[blml] Encrypted signals (was: nearest card)

[Adam Beneschan]

Herman wrote:
 
> Eric misses a point: see below.
> 
> Herman De Wael
> Wilrijk, Antwerpen, Belgium
> www.hdw.be
> 
>  
[Eric:]
>  Declarer cashes a heart on which partner discards the S5.  Opponents 
>  ask me what that means.
>  
>  I tell them that if it's a high card, he wants me to play spades when I 
>  get in next; if it's a low card, he wants me to play some other suit.
>  
>  Am I obligated to tell them that partner is discouraging spades when I 
>  know this to be the case because I happen to hold S432?  Is my reply, 
>  above, illegal?  I don't think so.

[Herman:]  
> HDW: in the definition of encrypted signals there is mention of a
> key which the opponents have, but declarer has not.  The example
> above also contains a key (only when seeing 234 do we know if the 5
> is a small one) but there is no knowing who holds that key.
> 
> Therefor, there is a significant difference between an encrypted
> signal and Eric's example, and thus Eric's argument holds no water.

I disagree.  From what I can tell, the issue isn't whether encrypted
signals are essentially just like other signals; the issue is whether
encrypted signals violate the spirit of "full disclosure".  According
to some previous posts, that's the reason encrypted signals are
banned.  

I agree with Eric that, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FULL DISCLOSURE, there
is no difference between telling declarer something like "Partner's
spade 5 is encouraging if he has an odd number of hearts, discouraging
if he has an even number", and "Partner's spade 5 is encouraging if
it's a relatively high spot card in his hand, discouraging if it's
relatively low".  Both explanations, I think, are equally good at
following both the letter and the spirit of the full disclosure laws. 

This doesn't mean that encrypted signals aren't basically different
from other types of signals.  Yes, there's a key involved that both
defenders know about.  Based on that, I'm sure it's possible to come
up with a meaningful definition of "encrypted" signals, and ban them.
Also, I don't have a particular problem with organizations banning
encrypted signals, FOR A LEGITIMATE REASON.  But the reason that was
given---they violate the spirit of full disclosure---is, IMHO, *not* a
legitimate one.

These discussions get so convoluted that sometimes it's hard to tell
who's making what point and who's refuting what point of which
argument.  Hopefully this will clarify things a little bit.  At least
it will clarify *my* opinion---and I posted something very similar to
what Eric is saying.  

                                -- Adam