[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Konrad Ciborowski]

> 
> On Jul 19, 2006, at 5:16 AM, Grattan Endicott wrote:
> 
> > +=+ The fact remains that the method is designed
> > not to reveal to opponent 'the full meaning' (L40C)
> > of the play.
> >                              ~ Grattan ~   +=+
> 
> Law 40C: "If the Director decides that a side has been damaged  
> through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call  
> or play, he may award an adjusted score."
> 
> Law 40B: "A player may not make a call or play based on a special  
> partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be  
> expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the  
> use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the  
> sponsoring organization."
> 
> Certainly one cannot know the meaning of an encrypted signal without  
> the key, but I see no reason why the SO's regulations cannot require  
> disclosure of the meaning of the signal. 

We are talking apples and oranges here. Can we, please, take
out of this discussion methods that require from opponents 
knowing the height of Mount Everest in centimeters or
the solution of a polynomial of the nth degree or T.S. Eliot's
mother's birth date? I am not advocating making such methods legal.


I am talking about situations where a key is entirely related
to bridge and is not too complex for anyone to understand
(leaving aside the problem of how we define "too complex").
An example:

Say we have a 1NT opener who becomes declarer and revealed 
the exact number of cards in one suit during the auction. 
To make the situation even more specific:

1NT  2C (Stayman)
2S   3NT
pass

Both defenders know the number of spades in declarer's hand
(provided that declarer wasn't mean enough to open 1NT
on a hand with 5 spades - that is one of the weaknesses 
of the envrypted signals) so once the dummy goes down they know 
the exact number of spades in each other's hands. So now let's say 
that declarer asks about the meaning of the discard of the c2 by West.
A proper response by East would be: "if my partner has an even
number of spades then the c2 is encouraging, discouraging
otherwise".

Now if you insist on "requiring disclosure of the meaning 
of the signal" then you insist that East should tell
declarer how many spades his partner has. 

By the some token you could argue that if I hold 7 spades and 25 HCP
and my partner opens multi 2D then I should explain that
my partner's bid shows 6-10 HCP and 6+H because otherwise I am not
telling my opponents the "full meaning" of my partner's bid.


__________________
Konrad Ciborowski
Kraków, Poland

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PS. Fajny portal... >>> http://link.interia.pl/f196a