[Trinidad]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-11, 10:17, said:

It seems to me that E-W have an agreement to lead low from a short suit with a weak hand.

I think that is reading too much in "a small spade". If West led the normal 4 from 42, I can easily see that declarer thinks that it is from a four or five card suit.

But, as Hrothgar pointed out, leading a short suit with a weak hand and a long suit with a strong hand is an encrypted lead, according to the definition.

There are more situations where every expert will play signals that are encrypted - according to the definition - simply because the "default" signal won't help partner and partner can see that the default signal won't help him. In some situations, the key will be available to declarer and in some it won't.

To me it seems very difficult to make a good definition that properly describes what the regulators want.

Rik

[helene_t]

Trinidad, on 2017-January-12, 11:13, said:

To me it seems very difficult to make a good definition that properly describes what the regulators want.

Probably. They might have to make a list of allowed signalling method and ban everything not on the list.

Then again, I don't see why anyone would want to restrict signals.

[pran]

Giorgio Belladonna was a famous Italian bridge player who was famous for his "fantastic" leads against 3NT contracts.

In one of his books he described his logic:
If opponents have arrived in an apparently well controlled 3NT contract they will usually have some 25 HCP between them. That leaves 15 to our side and if I hold less than 8 the probability is high that partner has a stronger hand. So unless I have an obvious lead (based on my own cards) I look for the possibility of finding an interesting suit with partner.

Now, if I have say Qx in a major suit and opponents have shown little interest in finding a 4-4 fit in that suit then my Queen is on the table right away, hoping to find partner with a 5-card suit that can be promoted.

I have tried this lead myself on some occasions, and it is surprising how often it has turned out to be the setting lead.

[peterb001]

hrothgar, on 2016-March-08, 12:22, said:

I agree that this fits under the definition of "encrypted" leads.

I don't agree that this is an encrypted lead, based on the definition. Are you saying that in a trump contract, partner leads 4S, and you hold an (unbid) 7 card spade suit, so can read it as a singleton (rather than 3rd / 4th best), that this is an encrypted lead - because you can work it out from your hand, but declarer can't?

As long as the defenders follow their defined carding agreement in any particular suit, then it is not encrypted.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-January-12, 10:45, said:

My understanding is that lead and carding agreements refer to which card is played from a particular holding. The choice of which suit to lead is not generally part of agreements, it's just a judgement call.

Fair enough, I suppose.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2017-January-12, 10:45, said:

My understanding is that lead and carding agreements refer to which card is played from a particular holding. The choice of which suit to lead is not generally part of agreements, it's just a judgement call.

+1

[Zelandakh]

peterb001, on 2017-January-13, 06:09, said:

I don't agree that this is an encrypted lead, based on the definition. Are you saying that in a trump contract, partner leads 4S, and you hold an (unbid) 7 card spade suit, so can read it as a singleton (rather than 3rd / 4th best), that this is an encrypted lead - because you can work it out from your hand, but declarer can't?

Don't be silly. The key for encrypted signalling should be known by both defenders. In the case of the unbid 7 card suit the leader is just as unaware of it as declarer. The point of encryption is that the defence know something about the combination of their hands and choose to lead or signal based on their specific holding. Examples would be that the defence are known to hold a specific point count (such as after 1NT - 2NT; 3NT); a specific card (such as the trump queen in a RKCB auction); or a specific suit length (for example, after a Bergen raise). The key does not have to do with the suit led whatsoever. You might want to review your understanding of the definition before your next reply.

[wank]

east doesn't know west's strength. he can roughly extrapolate it from the opps' bidding. that's not the same thing. an encryption key has to be something more solid.

[barmar]

wank, on 2017-January-13, 09:11, said:

east doesn't know west's strength. he can roughly extrapolate it from the opps' bidding. that's not the same thing. an encryption key has to be something more solid.

Couldn't the key just be something binary, like which of the defenders is the stronger one (which can be inferred from the bidding)? I guess it would have to be trinary, to allow for approximately equal strength (opponents bid 3NT, you hold 7 or 8 HCP).

[helene_t]

peterb001, on 2017-January-13, 06:09, said:

Are you saying that in a trump contract, partner leads 4S, and you hold an (unbid) 7 card spade suit, so can read it as a singleton (rather than 3rd / 4th best), that this is an encrypted lead - because you can work it out from your hand, but declarer can't?

Of course, partner is allowed to make the inference that it is a singleton. The question is if he is allowed to use that information when deciding how to interpret your carding.

Suppose that the declaring side has shown an 8-card fit is a side suit. If you hold four cards in that suit you know that partner has a singleton, and he knows that you know it. Therefore, you will interpret his first spot card as telling you whether he has an ability to ruff (Smit or Trump Echo), while he will interpret your first spot card as telling him where you have an entry to give him a ruff (suit preference). You might both figure this out even without having discussed it, but it is particularly easy to figure it out if you play "flexible carding", i.e. any spot card could be attitude, count, SP or TE depending on what you think partner needs and can read it as.

This is in practice allowed but it is difficult to see why it isn't encrypted carding (unless it isn't an agreement at all but just GBK, but that is not always the case).

[mycroft]

It's a grey area, but I would suggest that it becomes "encrypted carding" when, in your case, "if I have an even number of cards, my carding is right-side-up; if odd, upside-down", *whatever* my card means. So, with 4-1, I will 'discourage' if I can ruff, and with 3-2, I will play the same card for whatever - SP or just "random". Similarly, the 4-card suit will play normal SP; the 3-card suit will play upside down whatever.

Off the top of my head; I'm sure with consideration it could be made more likely that the same card would be played by both sides whether everything's good and suit is splitting nicely or whether the world is about to end with a crossruff.

Back to my bugbear of "we rarely signal, when we do, we tell partner what he needs to know" - yes, but what carding strategy do you use when you do signal? If I can't figure out whether a card is meaningful or not, that boils down to my ability to read when the defence needs to pass information; but if I know it's a signal, but I don't know whether a 2 is "yes/spades/even", or "no/clubs/odd" because I'm not told, (or worse, it depends on some key in their hands, or the board number, or the day they can figure out but I can't) then it becomes a problem.

[barmar]

Another thing that falls in this grey area, but which is commonly taught, is that when almost all the strength is in one of the defenders' hands, the strong one will generally avoid giving true count (or other signals), while the weak one does. This is because the strong one will be in control of the defense, and needs to get declarer's count (e.g. to know how many times to hold up, or which suits are safe to discard from).

I don't think anyone considers this encryption, just good strategy. As mycroft said, it only becomes encryption if you explicitly agree to vary the form of your signals, such as the weak hand gives upside-down, while the strong hand gives rightside-up.

Declarer is always on a guess about whether a particular defender is giving a true signal, since false-carding is an established part of the game. But if he decides that you're giving a true signal, he's entitled to know the signalling method.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2017-January-12, 10:45, said:

My understanding is that lead and carding agreements refer to which card is played from a particular holding. The choice of which suit to lead is not generally part of agreements, it's just a judgement call.

Law 40 doesn't mention 'agreements', but 'understandings'. An agreement is discussed, an explicit understanding. But Law40A1a also mentions implicit understandings through mutual experience or awareness of the players. Here we're in the grey area between understandings and common/general bridge knowledge. But if you know that your partner usually leads from his shortest major after 1NT-3NT, you should tell this when asked, and if he does so with a very weak hand, but with his longest suit with a stronger hand, you shouldn't keep that from the declarer, too.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2017-January-13, 15:48, said:

Law 40 doesn't mention 'agreements', but 'understandings'. An agreement is discussed, an explicit understanding.

As far as what I was saying is concerned, I don't think the distinction between explicit and implicit agreements is relevant. I still believe that the choice of suits is not a matter of "partnership understanding". If you go down that route, so is the choice of whether to win a particular trick. Should players have to disclose their strategy for holding up, finessing, etc.?

[lamford]

This thread seems similar to an agreement I discussed with one partner, when dummy is entryless, with say KQJTx, and holding up is clearly indicated. The person without the ace gives true count, the other gives false count. This is disclosed, of course, but now the declarer does not know the situation, but both defenders do. Encrypted signals are a complicated area, and I wonder if there is a WBFLC minute on the subject? Pran?

[blackshoe]

In defending, I may, sometime during the play of the hand, realize that partner led, this time, from a short major suit. Will I remember it later? Probably not. If I did, would my partner notice? Probably not. Would he remember if he did notice? Almost certainly not.