[VixTD]

When this was being discussed on the old forum (before this new regulation found its way into the Orange Book) I raised the question of other times defenders might like to vary their signals. For instance, they might have an agreement that if one defender is marked with all the defensive strength (e.g. defending a freely-bid 6NT with 6-7 hcp, or 3NT with 14-15 hcp) they give false or random signals, whereas partner (who has nothing) signals truthfully.

Is this sort of thing covered by the regulation?

[jeremy69]

Quote

When this was being discussed on the old forum (before this new regulation found its way into the Orange Book) I raised the question of other times defenders might like to vary their signals. For instance, they might have an agreement that if one defender is marked with all the defensive strength (e.g. defending a freely-bid 6NT with 6-7 hcp, or 3NT with 14-15 hcp) they give false or random signals, whereas partner (who has nothing) signals truthfully.

Is this sort of thing covered by the regulation?

Only the Smith Peter exception was allowed last time this was discussed.

[aguahombre]

jeremy69, on Jul 5 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

Quote

When this was being discussed on the old forum (before this new regulation found its way into the Orange Book) I raised the question of other times defenders might like to vary their signals. For instance, they might have an agreement that if one defender is marked with all the defensive strength (e.g. defending a freely-bid 6NT with 6-7 hcp, or 3NT with 14-15 hcp) they give false or random signals, whereas partner (who has nothing) signals truthfully.

Is this sort of thing covered by the regulation?

Only the Smith Peter exception was allowed last time this was discussed.

This is not relevant to encrypted signals, IMO, unless some RA forces us to signal according to our stated methods ---and to do it all the time, regardless of whether we think a signal will be useful to partner.

"Standard signals, when given". That is our answer. Smith, when appropriate. This is not encryption, this is common sense.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on Jul 6 2010, 04:30 AM, said:

jeremy69, on Jul 5 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

Quote

When this was being discussed on the old forum (before this new regulation found its way into the Orange Book) I raised the question of other times defenders might like to vary their signals. For instance, they might have an agreement that if one defender is marked with all the defensive strength (e.g. defending a freely-bid 6NT with 6-7 hcp, or 3NT with 14-15 hcp) they give false or random signals, whereas partner (who has nothing) signals truthfully.

Is this sort of thing covered by the regulation?

Only the Smith Peter exception was allowed last time this was discussed.

This is not relevant to encrypted signals, IMO, unless some RA forces us to signal according to our stated methods ---and to do it all the time, regardless of whether we think a signal will be useful to partner.

"Standard signals, when given". That is our answer. Smith, when appropriate. This is not encryption, this is common sense.

I think this meets the definitiion of encryption if the "when given" decision is based on information that is available to the defenders but not to declarer.

[aguahombre]

See how far you get making me give signals when I don't want to, just for the benefit of declarer.