BBO Discussion Forums: What's the problem with encrypted signals? - BBO Discussion Forums

I don't know why they aren't allowed, I can see nothing wrong with them in theory.
The law is also dangerously fuzzy, because plenty of people do play signals which in principle are encrypted but are considered so much to be 'just bridge' that no-one complains. For example: declarer plays on an entryless suit in dummy in NT. The hand without the ace gives count. The hand with the ace gives suit preference. That's encrypted.

PhantomSac, on 2014-August-07, 12:34, said:

That is not exactly true.

You know that one of the opponents is using UDCA and the other standard carding. You just don't know which is which.

So, you can make some assumptions based on UDCA by LHO and other assumptions based on UDCA by RHO. Then you have to decide whether one makes more sense than the other.

In some ways it is better to know that your opponents are signaling honestly even if you don't know how they are signaling. While I have tried encrypted signals way back before they were banned, I have never played against them. So I have not given the matter much thought. But I suspect that one may be able to work out what is going on or, at least, take a 50-50 shot.

FrancesHinden, on 2014-August-07, 12:35, said:

IMO, like most system-regulations, the ban on encrypted signals should be dropped. I agree with Frances Hinden that there are many grey areas. It would also be fun to play an encrypted bidding system.

PhantomSac, on 2014-August-07, 12:34, said:

Encrypted bidding is allowed - at least anywhere that does not regulate beyond the first round of the auction.

nige1, on 2014-August-07, 13:12, said:

And what would the "key" be in an encrypted bidding system? What can you or your partner know about the other's hand (or anything else) that the opponents don't know and you don't have to reveal to them? I find it hard to believe that you could establish a key at a low enough level of the auction so that encryption would be useful.

crash on aces is a typical example

There is also encrypted drury:

1S-2C = drury, precisely one of A/K of spades
2D=I also have one of A/K

From here on, responder can bid shortness with the K or length with the A. Opener can do the same.

ArtK78, on 2014-August-07, 14:39, said:

Another example is encrypted pseudo-psychic controls that depend on agreed holdings: e.g. you may "psych" your 1♥ opener, only if you have four deuces. If partner (or an opponent) can see a deuce, he knows your bid is genuine.

http://www.blakjak.org/crypto.htm. Sure and it's probably really hard to execute this in practise, but still.

I don't think encryption will become very popular... the slight advantage it gives requires users to keep switching their style. Perhaps pros can benefit from it, but other than that...

whereagles, on 2014-August-08, 01:56, said:

That's short through the corner imo, because encryption is banned in it's infancy. Perhaps evolution in system design would make it much more popular, who knows. Technically Blackwood is also encrypted (0/4 Aces can only be deciphered if you have at least an Ace) and it became popular worldwide...

mycroft, on 2014-August-07, 17:39, said:

I think this the heart of the matter.
If somebody finds an easy way to execute method, which makes encryption practical, the ban will get enforced and rightly so.
I also do not understand why some pretend they do not understand.
Phantomsac and I have clearly outlined what the issues are and some still prefer to pretend to be naive.

In the end the point is: Claiming that a player has the right to agreements of opponents partnership means he has a right to know what underlying information is exchanged, whether this information is true or false.
Encryption simply tries to avoid this by providing the agreement but not the underlying information.
In that sense giving suit preference holding the ace and count otherwise is encrypted and forbidden.

Another common practical example:

Declarer holds

xxx in dummy opposite AKQT in hand and declarer does not know whether to play for the drop or finesse.
So he plays KQ and looks what opponents signal.

For that reason, some sophisticated high-level partnerships have the agreement they will give their normal count only if they do not hold the jack and reverse their count when holding the jack.
Clever, since declarer will never know how the suit breaks, but in principle this is a simple form of encryption and not allowed.
In fact one could claim these partnerships are cheating and you might be cheating for years!

Rainer Herrmann

rhm, on 2014-August-08, 03:51, said:

I find it hard to believe that high-level partnerships would feel the need to signal to each other at all in cases like that. I certainly, as declarer, would not be basing the decision on their methods for that particular phase of the play. Well, maybe a little bit...if I know their methods are encrypted, I might be less inclined to assume coffee-housing when there is a break in tempo --rather just plain confusion.

Anyway, encrypted signals by strong players would not be bothersome to me whether legal or not. By the time they have established their key the time for useful signalling is past. The mysteries are pretty much solved and they should be putting cards on the table they don't wish to keep in their hands.

Lesser players could have serious problems using encrypted signals while maintaining some semblance of ethics, probably a lose-lose situation where heads they screw it up, tails they break even and/or get caught.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2014-August-08, 09:32

In the spirit of the game, the defenders can see their cards and declarer not. They may draw inferences from what each of them can see and declarer not. They don't have to disclose their holdings to declarer in order to allow declarer to have the same inferences.

By the same token, encrypted signals cannot be against the spirit nor the rule of the game. The system is fully disclosed to declarer, and declarer must make what inferences he/she can from the cards played.

By the same token, calls can mean anything the people want them to mean, provided it is disclosed fully and correctly. Therefore forcing pass systems cannot be against the spirit nor the rule of the game.

But in most of the world, they are; and they are because it is considered by the regulating authority that being forced to defend except with an opener as dealer is against the spirit of the game as we would wish to play it, and the rulesmakers have chosen to allow Regulating Authorities to regulate according to their (players') wishes in this context. The relevant rule is L40B1a:

Quote

oldboltoni, on 2014-August-08, 12:18, said:

You apparently do not get the point.
Nobody is forced to signal and disclose his holding to declarer.
For example if you play an individual with an unknown partner you need not disclose anything and can tell on request I have no agreements.
However, once you decide to disclose information about your holding to your partner based on agreements. you have to disclose this information in principle to declarer too.
What you can not do is just tell declarer how you encrypt the information without providing declarer with the key, which "unfortunately" is only available to the defenders. with the intention to disclose information to partner without disclosing this information to declarer.
I do not believe this is in the spirit of the game.

There is in fact an article about Bridge and quantum physics, which suffers from the same misunderstanding:

http://journals.aps....ysRevX.4.021047

Rainer Herrmann

benlessard, on 2014-August-06, 09:57, said:

Encrypted signals goes against the spirit of full disclosure. Also BIT means the signal is off.

gwnn, on 2014-August-07, 15:17, said:

You can also play 2-way encrypted drury. 2♣ shows 1 of A or K, 2♦ shows 0 or 2. The 2♦ isn't without risk if both players have 0, but that is unlikely on hands that want to explore game. I did this for a while in a mid-chart strong club system where we were playing encrypted drury in all seats. It was more for fun than merit, but worked out ok.

Learn something about encrypted signals before sharing any more of your wisdom.

(Recognizing that the key to an encrypted signaling system is available for the post mortem would be a good starting point)

*** And as I posted, deviate then justify - HOW??
I used them before they were disallowed. Be sure of YOUR DISPARAGE BEFORE YOU SPEAK.
The exact problem - verify deviation was NOT by some other clue
than bridge was discussed by ACBL comp committee before sanctioning them.

Such drivel INDEED.!

"worthless troll" because you cannot verify the VERY claim I contend.
That term more applies to someone not thinking, just name calling.
Prove my assertion wrong. Catch a cheat who is allowed to encrypt his signals. HOW?

I believe it has been claimed that encrypted signals are inherently difficult to give in tempo. However, the same was claimed of odd-even, which was banned for a while. (It is now permitted only on the first discard.) I believe that Bobby Wolff claimed that people playing odd-even would tank to show that they didn't have the right card to play (i.e. holding KQ64 they would tank, then play the 4, while holding KQ63 they would quickly play the 3).

So you hold Axxx in a suit and the K is in dummy and partner encourages. Is it illegal that you know that partner has the Q and not the A because of your hand? When partner shows the trump Q in a keycard auction and you hold it, is it unfair that you know partner has extra trump length and the opponents don't?

I think that if someone wants to do the extra work to play encrypted signals AND can do so in tempo, let 'em. Hard work and good theory should be rewarded.