[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Adam Beneschan]

Ed wrote:
 
> On Jul 19, 2006, at 7:50 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The problem is that the defenders have more information about the  
> four hands than declarer has, and declarer *cannot* obtain the same  
> information defenders have in a timely manner.
> 
> Law 40B says "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..."
> 
> Declarer cannot reasonably be expected to understand the meaning of  
> an encrypted signal unless he has the same key the defenders do.

I don't see why this, by itself, is a problem.  There are lots of
cases where a defender is going to understand the meaning of his
partner's signal better than declarer is, simply because the defender
is looking at his own cards and declarer isn't.  Say partner makes an
encouraging discard in a suit and I'm looking at AQ of the suit.  I
know partner has the king; declarer doesn't know how the suit is laid
out.  Or, if partner makes a suit-preference play asking me to lead a
suit, and I have a lot of length in the suit that I never showed
during the auction, I may know that partner is short in the suit, and
declarer doesn't.

Or, partner may play the 7 of a suit.  Playing upside-down signals, I
know it's encouraging because I'm looking at the 6542 in my hand and
the 3 in dummy; declarer won't know that.  If declarer asks me the
meaning of partner's signal, do the Laws require me to tell declarer
that it's encouraging?  Certainly not!  Normally, if I knew from our
agreements that it was an attitude signal, I'd say "It's discouraging
if it's a high card, encouraging if it's a low card, relative to the
his other cards in the suit".  [With my regular partner, I'd have to
add more if's because we don't have fixed agreements about what
signals are attitude or convey other messages.]

So, from a full disclosure standpoint, is there really any difference
between that kind of explanation, and "It's discouraging if he has an
odd number of hearts, and encouraging if he has an even number of
hearts"???  I just don't see it at all.  It seems just as much to be
fully disclosing the meaning as something like "It's discouraging if
it's a high card and encouraging if it's a high card".

I can accept a ban on encrypted signals; the Laws give SO's the power
to do so, and they may do so for whatever reasons they choose,
including the reason that they think it may give defenders too great
an advantage.  But I cannot accept that "violating the spirit of Law
40" is a legitimate reason.  It's actually quite ridiculous.

                                -- Adam