nigel_k

There are two possible grounds for adjustment: 1. Call taking advantage of unauthorised information 2. Call made based on a concealed partnership understanding Re 1, let's assume there was a BIT and therefore UI that advancer was thinking about something. In order to determine whether the UI suggests passing, we have to compare the probability that advancer will just have hearts when he breaks tempo with the probability that advancer will just have hearts when he bids 3♥ quickly or in normal tempo. Based on my experience the latter probability is higher so the UI does not suggest passing. Ground 2 is the 'fielding' scenario. In general, if there is a psyche or other situation where a player deliberately departs from his partnership agreements in order to deceive opponents then the cost/benefit of doing this is greatly improved if partner has seen it before and knows not to rely on your actions but doesn't share this knowledge with the opponents. But the key reason that this is regarded as a serious breach of the laws is that it is hard to detect. The example in the OP is different in that it is very easy to detect. At worst there is a concealed understanding that 2♥ followed by 3♥ cancels the message about spades and is a signoff. Probably this is not actually the case here, but it is something the director will have to determine by asking the right questions. Even so, the other side can call the director if they were damaged, e.g. because they were prevented from bidding spades. More likely the concealed agreement, if there is one at all, is much more ambiguous than that and requires the 1NT bidder to guess whether advancer has spades by looking at his own hand. Obviously that is not an agreement anyone would choose voluntarily, it has been forced on them by their own poor memory. In that case, I suppose the director might choose to impose a penalty for the failure to disclose the agreement, but the opponents should not expect to gain from an adjustment unless they were actually disadvantaged by not being aware of the undisclosed information.

I am definitely bidding 5♣. Can't partner have something like AKQxx xx x AKJxx? Partner also knows it is matchpoints and could have bid 4♠ directly on hands where that is right.

I can definitely understand the desire to pull. At IMPs we can live with -180 and against good opponents that may be our cheapest available minus score. But at matchpoints -180 will be really bad and partner will tend to double a bit more often at MP (e.g. on am average balanced 16) because passing out the opponents in 1NT doesn't have a good MP expectation. Also, the field will probably be doubling on any hand where partner does and many will pull on our hand and convert -180 into -100 or +100 into +110. Without any agreements, obviously you cannot pull to a four card suit. Plus our hand is good enough that we expect to usually beat 1NT. But it could be worthwhile to have the agreement that 2♣ initiates scrambling manoeuvres and I would use it if the hand was slightly weaker.

Surely there is more than enough room if all the hands are in the 2♣ response. And who knows, maybe you will pick up a hand with some diamonds and want to bid 2♦ natural? If playing a weak 2♦ opening, I would definitely play 2♣ natural and use 2♦ as Drury though it is a bit cramped in that case.

Thinking people have learned that politicians are best judged by their actions, not by relying on their words. So speeches are mainly intended to persuade the other sort of people.

I would definitely cue bid 2♦ and there is no choice of cue bid as 2♠ over 1♠ would be natural and I don't wish to commit us beyond 2♥ anyway. As overcaller, I would do more than just 2♥. But you could still end in 3♥ if nobody does anything particularly aggressive. If we weren't vulnerable at IMPs, there would definitely be no blame for missing 4♥.

I always mentally reproduce the play to get a count when I have a problem, rather than keeping a running count that I update after every trick. It shouldn't be that hard to remember which honour cards have been played.

Definitely XX to play. I actually like pass to show a decent holding in their suit but not good enough to redouble so that responder can also redouble if suitable. In my experience people double artificial bids quite often when they cannot beat your contract. Glen's idea is interesting but am not sure I want to have to remember it. And doubler's partner is the one who will usually want to run so the immediate (which will not always end the auction) creates uncertainty about our intentions for the opponent who actually has the decision.

I played forcing pass internationally but it was back in the early 90s and it's much harder under current rules. You would definitely want a strong club system to use with the same partner in events where forcing pass isn't allowed and make the two systems as similar as possible to aid memory. In your position I would start by learning symmetric relay in a strong club framework. This will keep you busy for a while. Obviously many people play strong club without relays but I think you need the gains from relay methods to offset the other disadvantages. Also, I would not use the Moscito opening structure and would instead do something like this: 1♣ 15+ any 1♦ 10-14, 4+♥ not balanced 1♥ 10-14, 4+♠ denies 4♥ not balanced 1♠ 10-14, 4+♦ no major not balanced 1NT 12-14 balanced 2♣ 10-14, 6+♣ no major This still gets the majors in early and puts you in a good position to follow up with relays. Everything has an anchor suit which means you can play it in more places. But you may need something simpler depending on the rules where you live.

I would definitely play all suit bids natural. You really want to avoid giving them extra space and an extra turn to call, which artificial methods will do. Double for majors is ok as partner will quite often be able to bid two or three of a major immediately. Otherwise I would not bother showing two suited hands as it can help them quite a lot in the play. Even 1NT for minors is doubtful - if you don't have a good enough hand to bid 2NT then you won't often have a profitable sacrifice and so you'll just paint a picture of the hand for declarer. Against bad players it is different because any interference is liable to send them into uncharted territory. So I would suggest playing 1NT as any major/minor two suiter (may be 4/5 or even 4/4) but just don't use it against anyone good.

If clubs are 4-1, RHO will ruff the second round and you will only get to pitch one diamond as dummy has only one club winner remaining.

I have done those things too, but my sense is that they are optional not obligatory. It would not be considered unethical if you didn't do it. Actually it is not possible to disclose more than the laws of Bridge require, because they require you to disclose everything. But often a sponsoring organisation will wrongly decide that authority to prescribe alerting procedures includes the authority to prohibit alerting of a call based on an agreement opponents may not be aware of. In that case the only ethical course of action is to alert anyway.

I would just raise to 2♦ on the first round. The downside is when we make 110 in diamonds instead of 140 in hearts. But once I have raised, it will be much easier for partner to make the right decision about whether to compete further.

Can you give me an example of something that is required by ethics but not required by law?

Sorry for my ignorance but nobody uses cross-IMP scoring where I live. I understand the example, but doesn't Butler just expand the IMP swings on all hands? If half the room gets 100 and the other half gets 200 then everyone gets +/- 2 instead of +/- 1.5. Can the choice of scoring can actually affect the outcome to any siginificant extent?

The word 'ethical' is used in a very strange way in bridge. I don't really know why. In real life, there is obviously a huge difference between legal vs illegal and ethical vs unethical. But in a game like bridge, they ought to coincide, i.e. ethical and legal duties are the same. Obviously you can accidentally infringe a law without being unethical but when making conscious decisions about how to act there should be no such thing as 'legal but unethical' or vice-versa. Some people think it is 'ethical' to go beyond what the laws require when in possession of unauthorised information for example, but the legal obligation is quite strict so there isn't much room to exceed that without doing something ridiculous.

I'm opening 1NT on both A and B, inviting in spades on 1 and inviting in NT on 2. The final contracts will be: A1: 4♠ B1: 3♠ A2: 2NT B2: 2NT

We have that rule in New Zealand as well. It's extremely counter-intuitive and I am so tempted to start playing NAMYATS even though I never would with normal alerting rules.

79A2 does appear to cover this, though it's a pity it is tucked away at the end where a director or player who wants to know the rules about claiming will not look for it. But if there is any way for declarer to lose a trick, I think it's fine to accept the concession. After all, it's a bridge error (not a mechanical error or other accident unrelated to bridge skill) to not know how many tricks you might take and how to take them.

The problem with all of this is that there is no effective redistribution unless these millionaires actually spend less on themselves. If they continue to spend the same amount on themselves but pay more tax, then they will necessarily have to reduce how much they invest. That reduced investment will mean fewer jobs and a lower standard of living for many other people. It it quite unlikely that giving money to the federal government instead of investing it, while holding constant how much you consume yourself, will lead to others being able to consume more, or any other kind of net benefit to the rest of society.

Counting is huge but it is really more that you need to build up a mental picture of the unseen hands, based not just on counting but also on the calls and plays made (and not made) so far. There is no way to play decent bridge without that and it takes time to learn so should be started as early as possible, right after learning how to follow suit. Failure to build this picture correct, or often not even trying, is the worst mistake.

Exactly right. You need firm rules about Kickback. There are situations where you can get by hoping that partner agrees with you about what is logical, but Kickback is not one of those. One of the rules should be that there can only be one trump suit, and therefore only one Kickback bid. Just playing ordinary RKCB I would treat 4NT here as agreeing diamonds (or possibly quantitative) since the 2♥ bid may not be a real suit. So 4♥ is Kickback for diamonds and others are natural.

Because you are hiring someone to fix your own car. If you were hiring someone to fix other people's cars or to take parts off other people's cars and put them in yours, then auto repair and government would not be anywhere near as different as they are.

I think Drury with a decent 8 HCP is ok but for most people it is 9-11. But aguahombre's Kxxx Qx Kxx xxxx ought to be too good for a 2♠ raise because of the extra trump. I would try 3♥ but could easily reach a poor game or be down 1 at the three level.

This is just from last week. Declarer claimed the rest of the tricks, but had miscounted and was a trick short. There were, however, two finesses available. The defenders knew that both finesses were working (and there was no unsuccessful squeeze line). Quick as a flash, one of the defenders saw the only successful option and made the following offer: "You can choose which finesse to take, but if you choose correctly you have to buy me a glass of wine at the end".