[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Wayne Burrows]

On 19/07/06, Ton Kooijman <t.kooyman at worldonline.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Really Grattan, you are being obtuse. Can I not say "Rightmost suit?" It's
>
> >
>
> > clearly a condition of the current deal. I am alarmed that ton feels he
>
> > can
>
> > forbid the method.  I am inclined to Nigels's view that one can ban a
>
> > method
>
> > that is too complex in the same way as one can ban encrypted signals
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> __________________
>
> Konrad Ciborowski
>
> Kraków, Poland
>
>
>
>
> This is the answer of somebody who prefers shouting above thinking.
>
> The reason was not the complexity, though it would have been a good enough
> reason. The reason was that declarer can't figure out what the meaning of
> the signal is. Meaning understood as bearing useful information.
>
>
>
> Let me give another example: both defenders are autistic and able to
> multiply many huge numbers. So they give the cards shown in dummy a big
> number and multiply and depending on the outcome, last two digits between
> 1-50 or 51 – 00 or whatever, the card they play is dis- or en-couraging. It
> is all on their convention cards.
>
>
>
> Acceptable in your world, not in mine. It depends on the way you look at our
> game. Mine being more sane than yours, I dare to say.
>

Players with better mental skills than others are not allowed to use
those skills.  You say that is more sane.

I think you kid yourself.

Wayne