[32519]

I understand that encrypted signals are illegal. Some questions –

1. What are encrypted signals?
2. How do they work? Some examples please.
3. How would you recognise that your opponents are using encrypted signals? At MP, at most you tend to play 4 hands against each opponent. Will this be enough to catch out opponents who use encrypted signals?
4. Suspecting that your opponents are using encrypted signals, how do you prove it?
5. Having caught them out, how does the tournament director rule?
...(a.) Are the cheats red-carded and kicked out the tournament
...(b.) Do all their scores get adjusted where they defended?
...(c.) Something else?

[aguahombre]

Usually encrypted signals means that the signalling by the defense changes from upside down to right side up or vice versa based on a key.

The key is something they know about the number of cards each defender holds in a particular suit; or the specific spots they know each other holds. This "key" is authorized information from the bidding and/or play thus far in the hand.

The "key" might or might not be able to be determined by declarer, even with proper disclosure of the methods. That is why encrypted signalling is illegal.

Using any method and deliberately not disclosing it to the opponents is cheating. However, using an illegal method is merely that...not to be confused with the "c" word. If you ask about carding and signals, and get an untruthful answer, then the most serious penalties will be meted out. If they disclose that they are using any method which is in fact illegal, they will be barred from using such ---and serious penalties will occur if they do it again.

The obvious answer to discovering cheaters in this situation would be if you notice their signals do not match their disclosed agreements; pretty much the same as if you notice their bids frequently do not reflect their stated agreements.

[EricK]

Encrypted signals are where the precise meaning of a signal depends on a piece of information that only the defence know. eg If your lead style is 4th highest if you have an even number of trumps and 3rd & 5th if you have an odd number, then whenever both sides know opener's exact length in trumps (eg he's opened a weak 2, or they've had a relay auction), both defenders know whether the opening lead is 4th highest or 3rd & 5th, but the declarer doesn't (at least until he's drawn trumps).

When it comes to agreements about signalling, bridge, it seems to me, is largely a game of trust. You ask the opps what their signalling agreements are and they are expected to tell the truth and you are expected to believe them. So before encrypted signals were made illegal, the answer to number 3 was that they told you that they were playing them.

Now they are illegal, of course, you won't be told they are playing them! But the rest of your questions really apply to any system of signalling. How do you know if they are actually using it? Suppose a pair say they play their small cards at random (with the plausible sounding justification that signals, on average, might help declarer more than the defense). This is practically indistinguishable from a set of encrypted signals.

[Trinidad]

Just a minor point. Bridge is ruled by two sets of rules: the laws and the regulations. The laws are universal and the regulations are local. Every individual country, and every individual bridge club can have its own regulations.

There is nothing in the laws that forbids encrypted signals. This means that, in principle, they are legal. However, most local organisations have banned encrypted signals. So, in most places encrypted signals are forbidden, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if somewhere on this planet encrypted signals are allowed. In fact, BBO may be such a place.

Rik

[Free]

Using encrypted signals basically means they will signal differently on several occasions. You can easily spot this. Whenever they say "we signal method A in case A and method B in case B", and it's impossible for declarer to always know which case he's in, then your opps play encrypted signals.

I used to experiment with encrypted leads after the auction 1NT-3NT or 1NT-2♣-2X-3NT. Basically the defenders will know how much HCP their partner has once dummy comes on the table. So we lead 3rd/5th with 0-7HCP and 4th with 8+HCP. This way, defenders usually know what it is, while declarer can't possibly know what the lead is. Only after playing some tricks declarer can figure out what the lead was exactly, but by then it may already be too late. I remember at least 1 occasion where declarer needed to decide at trick 1 or 2 how many times to duck, and he screwed up. I also remember some hands where we didn't know what partner's lead was, because he had 6-8 or 7-9 HCP...

AFAIK it's allowed to play encrypted signals, but you have to give full disclosure. The point of encrypted signals is that even if you give full disclosure, declarer won't know how you're signalling.
You can't compare this with cheating, where for example defenders could agree to play standard when dummy has 0-7HCP and UDCA when dummy has 8+HCP, but they disclose "standard all the time".
It's also not allowed to use a key where declarer has no way of figuring out what it is. For example, "previous round we played the last deal = UDCA, otherwise standard" is not allowed unless you disclose who played that deal (which basically ruins the whole idea).

What you can agree for example is that you play standard when you hold ♣K or ♣A, and UDCA when you hold both or neither. This won't be optimal for sure, but it could result in funny situations. When declarer holds ♣K or ♣A, then either LHO is playing std and RHO is playing UDCA, or the other way around. When he holds them both, he knows exactly what you're both doing (and when they're not both in dummy defenders may know less than declarer). When he holds neither, then either both of you are playing UDCA, or both are playing std. Must be fun when declarer needs to decide between playing for a 3-3 split or going for the finesse.

[32519]

As a side note: Does anyone know what the Reese scandal was about in the 1960's? What sort of unethical conduct was involved there? Was it this scandal which led to the introduction of screens? In what year were screens introduced?

[Vampyr]

Free, on 2012-January-14, 15:34, said:

AFAIK it's allowed to play encrypted signals, but you have to give full disclosure. The point of encrypted signals is that even if you give full disclosure, declarer won't know how you're signalling.

They are not permitted in the EBU, the ACBL, the ABF or the SABF, but I can't say about other places where the regulations will not be available in English.

EDIT: Not permitted in EBL.

EDIT: Not permitted in WBF.

EDIT: Ditto SBU, NZCBA and probably WBU, since I think they use the Orange Book.

[FrancesHinden]

32519, on 2012-January-14, 22:43, said:

As a side note: Does anyone know what the Reese scandal was about in the 1960's? What sort of unethical conduct was involved there? Was it this scandal which led to the introduction of screens? In what year were screens introduced?

Seems a slightly odd question as it's about the most famous ever accusation of cheating. Just google 'Reese Shapiro bridge' or 'Reese Buenos Aires' and read some of the results. Or there are two books, one by Terence Reese himself, and one (not available in the UK) by Alan Truscott. The former will convince you they were innocent, the latter that they were guilty.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-15, 03:04, said:

Seems a slightly odd question as it's about the most famous ever accusation of cheating. Just google 'Reese Shapiro bridge' or 'Reese Buenos Aires' and read some of the results. Or there are two books, one by Terence Reese himself, and one (not available in the UK) by Alan Truscott. The former will convince you they were innocent, the latter that they were guilty.

The Truscott book is available in the UK, now that neither Reese nor Shapiro is able to sue the publishers. Both books were republished by Master Point Press a few years ago.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-January-15, 04:08

[bluecalm]

Quote

Encrypted signals are where the precise meaning of a signal depends on a piece of information that only the defence know. eg If your lead style is 4th highest if you have an even number of trumps and 3rd & 5th if you have an odd number, then whenever both sides know opener's exact length in trumps (eg he's opened a weak 2, or they've had a relay auction), both defenders know whether the opening lead is 4th highest or 3rd & 5th, but the declarer doesn't (at least until he's drawn trumps).

So if I lead low from even length suit without an honor but high from odd length suit with an honor does it mean I am using encrypted signals ?
It seems that the answer is yes according to the definition, at least in some cases where only defenders could know who has remaining honor in the suit. Yet it's completely standard to play such leads and signals (Fantunes play them, people give true count from xxx but false from Hxx all the time etc.).

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on 2012-January-15, 04:07, said:

So if I lead low from even length suit without an honor but high from odd length suit with an honor does it mean I am using encrypted signals ?

No, that's generally not regarded as encrypted. You're right that there isn't a clear line, though - the definition appears to be "It's encrypted if we say it's encrypted."

Here's another example: an entryless dummy has KQJxxx. The defender without the ace gives count, obviously; but the defender with the ace can give suit preference or Smith. Only the defenders know where the ace is, so it appears that their signals are encrypted. However, I've never heard of a regulatory authority treating it as such.

[Gerben42]

gnasher, on 2012-January-15, 04:24, said:

No, that's generally not regarded as encrypted. You're right that there isn't a clear line, though - the definition appears to be "It's encrypted if we say it's encrypted."

Here's another example: an entryless dummy has KQJxxx. The defender without the ace gives count, obviously; but the defender with the ace can give suit preference or Smith. Only the defenders know where the ace is, so it appears that their signals are encrypted. However, I've never heard of a regulatory authority treating it as such.

Well, I guess a lot of players play that one, as they play "we give count only if partner needs it". If you have the Ace, partner obviously doesn't need to know your count, so you give suit preference. If however you do NOT have the Ace, partner needs it and you give count. I agree the line between "bridge logic" and "encrypted" is a bit soft.

The same is true for people who lead 4th best against NT, but small from five if the opps bid 1N - 3N and they have 13+ HCP.

[aguahombre]

Please, someone correct me if this is not true:

"Illegal Signalling" in the context of this discussion on encryption (however we define it) has never been applied to the opening lead itself. Rusinow from length (but Q from QJX), second and low, low from doubleton ---or even different spot leads depending on whether we have supported partner and are leading that suit; as long as the "key" is based on one's own holding in the suit led.

If true, that would clear up a lot of the supposed soft interpretations of illegal encryption. If not true, back to the drawing board.

[kgr]

Free, on 2012-January-14, 15:34, said:

What you can agree for example is that you play standard when you hold ♣K or ♣A, and UDCA when you hold both or neither. This won't be optimal for sure, but it could result in funny situations. When declarer holds ♣K or ♣A, then either LHO is playing std and RHO is playing UDCA, or the other way around. When he holds them both, he knows exactly what you're both doing (and when they're not both in dummy defenders may know less than declarer). When he holds neither, then either both of you are playing UDCA, or both are playing std. Must be fun when declarer needs to decide between playing for a 3-3 split or going for the finesse.

Would that be considered as an encrypted signal?
Both declarer as partner can or cannot know what is going on.
BTW: we lead highest from an even number of cards an 2nd from an odd number. You could say it is encrypted, but it would never be considered as being encrypted?

[aguahombre]

I think we are focusing...or trying to focus on illegally encrypted, rather than just pertaining to some code. Unless coded tens and nines are part of this

And, maybe we can figure out from the knowledgeable ones (which I am not) which are the illegal ones.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-January-15, 10:14, said:

Please, someone correct me if this is not true:

"Illegal Signalling" in the context of this discussion on encryption (however we define it) has never been applied to the opening lead itself. Rusinow from length (but Q from QJX), second and low, low from doubleton ---or even different spot leads depending on whether we have supported partner and are leading that suit; as long as the "key" is based on one's own holding in the suit led.

If true, that would clear up a lot of the supposed soft interpretations of illegal encryption. If not true, back to the drawing board.

It goes 1NT-2♣;2♥-3NT. We agree to play fourth-best leads if we have an odd number of hearts; 3rd/5th otherwise. I think most authorities would say that this is encrypted.

Whether it's legal or not depends on the jurisdiction. In England, for example. it's illegal because encrypted leads are prohibited. The ACBL prohibits "encrypted signals"; I'm not sure whether this means it applies only to following suit, or whether it applies to discards or opening leads too.

Quote

I think we are focusing...or trying to focus on illegally encrypted, rather than just pertaining to some code. Unless coded tens and nines are part of this

All signals are based on some code. "High = encouraging" is a code too.

The defining characteristic of an encrypted signal is that the meaning of a defender's play is determined by information which is available to the defenders but not to declarer. That is, it's a cipher, not just a code.

[nigel_k]

When 'encrypted signals' are banned, there is no precise definition that I am aware of. You are supposed to know one when you see it. Generally this seems to work. Maybe there could be a method that is in a genuine 'gray area' but I don't know of any such method and I can't think of one right now.

If the meaning of your lead depends on declarer's length in a known suit (e.g. after Stayman) it is definitely illegal. If the method is based entirely on the opening leader's holding in the suit (without reference to the auction) then it is definitely legal.

[Cthulhu D]

Does that mean Prism / Vinje Trump signals are legal or illegal?

[nigel_k]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-January-15, 18:25, said:

Does that mean Prism / Vinje Trump signals are legal or illegal?

If you mean high/low in trumps or declarer's long suit to show hand parity, that is not encrypted. But it may be illegal for other reasons depending on where you are. I hesitate to suggest any general rules, but probably any method that depends only on cards in the defender's hand (not other cards or the bidding) is not encrypted.

[spaderaise]

gnasher, on 2012-January-15, 15:18, said:

The defining characteristic of an encrypted signal is that the meaning of a defender's play is determined by information which is available to the defenders but not to declarer. That is, it's a cipher, not just a code.

Making this into a meaningful definition is pretty tough. The grey areas are enormous. Two examples:

(1) Spades are trumps. Partner leads a heart and declarer ruffs the first round. (Now partner knows my heart holding but declarer does not). Declarer plays trumps and at my first discard I throw the H7. By agreement, this encourages clubs if the H7 is my smallest heart, and encourages diamonds if H7 is a "high" heart. Is this an encrypted meaning? Partner can read it but declarer cannot - it certainly fits the definition of "determined by information which is available to the defenders but not to declarer". But of course it's a very widely played method.

(2) Spades are trumps (maybe declarer's exact spade length is known, eg through a Stayman sequence). Partner leads the A and then K of clubs, and I follow twice. Which of the following agreements about my carding are encrypted?:

(a) high-low shows an even number of black cards, low-high shows and odd number of black cards;

(b) if I hold an even number of trumps, then high-low shows an even number of clubs and low-high shows an odd number of clubs; if I hold an odd number of trumps, then the reverse.

Method (a) sounds pretty straightforward and unencrypted, while method (b) is generally regarded as encrypted. But of course, the two methods are precisely identical.

(By the way, it's very standard for a signal to show something about two different suits at once. For example, a low heart both discourages hearts and suggests clubs over diamonds. Or a trump echo shows at least 3 trumps and a shortage in a side-suit. So if there is something wrong with method (a), it should be something other than combining information about two suits at once).

A signalling method is (roughly) an agreement about what card to play from any given hand. Typically partner has some partial information about my hand, and declarer also has partial (but different) information about my hand. Furthermore, I don't even know what partial information each of them does have about my hand. Also, some "information" is 100% provable from the play of the cards, whereas other information is not certain but may for example be implied by the bidding, or result from an inference from the play that tends to suggest one layout over another. In the light of all this a watertight notion of whether a signalling method involves "information available to partner but not to declarer" is likely to be elusive. (And of course, there is general agreement that designing signals so that they are useful to partner but not to declarer is an absolutely reasonable aim....)