[fromageGB]

The EBU does not allow encrypted signals, but I have not read anything about encrypted bidding. Presumably this is not allowed either?

I am using here "encrypted" in the sense that the information conveyed by the bid is available only to your partner, not the opponents. To take a silly example, you could say that the suit controlled, indicated by a cue bid, depends on whether we declared the first board on the previous round : it means the suit above if "yes", but the suit below if "no". When they ask the meaning of the bid, that explanation does not help them, but partner knows. Are they allowed to ask a follow-up question "did you declare the first board on the previous round?"?

Having answered that, now consider the king-showing method where in response to a say 5NT king ask, with one king you bid that suit, and with two kings you bid the suit of the king you do not have. That could be explained to the first question as to meaning, but can they then have a follow-up question to the bidder's partner to ask "do you have that king?"?

[steve2005]

When asked you would still have to describe truthfully what bid meant.
Opps know what happened on previous board also.
So I see no point in this method that isn't nefarious to say the least.
Board rules prevent me from saying what I really think <sarcasm maybe>

[awm]

My impression is that meanings which depend on something external to the current hand are either illegal, or permit opponents to ask further. So the first example, where the meaning depends on some previous hand (or what you had for dinner the night before, or the month of partner's birthday, etc) would not be allowed.

But methods where a bid shows one of two possible meanings (that partner has to figure out by looking at his own hand) are generally allowed. These come up a lot in relay methods; even something like keycard blackwood ("zero or three keycards") will often be something partner can guess based on combined point totals and his own keycard holding, whereas opponents may be in the dark as to which was held. So the "either this king, or both other kings" seems like it should be allowed.

[hrothgar]

I was happy that the ACBL adopted one of my suggestions wrt how to define Encrypted Signals during the last revisions of the convention charts

"An encrypted signal is one where the ordering of the cards for the signal is dependent on information known only to the defenders"
(Rather than saying information, I would have preferred to have said "a pre-arranged key that is dependent on specific characteristics of the hand")

I think that similar principal could be applied to define encrypted bidding...

To me, a 5♣ response to RKCB is not encrypted because there is no key.

However an agreement that a 5♣ would show

• 0/3 Key cards if Opener holds the King of Trump
  
• 1/4 Keycards if opener does not hold the ing of Trump

is encrypted

[hrothgar]

Using who declared on the previous hand is not permitted by the laws because it relies on something external to this board.

(In a similar vein, you can't vary your mean based on where the round clock is showing an odd or an even number)

[blackshoe]

hrothgar, on 2018-June-10, 12:37, said:

(In a similar vein, you can't vary your mean based on where the round clock is showing an odd or an even number

True, but considering that in most cases a player in a club here who wished to look at the round clock would have to make considerable effort to do so (during which time the clock will have changed probably at least two or three times) I suppose one might ask why he's going through all those gyrations. Not to mention that his partner has to go through the same gyrations, and to do so in such a way that he's looking at the clock at the same time the original player is looking.

[FelicityR]

It's a long time since I played in tournaments but surely any conventional bid used must be consistent with what's on a convention card. If it isn't then effectively it is cheating in my book.

[pescetom]

FelicityR, on 2018-June-10, 14:48, said:

It's a long time since I played in tournaments but surely any conventional bid used must be consistent with what's on a convention card. If it isn't then effectively it is cheating in my book.

It certainly must be consistent with what's on the card, and if not written on the card itself it should be in notes.
But much more important and realistic, "Information conveyed to partner through such understandings must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal."
So taking account of other circumstances is not legitimate.
Looking at the clock may be impractical, but encrypting based upon other circumstances such as number of table, number of board, gender of opponents etc. etc. is clearly not, and come to that there is always coughing, blowing one's nose, position of bidding cards, etc. etc.
It makes little difference, cheating is cheating.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2018-June-10, 13:06, said:

True, but considering that in most cases a player in a club here who wished to look at the round clock would have to make considerable effort to do so (during which time the clock will have changed probably at least two or three times) I suppose one might ask why he's going through all those gyrations. Not to mention that his partner has to go through the same gyrations, and to do so in such a way that he's looking at the clock at the same time the original player is looking.

Depends on whether you are collecting low order bits or high...

[hrothgar]

pescetom, on 2018-June-10, 15:32, said:

Looking at the clock may be impractical, but encrypting based upon other circumstances such as number of table, number of board, gender of opponents etc. etc. is clearly not, and come to that there is always coughing, blowing one's nose, position of bidding cards, etc. etc.

Perhaps, but none of the proponents of encrypted bidding advocate using the table number or gender of opponents as the "key", let alone out of band signals like coughing or the position of bidding cards. Rather, they suggest using a portion of the (earlier) bidding space for key exchange.

Quote

It makes little difference, cheating is cheating.

I don't disagree, however, what I see here you making is a set of ignorant assertions.

Go away.
Learn something about the actual topic being discussed.
Once you've done so, please let us know what you discover.

The January '81 copy of The Bridge World is a good place to start...

Alternatively, http://blakjak.org/brx_win1.htm has a useful example...

[pescetom]

hrothgar, on 2018-June-10, 16:51, said:

Learn something about the actual topic being discussed.
Once you've done so, please let us know what you discover.

The January '81 copy of The Bridge World is a good place to start...

Alternatively, http://blakjak.org/brx_win1.htm has a useful example...

Sorry, I only saw the last few messages and thought they were all, thus missing the point of the discussion.

[barmar]

steve2005, on 2018-June-10, 11:52, said:

When asked you would still have to describe truthfully what bid meant.
Opps know what happened on previous board also.

The suggested key is what happened in a previous round, when you were playing against different opponents.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-June-11, 08:48, said:

The suggested key is what happened in a previous round, when you were playing against different opponents.

Law 16A1 said:

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; or
[...]

so information derived from a different board is extraneous. It doesn't matter against whom the different board was played.

[weejonnie]

hrothgar, on 2018-June-10, 12:37, said:

Using who declared on the previous hand is not permitted by the laws because it relies on something external to this board.

(In a similar vein, you can't vary your mean based on where the round clock is showing an odd or an even number)

Is it? Law 16A

(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law
7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

[steve2005]

barmar, on 2018-June-11, 08:48, said:

The suggested key is what happened in a previous round, when you were playing against different opponents.

Wow, well you know what we call that around here!.

[steve2005]

barmar, on 2018-June-11, 08:48, said:

The suggested key is what happened in a previous round, when you were playing against different opponents.

So you ask opps what 2♠ means?
They say it shows spade if board 1 was a plus and shows hearts if board 1 was a minus.
Just kick them out of the tournament.

[Phil]

Had a former partner have an agreement with someone else that played standard carding if dummy played an even card at T1, UDCASP otherwise.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on 2018-June-11, 11:38, said:

Had a former partner have an agreement with someone else that played standard carding if dummy played an even card at T1, UDCASP otherwise.

That wouldn't be a problem so long as it's fully disclosed before trick one is quitted.

[steve2005]

blackshoe, on 2018-June-11, 13:29, said:

That wouldn't be a problem so long as it's fully disclosed before trick one is quitted.

If disclosed.
Then it is just an extra thing for declarer to think about so they might make a mistake on carding or elsewhere. This does not seem to be any advantage from a bridge standpoint. Method is trying to gain an advantage just by confusing or outright deceiving if opps didn't ask. I have never asked opponents are you playing encrypted signals.

[blackshoe]

The thing about encrypted signals is that the key is not available to declarer. In this case it would be available if and only if he knows to look for it at trick one. If he does know, they're not playing encrypted signals. If he doesn't, they are.

Note that I am not positing that declarer has to ask. He doesn't.