[Flame]

This is as far as i know a new concept which i'm proude to share with you
This method was inspired by the serious vs not serious discussion here.
Using this concept you manage to squeeze more information into
your bid and therefore free other bids for other meanings (for example you will
not need a serious or non serious 3nt)
a secondary advantage is keeping the opponents in the dark giving them
unsprecific information.

The idea works when we investigation for a goal which needed two items.
with one lack of one of the items the goal shouldnt be reached
The best way to explain how it works is through examples.

I'll give 3 examples

example one : 2/1 GF with fit found
Goal is slam
item 1: strength
item 2: control of a suit

both players are unlimited
squence:
1sp 2H
3H
this is were usually a 3nt serious/non serious is used.
a cue bid shows either serious with no control in the suit or non serious
with a control in the suit.
since the cue bidder an not have both the suit control and extra streagh, his
partner with lack of any of them can see that no slam exist
and therefore will
continue to slam only when he got both the conditions
himfelf, meaning both having extra streagh and having a controll in the suit
from here on the bidding take common sense and i will avoid the continuation
to save space for other examples

example two: inverted minor
Goal: alternative game , 5 of a minor of a 4-3 fit major
item 1: strength (5 minor and 4/3 major fit ,take more strength to make then 3nt)
item 2: a non stoped suit (if the suits are stoped we want to be in 3nt)

squence : 1C- 2C
a cue bid shows either a stoper in the suit and extra strength
or a non stoped suit with minimun hand
partner will bid 3nt whenever he got a minimum hand or with a stoper in
the suit, only with extra and no stoper he will keep
checking for other games.
again continuation is logic and wont be discussed here.

example three: Major raize
Goal: Major game
items one : strength for game
item two : no unblocked suit (or watever you want to check in your suits)
1sp - 1sp

A cue bid shows either extra strength with losers in the suit, or no extra with
good suit.
partner with minimum or with losers in the suit will close in 3sp
with extra and some stop in the suit will continue to 4sp.

like with simple cue bidding there are alway an Implications by not choosing a different bids.

if you are having problems rmemebering what the cue bidder shows, its
easiest to remember that
the cue bidder partner will only reach to the goal
when he got both items himself, lacking one of the items he
will settle down for the non goal bid.

[mishovnbg]

Spoiler

------------------------------------------------

Hi Flame!

Spoiler

-------

I like you try of generalization, because imho is only way to "swim" easy though "ocean" of bids. Alternative bids are really very old way, primary developed by poles in their strong pass systems. I like this way very much, but unfortunately by WBF rules same way is forbidden. In Varna we have a good pair who used to play last several years in my club cue bids as "control in bidded suit or deny control in bidded suit but show controls in both side suits", nice convention, also forbidden by WBF rules... Shortly think about new ways without usage of alternative bids.

Spoiler

---------------------------------------------------

Misho

[Flame]

mishovnbg, on Apr 17 2004, 11:06 AM, said:

Spoiler

------------------------------------------------

Hi Flame!

Spoiler

-------

I like you try of generalization, because imho is only way to "swim" easy though "ocean" of bids. Alternative bids are really very old way, primary developed by poles in their strong pass systems. I like this way very much, but unfortunately by WBF rules same way is forbidden. In Varna we have a good pair who used to play last several years in my club cue bids as "control in bidded suit or deny control in bidded suit but show controls in both side suits", nice convention, also forbidden by WBF rules... Shortly think about new ways without usage of alternative bids.

Spoiler

---------------------------------------------------

Misho

Hi
Thxs for the comments , i figured someone did that before.
what exactly in the WBF rules forbid this ?
I see mostly rules about openings.
WBF system policy

[paulg]

Have you read Cryptological Techniques in Bidding and Defence?

Although encrypted signals are banned by the WBF (http://www.worldbrid...tems/policy.asp - section 2.5) it appears that encrypted bidding is not explicitly banned, although I'm sure they'd find a way pretty quickly!


Paul

[Flame]

cardsharp, on Apr 18 2004, 03:37 AM, said:

Have you read Cryptological Techniques in Bidding and Defence? 

Although encrypted signals are banned by the WBF (http://www.worldbrid...tems/policy.asp - section 2.5) it appears that encrypted bidding is not explicitly banned, although I'm sure they'd find a way pretty quickly!


Paul

read part 1 and it looks very nice.
In general i realy dont like the idea of making bids to full your oponents, and prefer to do good myself rather then have them go wrong, for this resson i prefer natural systems, I dont psyc, and prempt to our own total trump , and stuff like this. But i think those idea mentioned here are not about deseption, and shurly not about giving up our accuricy inorder to kill thiers, we get to deliver more information and as a byproduct also give the opponents less info.
I agree with forbidding encrypted bids/play if those are ment to take undvantage of the opponents less ability in encryption, for example, if my partner and i will a lead of a card that if you multiple it by 7 add 22 and divide by 6 you get a number with X.y and if the y is less then 5 its enc while if its higher then 5 its discarage, now we will memorized the numbers or have an easy way to calculate it while the opponents wont, this is oviously shouldnt be alowed, but when the encryption is one that opponents can analyse at the table with no special problem like, if there is an A in trump on the table then we signal attitude, and if there is no A of trump at the table we signal count, this should be allowed.

[Free]

I don't understand why these kind of bids are banned, and Control Asking Bids for example are not. The key is also only available for asker, and not for opponents. However, usually these bids applie only at high level where slam is quite sure.

I'm also used to play this kind of stuff after a RKC Q ask. Example:

...♠ - 4NT
5♦ - 5♥
?

5♠ = no ♠Q
5NT = ♠Q and 0/3 Kings
6♣ = ♠Q and (♣K OR ♦K+♥K)
6♦ = ♠Q and (♦K OR ♣K+♥K)
6♥ = ♠Q and (♥K OR ♣K+♦K)

Is this also banned?? I never had complaints about it, and it's a quite similar thought behind it like the CAB's...

[hrothgar]

Flame, on Apr 18 2004, 02:29 PM, said:

I agree with forbidding encrypted bids/play if those are ment to take undvantage of the opponents less ability in encryption, for example, if my partner and i will a lead of a card that if you multiple it by 7 add 22 and divide by 6 you get a number with X.y and if the y is less then 5 its enc while if its higher then 5 its discarage, now we will memorized the numbers or have an easy way to calculate it while the opponents wont, this is oviously shouldnt be alowed, but when the encryption is one that opponents can analyse at the table with no special problem like, if there is an A in trump on the table then we signal attitude, and if there is no A of trump at the table we signal count, this should be allowed.

You really might want to learn something about encryption before offering these types of explanations. The example that you propose has NOTHING to do with encrypted bidding structures as they are "traditionally" understood.

The example that you propose is one in which the security of the system depends on mental laziness on the part of the opponents.

In contrast an encypted signalling system is one which depends on a hidden "key" that is shared between two players. The security of the system rests on the security of the key. The Bridge World offers the following examples:

Encrypted call (sometimes Encrypted auction)

a call that is encrypted by agreement. [Example: North-South agree that a two-notrump response to a major-suit opening is a game-forcing raise promising either the ace or king of trumps but not both, and that opener's new-suit rebid shows a short suit when responder has the ace of trumps or a long suit when repsonder has the king of trumps. Opener's new-suit rebid is encrypted, because it can be deciphered only by a player who holds or later discovers the location of the ace or king of spades. Note that, under this agreement, opener might well choose not to use a new-suit rebid when he lacked both top spades.]

Encrypted signal

a defensive card-play signal that is encrypted by agreement. [Example: East-West agree that when declarer first shows out of a suit in which the defenders' distribution is not clear by the end of that trick, future East-West fundamental signal meanings will be determined by Plan A (high encourages, high even, high suit-preference for high suit) when West has the defenders' lowest remaining card in that suit, or by Plan B (low encourages, low even, low suit-preference for high suit) when East has that card. Should such a situation arise, East-West's later signals are encrypted, because they can be deciphered only by someone who knows or later discovers the location of that lowest card.]

[Flame]

hrothgar, on Apr 18 2004, 10:30 AM, said:

Flame, on Apr 18 2004, 02:29 PM, said:

I agree with forbidding encrypted bids/play if those are ment to take undvantage of the opponents less ability in encryption, for example, if my partner and i will a lead of a card that if you multiple it by 7 add 22 and divide by 6 you get a number with X.y and if the y is less then 5 its enc while if its higher then 5 its discarage, now we will memorized the numbers or have an easy way to calculate it while the opponents wont, this is oviously shouldnt be alowed, but when the encryption is one that opponents can analyse at the table with no special problem like, if there is an A in trump on the table then we signal attitude, and if there is no A of trump at the table we signal count, this should be allowed.

You really might want to learn something about encryption before offering these types of explanations. The example that you propose has NOTHING to do with encrypted bidding structures as they are "traditionally" understood.

The example that you propose is one in which the security of the system depends on mental laziness on the part of the opponents.

In contrast an encypted signalling system is one which depends on a hidden "key" that is shared between two players. The security of the system rests on the security of the key. The Bridge World offers the following examples:

Encrypted call (sometimes Encrypted auction)

a call that is encrypted by agreement. [Example: North-South agree that a two-notrump response to a major-suit opening is a game-forcing raise promising either the ace or king of trumps but not both, and that opener's new-suit rebid shows a short suit when responder has the ace of trumps or a long suit when repsonder has the king of trumps. Opener's new-suit rebid is encrypted, because it can be deciphered only by a player who holds or later discovers the location of the ace or king of spades. Note that, under this agreement, opener might well choose not to use a new-suit rebid when he lacked both top spades.]

Encrypted signal

a defensive card-play signal that is encrypted by agreement. [Example: East-West agree that when declarer first shows out of a suit in which the defenders' distribution is not clear by the end of that trick, future East-West fundamental signal meanings will be determined by Plan A (high encourages, high even, high suit-preference for high suit) when West has the defenders' lowest remaining card in that suit, or by Plan B (low encourages, low even, low suit-preference for high suit) when East has that card. Should such a situation arise, East-West's later signals are encrypted, because they can be deciphered only by someone who knows or later discovers the location of that lowest card.]

You are wrong about my knowlege of encryption.
What you say is that a key should be something that is known only to the partnership and not to the opponents like the placement of the A/K in our hands.
I agree with you that it would be much better to use this kind of key.
What i didnt understand is are those 2 examples you mentioned forbidden ?
I still believe that we already play some sorts of encpyption that we just didnt think about before. example is a convention which was common before RKB, 4nt was asking for aces and the answers were : 5c = 0-4 5d :1-3 5h: 2 aces of the same color , 5sp= 2 aces of different color.
saying 2 aces of same color is same as saying: the key is the A of spade, if you got it a bid of 5h shows the A of club, if you dont have the key A, then 5h shows the A of diamond and A of heart.
are 0/3 1/4 in rkb considered encrypted ? i think they are.

[Free]

Flame,

that's the exact problem I have with these kind of rules. RKC uses 'some kind of' key, but it's usually known what responder has exactly. With CAB's, it's totally different, because it shows specific cards (AKQ) in a specific suit, and the key is any of these cards. IF partner shows "AK or Q", I only need 1 of the 3 tophonours to know what he really has. This method however is encoded imo, but it's not banned.
With RKC it's a similar coding problem, but the key is the number of aces that the asker has.
My big questionmark is WHY it's not banned, and these examples of Richard are. Perhaps CAB's are so common that they aren't banned, or there is no real disadvantage for opps or so... I have no clue.

But Richard is right about these encrypted signals, you're not! It's not really hiding info from opps (like saying we lead 3/5 while we actually lead 4/2), it's really showing something to partner (usually) and not to anybody else. Opps can't solve it, even if they look at your fully/correctly filled-in convention card. With the example you give, opponents can look at your cc, do some counting, and they'll know as much as you do, while with the examples Richard gives you won't be able to know what it really is.

I have another example of encrypted leads:
Against 3NT we lead:
- 4th best with 0-7HCP
- 3/5th best with 8+HCP
Here there's NO WAY declarer can know what it is, until he plays some cards and discovers some honour cards from opponents. And then it might be to late to play his LHO for a 4 card or a 5 card...
Read the cc, you won't know anything more than you do now!

[Flame]

Free, on Apr 18 2004, 12:28 PM, said:

Flame,

that's the exact problem I have with these kind of rules. RKC uses 'some kind of' key, but it's usually known what responder has exactly. With CAB's, it's totally different, because it shows specific cards (AKQ) in a specific suit, and the key is any of these cards. IF partner shows "AK or Q", I only need 1 of the 3 tophonours to know what he really has. This method however is encoded imo, but it's not banned.
With RKC it's a similar coding problem, but the key is the number of aces that the asker has.
My big questionmark is WHY it's not banned, and these examples of Richard are. Perhaps CAB's are so common that they aren't banned, or there is no real disadvantage for opps or so... I have no clue.

But Richard is right about these encrypted signals, you're not! It's not really hiding info from opps (like saying we lead 3/5 while we actually lead 4/2), it's really showing something to partner (usually) and not to anybody else. Opps can't solve it, even if they look at your fully/correctly filled-in convention card. With the example you give, opponents can look at your cc, do some counting, and they'll know as much as you do, while with the examples Richard gives you won't be able to know what it really is.

I have another example of encrypted leads:
Against 3NT we lead:
- 4th best with 0-7HCP
- 3/5th best with 8+HCP
Here there's NO WAY declarer can know what it is, until he plays some cards and discovers some honour cards from opponents. And then it might be to late to play his LHO for a 4 card or a 5 card...
Read the cc, you won't know anything more than you do now!

I agree with you free, the examples of Richard are different and good, and i know the different between them and what i gave. still i think it shouldnt be alowed to use the example i gave that do a matematical calculation, even tho you can do it yourself and know everything, my example is even more extreme then rechard since even though you know the key it still shouldnt be allowed.

[Free]

Perhaps, but it's not encrypted, so it doesn't applie to the rules. Very hard to ban such systems I think, because it's just calculating a bit (which however might be a very complex formula)... Extreme would be to use sinus, cosinus and tangens, cause you can't calculate that pretty easy Just an idea

[Shrike]

It seems to me that this discussion is proceeding under the assumption that mishovnbg is right about "encrypted" bids, however defined, are disallowed. But I don't think he is right.

Unfortunately, I have lost the link to the WBF systems pamphlet, but I can tell you that bids as described by Flame would be legal in the ACBL, even under the General Chart, and legal in the EBU under Class 2 (if I read the latter correctly). In each of these jurisdictions there is essentially no restriction on the meaning of second- and later-round bids.

If these bids really are restricted, could somebody show me where?

Now, this doesn't mean it's a good idea to play this way (but my opinion is that it merits consideration), just that you may if you wish.

Encrypted (defensive carding) signals are disallowed in all ACBL events, which is a pity for the tinkerers.