[Hanoi5]

40. 2. Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. Each player is entitled to take into account the legal auction and, subject to any exclusions in these laws, the cards he has seen. He is entitled to use information specified elsewhere in these laws to be authorized. (See Law 73C.)

[Hanoi5]

This is cryptic bridge, in case you don't know:

http://www.blakjak.d...ks.htm#genpwkl1

[awm]

It's not so simple. The understanding in question is of the form "I have either hand type A or hand type B." Certainly such understandings are allowed by the laws. The "encrypted" situation is when, by looking at his own hand (note players are allowed to use "cards they have seen") a player can determine whether partner in fact holds hand type A or B, whereas other players at the table (who are of course also free to look at their own hands) cannot so determine.

Encrypted bidding is allowed by the laws.

However, some National Bridge Organizations have chosen to outlaw it. The laws do give them the authority to regulate partnership understandings.

[hrothgar]

awm, on Oct 12 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

However, some National Bridge Organizations have chosen to outlaw it. The laws do give them the authority to regulate partnership understandings.

As of yesterday, that is...

For what its worth, I still haven't gotten any answer back from Memphis regarding the legality of encrypted bidding methods.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

As of yesterday, that is...

Then as of next year, because the new laws 'regime' begins next year.

[ArtK78]

Encrypted bidding? Please explain.

I know what encrypted carding is. That is specifically not permitted by the ACBL.

[hrothgar]

The thread ttitled "Anonymous Weak Splinter, Response Structure" the Standard and 2/1 forum has a decent summary

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Oct 12 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 12 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

However, some National Bridge Organizations have chosen to outlaw it. The laws do give them the authority to regulate partnership understandings.

As of yesterday, that is...

What do you mean - is there some news I didn't catch that occured yesterday?

[BillHiggin]

jdonn, on Oct 12 2007, 03:35 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 12 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 12 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

However, some National Bridge Organizations have chosen to outlaw it. The laws do give them the authority to regulate partnership understandings.

As of yesterday, that is...

What do you mean - is there some news I didn't catch that occured yesterday?

2007 laws were approved yesterday. There is substantial rewording and reordering of the rules on partnership understandings (I will not pretend to comprehend the implications). For a comparison of 1997 with 2007 on this section see http://www.ecatsbridge.com/Documents/files...ws/Law%2040.pdf

I do not see where there is anything new that would further affect encrypted bidding agreements (but not seeing is different from asserting one way or the other).

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Oct 12 2007, 11:35 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 12 2007, 01:56 PM, said:

awm, on Oct 12 2007, 09:53 PM, said:

However, some National Bridge Organizations have chosen to outlaw it. The laws do give them the authority to regulate partnership understandings.

As of yesterday, that is...

What do you mean - is there some news I didn't catch that occured yesterday?

The 2007 version of the Laws contain some significant changes. One of the most important grants sponsoring authorities the power to regulate partnership understandings. Previous versions of the Laws only granted the authority to regulate conventions. Sponsoring authorities now have the power to out right ban natural methods that they disapprove of like a 9-11 HCP 1NT opening.

I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, I hate Endicott's dodge by which sponsoring authorities would ban a 9-11 HCP 1NT opening by refusing to allow the pair to use any conventions during follow -up bidding sequences. I think that this type of rules lawyering is abusive. It shouldn't be permitted by either players or regulators because it drags the entire legal system into disrepute. If one believes that the regulators should be able to ban a 9-11 HCP 1NT opening then I prefer that the power is explictly granted to them.

On the other hand, I don't think that the regulators should be allowed to ban non-conventional methods. I would have preferred that the Law revision banned the Endicott dodge and continued to restrict the ability of Zonal authorities to regulate non-conventional methods.

[blackshoe]

To be fair to Mr. Endicott, I don't think he invented the ploy you ascribe to him.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Oct 13 2007, 01:34 AM, said:

To be fair to Mr. Endicott, I don't think he invented the ploy you ascribe to him.

He has directly stated so on several occasions

[Hanoi5]

Quote

On the one hand, I hate Endicott's dodge by which sponsoring authorities would ban a 9-11 HCP 1NT opening by refusing to allow the pair to use any conventions during follow -up bidding sequences. I think that this type of rules lawyering is abusive. It shouldn't be permitted by either players or regulators because it drags the entire legal system into disrepute. If one believes that the regulators should be able to ban a 9-11 HCP 1NT opening then I prefer that the power is explictly granted to them.

On the other hand, I don't think that the regulators should be allowed to ban non-conventional methods. I would have preferred that the Law revision banned the Endicott dodge and continued to restrict the ability of Zonal authorities to regulate non-conventional methods.

Can you elaborate? And who is Endicott?

[1eyedjack]

Hanoi5, on Oct 13 2007, 04:35 AM, said:

who is Endicott?

http://www.worldbrid...on.asp?qryid=98

[Fluffy]

About encodying.

If me and partner have 5 each 5 cards in a suit, only we 2 know if a card is 'high' or 'low', so playing a mid card that only partner know if its high or low is forbidden?

[Hanoi5]

I guess it doesn-t matter much for, how often do you have a 5-5 fit and defend?

[helene_t]

Fluffy, on Oct 13 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

About encodying.

If me and partner have 5 each 5 cards in a suit, only we 2 know if a card is 'high' or 'low', so playing a mid card that only partner know if its high or low is forbidden?

No, it´s allowed, at least if it's not an explicit agreement to use hi-lo only when declarer won't be able to tell.

Don't ask me what the logic is. I never understood why coded signals are not allowed. Seems to me to be an unnecessary rule that is difficult to interpret, let alone to enforce. But I probably missed something.

[ArtK78]

That has to do with play, not bidding.

Encrypted defensive signals are prohibited in ACBL events.

What is encrypted bidding?

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on Oct 13 2007, 07:58 PM, said:

That has to do with play, not bidding.

Encrypted defensive signals are prohibited in ACBL events.

What is encrypted bidding?

As I noted yesterday, when you asked exactly the same question:

Quote

The thread titled "Anonymous Weak Splinter, Response Structure" the Standard and 2/1 forum has a decent summary

Furthermore, the second post in this thread has a link to one of the standard references on this subject.

[awm]

ArtK78, on Oct 13 2007, 11:58 AM, said:

That has to do with play, not bidding.

Encrypted defensive signals are prohibited in ACBL events.

What is encrypted bidding?

Here is an alternate link that seems to work better:

Article by Peter Winkler

Basically cryptographic bidding works as follows. You have some sequence which establishes a secret key. Typically to conserve space, this key is something that's potentially useful anyway. The meaning of subsequent bids depends on the key. For example:

1♠ (natural) - 3NT(1)
4♣(2) - 4♦(3)

(1) Shows a game-forcing spade raise including exactly one of the ♠AK.
(2) Slam try, guaranteeing that opener has the other top spade honor. In addition, if opener has ♠A then this is a cuebid for spades. If opener has the ♠K then this denies a top club honor.
(3) If opener has ♠A, this is a cuebid for spades. If opener has the ♠K, this shows a top club honor and denies a top diamond honor.

Cuebidding continues, natural in style if opener has ♠A and DCB style if opener has ♠K.

The point here is that the opening side has established that one player holds ♠A and the other ♠K. They obviously know (by looking at their hands) who has which honor. The opponents are going to be totally in the dark until the opening lead is faced. This makes leading against such an auction substantially more difficult. There are many similar examples in competitive auctions and so forth.