[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Adam Beneschan]

Grattan wrote:
 
> In what "same way"? Encrypted signals were banned
> for no other reason than intoxication with power of 
> bridge organisations. How can a method as simple 
> as "if my partner has an odd number of hearts then 
> we use upsided down carding" be too complex? Well, 
> it is no more complex than the game of bridge itself.
> <
> +=+ Not really justified, Konrad. The ban was 
> instituted because the method was regarded as  
> an attempt to conceal from opponent the full 
> meaning of the play, contrary to the intention of
> Law 40B and 40C.

If that was the argument, it's not really a good one, IMHO.  If a
partnership's agreement is, "Our signal is upside-down if the hand
contains an odd number of hearts and right-side up otherwise", then
disclosing exactly that wouldn't be a violation of 40B/40C; I don't
see how the spirit of those Laws would be violated.  Declarer doesn't
know what's in that defender's hand, of course, but we already know
that players are entitled to know their opponents' agreements but not
what's in their hands.

Besides, Peter Whats-his-name who invented encrypted signals wrote an
article for the ACBL's Bridge Encyclopedia explaining the concept, and
he included an example where the same encrypting principles could be
used in the bidding.  His example: Suppose you play forcing major-suit
raises that promise either an ace or a king in trumps; if opener also
has an ace or a king, then the partnership has a "key" that can be
used to make succeeding bids have two meanings depending on who has
the ace and who has the king.  Wouldn't those violate the spirit of
those two Laws also?  But nobody bans those, as far as I know; the
ACBL definitely doesn't (assuming they occur at opener's second turn
or later).

I agree that Konrad's claim is unjustified.  It seems fashionable to
claim that when someone in power takes a position that one does not
agree with, that it must have been because they're evil or corrupt or
stupid or power-hungry or whatever.  This sort of thinking is
fashionable, but quite frankly, I detest it.  Sadly, there probably
have been instances where someone in power pushes for a ban on some
convention because it was used successfully against them at the table.
But IMHO those are the exception, not the rule, and I see no reason
not to give those in charge of the game the benefit of the doubt and
assume that their reasons are well-intentioned, even though they may
be wrong-headed.

                                -- Adam