LghtnngRod

IMP[hv=s=SA65HJT9854D9CK92&w=S92H3DAKJT764CT84&n=SK84HKQ62DQ3CA653&e=SQJT73HA7D852CQJ7&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3DPPP]420|380[/hv] Not easy to make 4H on Spade lead or Spade switch at trick 2, but it is there, although with a following wind with a 3-3 Club break. But do you agree that you should be there? I doubt that anyone could stop in 3H if they bid at all over 3D.

A while ago I played online with a pickup partner. Long enough ago that attempt at tracing the ID would be futile, even if still in MyHands. I only ever play with pickups. During system discussion partner advised me privately that it only ever leads a major at trick1 v. NT, which may be a short suit angling for my length. I took the statement as likely hyperbole. What would it lead with C:KQJT9 and a side Ace against uncontested auction 1S-2H-2S-3H-3S-3N-P? I would also ask you for the purpose of this thread to disregard the merits of the policy. OK, whether it was being entirely literal is beside the point, I feel, which is that it had a tendency to lead a major considerably more frequently than would be expected without being prewarned (even acknowledging that perhaps that tendency is generally rife anyway). From an ethical standpoint, what are your disclosure obligations here? However moronic the policy, its success rate may be inflated by a greater appreciation of its existence by partner than by opponents from whom the policy is concealed. And that seems to me unfair and probably illegal. On the other hand, partner no doubt was trying not so much to form a partnership agreement as rather to educate me as to its perception of best bridge strategy (however warped that perception) and there is no requirement to extend bridge tutorials also to opponents. Thoughts?

What possible alternative motive might a player have to make a deliberate gross distortion if not to mislead? If (as I suggest) there is no alternative motive then the absence of its being expressly required in the laws is not in my view a significant omission.

I voted not a psych, but it is close to being borderline :) My reasoning: Is it a distortion? Yes Is it a gross distortion? Certainly, it makes me want to vomit. Is it a deliberate distortion? Now this is where it gets murky. Whatever tortuous logic the bidder had in mind I doubt it was his intention to mislead.

Cancelled

[hv=pc=n&s=skq84hkjt2d76ckt9&w=sjt953ha63d84cj65&n=sh9874daqjt5ca732&e=sa762hq5dk932cq84&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=ppp1cp2dppp]399|300|IMPs[/hv] Another Robot tourney best hand South (me). I see that GIB plays fit jump shifts by a passed hand. Is this an example of how it is supposed to be? Is it sensible to do this with a 4 card major and your "fit" is for what may be a short suit? Did not score badly, but just trying to learn. Thanks.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqt65hk52d965c4&w=sj98hq86dk8ckqt86&n=s743hjt4dat7ca953&e=s2ha973dqj432cj72&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1s2c2s3c3sp4sppp]399|300|IMPs[/hv] This was a Robot tourney with best hand South (me). I should have opened 2S. Inexperience. Anyway, I opened 1S and North's 2S is described as "Free major raise -- 3+ S; 6-10 total points". So far so good. Maybe I should have made a game try, but in reality I decided to just try to buy the contract in 3S. It was intended to be to play. I have lots of other ways of making a game try. 3S would have been a good result. GIB bid 4S described as "3+ S; 6-10 total points". If the description is accurate, then it is clueless, as it provides no narrower definition than his previous bid. More likely I guess it decided that the auction was invitational and decided that it was max in context and the description of the bid was lagging. Anyway, I shall know better next time.