cherdanno

Someone should buy a The Bridge World gift subscription for Wayne.

It is true the bridge lawyers like to define "bridge ethics" as "following the letter and the spirit of the law". But that is not what the English word "ethical" means. In the soccer example, you are right the referee couldn't to anything. But the fans of the team would be embarassed, the fans of the opposing team outraged, and probably someone of the opponents would retaliate with an ugly foul. The commentators would be understanding of the ugly foul. If anyone in the team had been in the running of a fair-play award, the betfair odds for them would drop to 0.1% within a minute. These are all signs that there is a consensus that this is unacceptable unfair behavior. If that isn't part of "ethics of the game", I am not sure what the term is supposed to mean.

In my experience, they always enjoy a handsome good-looking player in the age of their daughters, even if he takes away some of their masterpoints.

Could it be that you learned it wrongly? I guess you don't know soccer well. Otherwise, you would know an excellent example of the difference between ethics of soccer, and its rules. When an opposing player is lying on the grass with an injury, there is no rule preventing you from playing on. But the ethical thing to do is to play the ball out of bounds. Then the other thing gets a throw-in - according to the rules, it's just a normal throw-in. But they throw the ball back to the team that originally had possession. Not doing so would be considered unethical by every player, coach, fan. But there is no rule stipulation either behavior.

Of course I am bidding hearts, probably 4. Disagree with gnasher, not playing in a 4-4 fit with a 7-4 hand is universal. (But posters are allowed to make mistakes once in a while B) )

Partner's 4♥ doesn't necessarily promise slam interest, he is just looking for the best strain. Such a hand necessarily has quite a bit of values though, so I have slam interest. I would bid 5N, expecting to play 6♣.

If you psych rarely in situation XYZ and never in other situations, there is no need to disclose it unless asked. If your psych frequently in situation XYZ and with normal frequency (i.e., rarely) in other situations, then you should disclose it.

Here are some alternative conclusions that partner might draw: 1. You are too weak for LM (forcing to 4S on your own requires more than competing to 4S over their 4H). 2. Your suits are too weak for LM. 3. You really have 7 clubs with a side 4-card spade suit, bidding it just in case on the way to 5♣. Ok your partner will know your clubs are longer than your spades, but I don't think he is likely to play you for a 3-loser hand with great clubs and good spades. (I would guess explantion no. 1 if I were your partner.)

In my opinion the best source for expert-level bidding standards are The Bridge World's Master Solver Club discussions. With your dad's hand it seems much better to be able to bid 2♣. I hate losing 5-5 fits :) That's also why I don't like the agreement that you cannot have 6 spades and a minimum after bidding 2♣. Why did you go wrong on the first auction? From your agreement about 2♠ it sounds like 4♠ should be a good contract!

I think it means he wasn't able to throw the ball in the target zone. If that happens 4 times, the batter can advance to the first base without ever hitting a ball. Apparently this happened many times in a very short period. Probably the equivalent of 3 bad passes in the first 10 minutes of a soccer game, all of them leading to a goal.

Wayne, reading your posts I think very often that you and me live on different planets, and I have a suspicion on which planet most of the other posters live. How you got the idea that anyone was suggesting to open 1N with 6322 and a 17 count is beyond me. Just because people are discussing opening 1N with 6322, why do you have to assume that they have no clue about hand evaluation? I guess you read "appropriate range" as "having the stated number of hcp". Come on. You know The_Hog better than this.

experts psyching 'and such' , what else would you ban in order to protect beginners who chose to play in open games? How about cheating when writing down the score? (Happened to me in my first duplicate and didn't notice it until looking through the results at the end.) Ok these weren't experts, of course. And it amused me more than driving me away.

Josh, why are you so sure they are making 6? Maybe 7♦ is lose PLENTY with -1100 against +100 in their 6M. If we knew they are making 6, then I would agree that 7♦ is better than 6♦.

Ben gave a good, but fairly non-standard answer. (The book he linked to is good but also not everything in there is mainstream.) Let me add to Ben's answer by stating what I believe are the standard treatments. i) The 1S bids does show values, maybe 4-8. With 4 hcp you would bid only if you are happy to play 2S over their 2H when partner has a minimum takeout double with 4 spades. It can have 4 or 5 spades (with 6 you would often preempt to 3/4♠). ii) The 2S bid is automatic with 4 spades (ok, with ♠xxxx ♥KQJT I would pass, but you get the idea) and does not show extras. iii) The styles for this 2S seem to differ, some play it as requiring mild extras, others as just confirming the fit (not that responder is still unlimited, so there is still preemptive value to that bid). Saying it is invitational seems an overbid, but with hands that get improved opposite 4-card support you may bid again (think distributional hand with 5 spades). iv) Here you just bid 2S with any hand that is willing to play there opposite a takeout double with 3 spades. I don't think it matters what it shows, partner won't bid again. As for your other question, if partner can bid 2♣ with a 6-4 minimum, then 3♠ is just to play. With your hand I would have redoubled btw, not bid 2♠. These are all good questions (in fact several of your questions have been posed for the latest Bridge World Standard poll), it seems your father and grand taught you well.

I would guess 1100, with 1400 a little more likely than 800 - just ♦AKxxxx with three hearts gives us 8 tricks. He could have 7 diamonds, or ♦AJxxxx with an outside trick (♣Kx), expecting 1400 seems a little pessimistic to me. Nevertheless, your point that the premium is high seems right. I convinced myself to bid 6♦, and be done with that.

You said it without the digs against other forum posters though.

Fred, if the intentions of these two "stars" are as noble as you assume, why did they complain to the TD about an utterly normal psych? Just to preemptively protect other players, by teaching glen a lesson not to psych in ACBL games? Well, it's possible, but I don't think it's the most likely version of the story.

Hallo?

Why do you care, Han? Without suit quality requirements, the numbers are meaningless anyway.

Yeah right.

Why is that so? For example, when responder is weak with long diamonds, opener will often be 18-19 balanced, which may want to play in game opposite 7 hcp but not opposite 6.

I would have thought the main alternative to Michaels in balancing seat is "any 2-suiter". I don't think "strong takeout" would get more than 10% of the panel vote.

Shorter Ken: Game would be 50% if partner has good hearts and a 1♥ opening hand, with exactly the right 6322 shape.

Ken, you are missing that you have a guess when RHO wins the 9 on the second round and leads a third - you can't win against both H9xx and 9xxx. Anyway, assuming that trumps split 2-1, I would follow your line, but after LHO covers the Jack, I would return to hand with a trump and lead the 8. This would make when RHO has both honors, when he has H9(xxx), or when honors are split and the ♦7 is in the hand with at most 3 diamonds. I only fail when RHO has 9xx(x) and LHO finds the second round duck. In all other cases I can still try the club finesse.

5C. The thought of passing 3NT after we make a takeout double is quite painful...