[blml] I will end quartered

[Matthias Berghaus]

Hello Alain,

This is a somewhat quick reply, so I could be persuaded to change my 
opinion if someone convinces me that I am wrong.

I see one quite fundamental difference between between encrypted signals 
and your methods. With encrypted signals as I know them (is there a 
clear definition somewhere?), thr trigger is something of which the 
defenders can be 100% sure, and which declarer can never read (except 
when one declarer shows out, too). In your methods declarer may 
occasionally know more than you do (even if it is unlikely, especially 
in the example you gave). Still, there is always the risk of declarer 
reading your card better than your partner does. Let us say you that you 
give a Smith signal with the 5, declarer holding 432 in the closed hand. 
So declarer can read your signal perfectly, while your partner may well 
have some difficulties. He is not going to tell you,is he? Or your 
partner may hold 432. He is not going to tell declarer, either.
Your method is not designed to conceal something from declarer, so I see 
nothing illegal here.

Best regards
Matthias

Alain Gottcheiner schrieb:
> Dear blmlists,
>
> When you, and you alone, start thinking you've made something wrong, 
> it's time to call for help.
> Furthermore, the present situation very much looks like "if you lie, 
> you'll be quartered ; if you tell the truth, you will be implaed".
> Ready for a headache ?
>
>
> 1. Our carding agreements against NT, as mentioned on our convention 
> card of course, are that, when partner leads a long suit, partner's 
> first signal will be Smith-like (stating or denying the presence of a 
> yet-unshown useful card in the suit of the lead), if it make at all 
> sense. When he led our suit, however, or when he made a neutral lead 
> (usually easy to see from our "attitude"-type leads), the first priority 
> thereafter is count.
>
> Is there anything to disallow this ? Please think of an answer and 
> arguments NOW.
>
>
> 2. This was the bidding friday night :
>
>
> 2D         D         RD         3C
> p            3NT
>
> 2D was classical Multi.
> RD meant : "I own my personal long suit ; please bid 2H and I'll place 
> the contract (or possibly bid 3H or 3S freely to suggest game)"
> (we call this "selfish redouble")
>
> Partner led the Jack of Hearts. I played the Queen. Declarer took the 
> Ace. His holding was A7xx.
> On sight of dummy (1-1-5-6 pattern), it was obvious that our suits were 
> Hearts and Spades.
> Declarer needed to find a crucial Diamond Queen.
> The first trick in Hearts was both consistent with a lead from Jx or 
> from KJ10xxx(x).
> We both knew which it was ; declarer couldn't.
>
> By now, blml addicts will have realized, as I did, that we would be 
> using encryped sugnalling !
>
> .
> 3. So I asked myself whether we should switch off the distinction made 
> in 1) above in cases where it would give us said advantage.
> But it has been said before that you aren't allowed to change your 
> agreements based on your holding (only on circumstances known of 
> everyone and on general bridge logic).
>
> So we appear to be in a situation of the kind Herman likes commenting 
> on, one where the only thing that would save us is to say "I'll end 
> quartered".
>
> Please heeelp !
>
>      Alain
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
>