fuburules3

Consider the following sequence at IMPS. Playing standardish 2/1 without strong agreements. 1♠ P 2♣ P 2♠ P 3♣ P 3♦ P 4♦ P ? My question is what has opener showed so far and what his rebids mean. My confusion is what 3♦ shows (a diamond stopper or a 4 card diamond suit and 6 spades). If opener rebids 4♠ should that be taken as a cue bid or an attempt to play a game in spades?

Thanks for all the replies. Now for a continuation. Suppose the hands are as follows (spots approximate, may be some tens) ♠ AK xxx ♥ Q x ♦ x ♣ Axxxx ♠ xx ♥ AKxx ♦ AJ10xxx ♣ x How should the auction go (obviously actual auction went very wrong)? Suppose that it has been agreed that a rebid of 2♠ promises six cards (you can comment on whether you think this is a bad agreement) and and opener can rebid 2nt without stoppers.

At IMPS, no one vulnerable playing 2/1 what do you think each player has after the following bidding sequence (of course, your answer could depend on what your agreements are). 1♠ P 2♦ P 3♣ P 3♥ P 3 NT P 4♦ P 4♥ P P P Also, what do you believe the 3♣ bid shows? Extra shape, extra values, both?

S is dealer. GIB is N holding ♠ J842 ♥ K7 ♦ 7654 ♣ AJ9 Bidding goes 1♣ P 1♠ P 2 ♥ P 3♣ P 3 ♠ P 4♥ 4♥ is alerted as showing 4 (and as it turns out 4-3 spade fit plays much better than 4-2 heart fit because can ruff in short hand).

As was mentioned, I think some people misread original post and question was whether it is unethical NOT to take advantage of penalty card (that is, whether this is akin to deliberately playing bad/dumping). My reason for thinking it is not in spirit of the game is that (as I see it) the reason for having a penalty card is that so the opponents do not gain an advantage for their clumsiness etc. If you were in (say) a contract of 7♠ and the opponent accidentally drops the K of trump offside and you can now make your contract by "dropping" the K, it doesn't feel like the intention or reason for the penalty card rule is so that you can now make your contract. I understand that it's hard to determine when opponents have benefited from an exposed card/when they haven't, hence the rule, but I don't see any reason why if I judge they have not gained from the exposure of card I can decide to not take advantage (and not be an "unethical" player).

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but my attempts to find it with search failed, but is it considered unethical to not take advantage of a major/minor penalty card? I told my friend I would be hesitant to take advantage of a major penalty card if it allowed me to make an otherwise impossible contract because it did not feel in spirit of game. He believes that not only should I take advantage of it, but it is unethical of me not to do so (and that if I made an impossible contract by doing so the director would adjust the score). In any event, curious what people think. I can't say for sure what I'd do if this came up in important event, but at least at (say) a club game I'd be unlikely to give it a second thought.

Something similar happened to me GIB deals with [hv=s=saj105h107dq762ckqj]133|100|[/hv] and bidding goes 1♦ (p) 1♥ (p) 1♠ (p) 4♣ all pass