggested defences) .

[Siegmund]

I think it only fits the definition of encrypted if opening leader led an abnormal card.

If my agreement is to lead the 6 from 6-2 and from K-T-8-6, and I lead a six, there is no encryption, and both partner and declarer get to assess the chances of me having those two holdings (as well as K-8-6 or singleton 6 or any of several others.)

If my agreement is to lead top of doubletons, and fourth best from length, and I deliberately led 2 from 6-2 because I am weak and I know partner won't read it as fourth best, now there is a problem. (Whether the problem is repeated psyching of a lead, creating a concealed agreement, or the problem is us having an illegal agreement, is for the lawyers to argue about, just like it is during the bidding.) If I lead the S6 when I have a side card in hearts and the S2 when I have a side card in clubs, might be an even bigger problem.

[Zelandakh]

It seems to me that E-W have an agreement to lead low from a short suit with a weak hand. If Declarer asks about their leads this should be mentioned and, assuming space permits, also given on the CC. Not doing so constitutes MI.

Of course if Declarer happened to be Richard, he might well have psyched 1NT and now East will play partner for weakness when they have strength, perhaps letting 3NT through.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-11, 10:17, said:

It seems to me that E-W have an agreement to lead low from a short suit with a weak hand. If Declarer asks about their leads this should be mentioned and, assuming space permits, also given on the CC. Not doing so constitutes MI.

Is it really an agreement? Or just a player exercising his judgement that leading his long suit would not be productive, and his partner inferring the same thing based on the auction and the cards he can see when dummy comes down?

[barmar]

Let's look at a different example.

Suppose you have an agreement to lead K from KQ. But you have a hand with a tenace in another suit, and you'd like to get partner in so he can lead towards it. You might choose to lead the Q from that holding, ostensibly denying the K so that partner will go up with his A (if he has it) and switch.

If this situation comes up a few times, does that really change what your "agreement" is? Or is it just the case that you sometimes violate your agreement when other considerations take precedence? Do you have to explain "We lead K from KQ, unless we want partner to overtake and switch, then we lead Q"? Isn't that "judge bridge"?

[pstansbu]

barmar, on 2016-March-11, 12:21, said:

Is it really an agreement? Or just a player exercising his judgement that leading his long suit would not be productive, and his partner inferring the same thing based on the auction and the cards he can see when dummy comes down?

Agreed, whilst fans of David Bird and Taf Anthias might leap at the chance, anyone else might easily find this as the best lead - if you are weak then partner is more likely to have a long suit opposite your short Spades than opposite your longest suit (particularly if that's a minor when no Stayman or transfer used). This wouldn't need to be a specific agreement nor could I see a need for this to be on the convention card (and even then where would it go - just because you've said what you'll lead from length doesn't oblige you to lead a long suit).

The only time something might need to be said is if a question is asked. In my experience people of ask something like "standard leads?" which isn't a great question IMHO but I would still answer "yes". If asked something specific like "will that be 4th highest from a long suit" then you might need to throw in the option.

[blackshoe]

pstansbu, on 2017-January-12, 08:01, said:

The only time something might need to be said is if a question is asked. In my experience people of ask something like "standard leads?" which isn't a great question IMHO but I would still answer "yes". If asked something specific like "will that be 4th highest from a long suit" then you might need to throw in the option.

It's a terrible question, since it induces a response that is not even close to full disclosure.

The proper full disclosure response to any question about opening leads is, technically, a complete exposition of the possibilities. Something like "from length, we lead fourth highest. From an honor sequence or interior sequence, we lead the top card. From three small, the middle card, from two small, the higher." There may be more, particularly if our side has bid during the auction.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-12, 10:16, said:

It's a terrible question, since it induces a response that is not even close to full disclosure.

The proper full disclosure response to any question about opening leads is, technically, a complete exposition of the possibilities. Something like "from length, we lead fourth highest. From an honor sequence or interior sequence, we lead the top card. From three small, the middle card, from two small, the higher." There may be more, particularly if our side has bid during the auction.

In ACBL, at least, the convention card has all the "standard" leads from each type of holding highlighted. So when someone explains "standard leads", these are what it's presumed to mean. Listing all the possibilities every time someone asks about your defensive carding would be extremely tedious. In particular, if the lead is a low card, mentioning your honor leads would be irrelevant.

Some people don't even ask about leads, they just look at the opponents' CC, so they can see the circle cards (this is a new term I just learned from this thread).

[blackshoe]

Following the rules can be tedious. That's not carte blanche to avoid following them.

You could, I suppose, point at the actual lead and explain the possible meanings of that card. There may be negative inferences (why didn't he lead a different suit?) I'm not sure one should rely on "negative inferences need not be disclosed" since a) that phrase is most often associated with bidding and b) I don't agree with it anyway.

Is it your contention that the system card (ACBL's in particular, but in general any system card) provides full disclosure?

[barmar]

My understanding is that lead and carding agreements refer to which card is played from a particular holding. The choice of which suit to lead is not generally part of agreements, it's just a judgement call.

Leading side singletons against suit contracts is often a good idea (the Winning Suit Leads book confirms this), but do you know of any pairs that have an agreement that they'll always lead their singleton?

Books and columns on reading your opponents' cards say that if you're missing AK or KQ of a suit, the opening leader can't hold both because he almost certainly would have led it instead of whatever suit he actually led. But again, have you ever heard of a pair that has an agreement to that effect?

These leads are common because they're effective, and everyone just learns this, they don't need special agreements. The point of agreement is whether they lead A or K from AK, not whether to lead from this holding in the first place.