[kenrexford]

Suppose that you have an auction whereat some point some call asks for the next most important card, by a scheme. The scheme works something like this:

a. The usual next most important card is x.
b. If x is already known, then y.
c. If x and y are already known, then z.

For example, maybe "x" is the King of Opener's side suit, "y" the King of Responder's side suit, and "z" the King of the fourth suit. Something like that.

Suppose, further, that "x" is known. Normally, "x" would be known because someone already promised that they had "x" or already denied having "x".

What if, however, "x" is known because of information that is not clear from the bidding but rather from each person knowing from the bidding and from what is in their had what the bidding truly means?

An example. Responder shows 6-10 HCP. He later shows two key cards, without the trump Queen. When partrner bids 5NT, say, partner is supposed to bid his specific King if he has one. However, if h is known to not have a KIng, he is supposed to show his specific Queen.

5NT, however, is not bid unless the partnership has all of the key cards.

Because the partnership only asks for specifics if holding all of the key cards, then each partner knows whether Responder has two Aces (and hence 8 HCP, and hence no possible side King) or one Ace and the trump King (and hence 7 HCP, and hence a possible side King). Thus, the partnership knows from the cards in their hands whether Responder's 5♣ call (for example) shows the club King or the club Queen.

So, suppose LHO ends up on lead and asks what 5♣ showed.

From the bidding, the 5♣ call showed "the club King, the club Queen, or a stiff in clubs," for example. You could even be more specific as to the agreement, such that "5♣ shows the club King if that is possiloe or the club Queen if a King is not possible, or a stiff if neither is possible." That explanation, per the bidding agreement, could be very long, if the list of possibilities is very long.

However, the partnership knows, not from the bidding but from their hands, what 5♣ actually shows. To explain what this actually shows, however, you would be forced to reveal something (what specific honor types Responder has) that th bidding did not establish but which your actual hand establishes.

So, how do you resolve this problem?

The same thing happens with carding. On bridgewinners, Woolsey describes a situation with which I agree where a card usually shows count, but the context of what partner must be looking at proves that the card should really be suit preference. That shift in meanings, however, is contextual, based on what each person has. It does not seem that the explanation should be "that is atttude because we both know that count is irrelevant and already established," as that fact is not necessarily known to Declarer. (In the Woolsey situation, it probably is, but others might come up.)

How the heck do you handle context-based encryption, when the same is not "designed" to encrypt but rather esigned to reflect realities, with the realities being unknown to the opponents withou revealing information to which they are not entitled?

[iviehoff]

The use or otherwise of encrypted methods is specific to the regulations under which the competition is run. So you need to say whose regs you are interested in.

In the regs of English Bridge Union they say (para 11R2 of the "Orange Book"):

"As a specific exception to the ban on encrypted signals, a count signal is permitted in place of a Smith Peter in specifically-defined situations provided that the use of the method is fully disclosed."

Given that they consider it a specific exception, that seems to imply to me that they would in general consider a method that can be encrypted in some contexts to be disallowed by a general restriction on encrypted methods.

[aguahombre]

The use of the word "encryption", seems to have sidetracked from the question. It is not really about encryption at all. It is about knowing which of two possible enterpretations of a bid or a play is the correct one because of what we ourselves hold or what we already know from inferences of the auction.

If an opponent asked what 5C showed, I would answer that it showed (y) and not go into how I know that. If the opponent then really asked how I know that, I would suspect he already knows the answer, but would request guidance on the proper way to answer the question (TD). That's just me trying to give a simple answer to an opponent's simple question rather than trying to create confusion via some rules of disclosure which I might be able to hide behind.

[RMB1]

 iviehoff, on 2012-October-05, 10:15, said:

In the regs of English Bridge Union they say ...

... they would in general consider a method that can be encrypted in some contexts to be disallowed by a general restriction on encrypted methods.

encrypted carding methods

There is no restriction on encrypted bidding in the EBU.

[barmar]

How is this different from knowing whether partner is showing 0 or 3 key cards in their RKCB response because you hold 3 key cards yourself?

[ArtK78]

It really is not any different, except for the layers of meaning that you have to go through to arrive at the proper conclusion.

You are required to announce your partnership agreements, not what is in your hand or, for that matter, what is in partner's hand. So I would go through the explanation pretty much as you did in phrasing the issue above.

The knowledge of what your partner has is not based on encryption - it is based on bridge knowledge.

[awm]

It seems that there are a lot of agreements in both bidding and defense where something shows "either A or B" and partner is expected to work it out from his or her hand. Simple examples include keycard auctions ("0 or 3 keycards" or "shows the queen and/or extra trump length") and even simple carding ("if it's his highest it encourages, lowest it discourages" or "attitude, unless his hand is really weak, in which case it's count"). The question is where these sorts of agreements cross the line into encrypted methods... which may be illegal depending on jurisdiction. For example, the prior inferences are apparently not encrypted while these examples might be: "1 keycard if he has the ace of trump, but 2 keycards if he doesn't" or "attitude if he has the ace of spades, but count if he doesn't."

[nigel_k]

To me, this is analagous to an RKC response showing the trump queen, where the asker holds the queen himself and can therefore infer that partner has extra length. Which is just normal bridge. Maybe it technically fits within the scope of encryption , but is not the sort of thing that is prohibited by a ban on encrypted methods.

[bluejak]

It is quite clear to me that there are various methods of encrypted bidding, but several posters seem scared of calling them encrypted bidding. What is less clear to me is why they are scared of them.

If you respond 0 or 3 aces and partner knows which you have by his two aces that is encrypted bidding. Of course a ban on encrypted bidding would cause a lot of trouble, similar to a ban on opening 1♠ if holding any heart honours. Even the ACBL will not ban encrypted bidding in its entirety.

[Trinidad]

---

You have agreed to play small promises an honor and top of nothing on opening lead. What card are you going to lead?

You'ld be a fool if you wouldn't lead the ♦9. Ok, you're not a fool and lead the ♦9. Declarer turns to your partner and asks about your leads. You know that in this situation it can only be a suit preference signal for hearts after partner ruffs the diamond. Partner knows it and both of you know that the other knows it. But you both only know this from your hand. How is partner supposed to explain the lead?

Rik

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-05, 14:56, said:

It is quite clear to me that there are various methods of encrypted bidding, but several posters seem scared of calling them encrypted bidding. What is less clear to me is why they are scared of them.

If you respond 0 or 3 aces and partner knows which you have by his two aces that is encrypted bidding. Of course a ban on encrypted bidding would cause a lot of trouble, similar to a ban on opening 1♠ if holding any heart honours. Even the ACBL will not ban encrypted bidding in its entirety.

This is not encrypted bidding. It only is a key. It only becomes encrypted bidding if you have an additional agreement like any of the following examples.

5NT asks for specific kings. If you hold the king of trumps you will show the kings in a natural way, if you don't you bid the suit under the king.

Spades are trump, 5♦ asks for the queen. You agree that 5♥ shows an even number of real aces with the queen or an odd number of aces without the queen. 5♠ shows an odd number of aces with the queen or an even number of aces without.

You play asking bids. You play them natural if responder holds 3 and they ask for the next higher suit if responder holds 0.

Rik

[FrancesHinden]

As aguahombre says, this isn't really about 'encrypted' methods as such (and even if it were, it doesn't matter, because encrypted bidding is allowed everywhere anyway as far as I know). It's not a difficult question either - you explain your agreements.

The simple answer in the auction is that you explain your agreement not what you know partner has. If you are playing a complex method, this might take time. In Ken's original example, you would say "partner bids a specific king if he has one; if he is known from the auction so far and our hands (because 5NT promised all the keycards) not to have one he will shown his lowest queen"

This is no different to the "psychic" cue bid. You have agreed to cue first round controls only. Partner cues the suit you hold the ace in, when he cannot possibly have a void. You don't have to tell the opponents that he doesn't have the ace.
Or I had an auction the other week where
- we had agreed hearts as trumps
- opener had denied a diamond control. Responder had denied a first round diamond control.
- opener then cue-bid clubs at the 5-level (in the obvious hunt for a second round control) and responder signed off

As responder, I was asked if the club cue-bid could be either first or second round control. I said that systemically it could be either. I didn't feel any need to say that given we had announced we had two diamond losers, opener would be pretty insane to make a slam try with the ace of clubs.

[FrancesHinden]

 kenrexford, on 2012-October-05, 09:46, said:

The same thing happens with carding. On bridgewinners, Woolsey describes a situation with which I agree where a card usually shows count, but the context of what partner must be looking at proves that the card should really be suit preference. That shift in meanings, however, is contextual, based on what each person has. It does not seem that the explanation should be "that is atttude because we both know that count is irrelevant and already established," as that fact is not necessarily known to Declarer. (In the Woolsey situation, it probably is, but others might come up.)

This still isn't a difficult question. If you are asked, you explain your agreement. When we are asked, we say (for example) "usually we give reverse attitude here, but if attitude is known it would be suit preference" or "the agreement is that we give count unless the count is already known, in which case it is attitude". And you give that explanation every time, not just on the times where the position might be known.

[Vampyr]

 FrancesHinden, on 2012-October-07, 11:25, said:

This still isn't a difficult question. If you are asked, you explain your agreement. When we are asked, we say (for example) "usually we give reverse attitude here, but if attitude is known it would be suit preference" or "the agreement is that we give count unless the count is already known, in which case it is attitude". And you give that explanation every time, not just on the times where the position might be known.

The attitude or count may be already known, but also may instead be irrelevant. I would include that in my explanation.