Hot answers tagged

22

Playing cards in such a way as to not accurately reflect your hand is perfectly fine - as long as that's actually what you're doing. There are plenty of hands where you're on defense and you know that partner is pretty much worthless; you're defending 3NT, partner knows your long suit, and you have 14 points anyway and expect partner to be in the lead ...


9

Is it ethical? Sure, and it's done all the time (for real bridge reasons, see Joe's answer). It is not required to help declarer when it won't help partner. What's not ethical is telling the opponents your signalling method, and then having it not be. "We play standard carding" is not the same as "we agreed standard carding but since my ...


8

I believe that cases 1-3 are all ethical, but these are simple problems that should have been solved at the end of some earlier trick (In duplicate bridge, after all the cards to a trick have been faced, players should indicate that they are thinking about the hand by keeping their card face up. Play does not proceed until all players have turned their cards ...


7

Under no circumstances is one entitled to draw inferences from the actions of a partner or teammate. Under certain circumstances one is entitled to draw inferences from the behavior of the opponents at one's table, on boards one is playing against them. As you note, deliberately peeking at an opponent's scores is not one of these cases. However, under no ...


5

First: I'm speaking sanctioned duplicate bridge. What happens in the rubber clubs is out of my experience; the Laws are different, and obviously when money is on the line, different things are ethical or unethical. To answer your title: yes. Because the ethics of the game are fully defined by the Proprieties (which were moved from "guidelines" to actual ...


4

Let's look at the relevant Bridge Laws. Law 16B1 says: Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized.This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism. (a) A player may not ...


3

As you say, whatever you do, be consistent. Good contract, bad contract, plays itself, requires incredibly careful play, whatever. If you do not do that, the opponents know. Yes, sometimes that leads to some fun, after say 3C-X-p-p; p and partner dropping a 4=4=5=0 four count and hearing "thank you partner, nice hand" from declarer. But just ...


3

If your partner knows your psyching tendencies, then they have become an implicit agreement that has to be disclosed to your opponents. If, in certain situations, your psychs are frequent enough that partner starts worrying about it, he or she should alert the bid and say "Frequently a psych" or something similar. (In some bridge jurisdictions, bidding ...


3

This issue was discussed on the Bridge Laws Mailing List a few months ago: Do players have to describe what they play? Cribbing from my own post there: Edgar Kaplan (the "K" in K & R) wrote to the effect that the convention card is an understanding with partner, not an undertaking to the opponents. HCP are an approximation of a hand's value....


3

This is actually deceptively simple. A full set includes every card of that type in the game. If you possess a card in a specific set, then nobody else can complete that set. If you possess cards from every set, then no set can be completed without trading with you. The flip side is that if there is any set that you lack cards from, then that set can ...


2

Hesitating in case 3 is clearly unethical, as West has no problem in playing from either T9 or 67 in this scenario. One may hesitate in order to determine which card to play from a technical perspective, but not whether or not to signal to partner without an accompanying technical problem. Otherwise one would always hesitate when showing an even number with ...


2

Because the evaluation mechanism you have adopted is generating more variation than typical, I strongly recommend that you note its use on your (and partner's) convention card. I would also suggest typing a small summary of the mechanism to keep with your convention card for opponents to refer to. Having done this, I see no reason for any concern; you are: ...


2

It's very hard to psych ethically. Making any bid that is outside of your agreements should be exceedingly rare, because otherwise you'll nearly inevitably have some implicit partnership agreements related to it - as you note, psyching only when behind, for example. I've known pairs that included one member that fairly often psyched, and they nearly always ...


2

There are two issues with this pause: it's too long just in general, with a timing issue (but I would caution people that my "I thought for 15 seconds" is the opponents' "it was 2 minutes" was probably actually closer to 35-40 seconds) "hesitation with a singleton" is frequently a problem especially not at trick 1 (as Tom says, ...


1

On the opening trick, a "pause" is justified, even when a player has no problems because of the forced play of a singleton. That's because everyone ought to be spending time to study the dummy. Thus should not take place at the second trick, although an inexperienced player may be excused for doing on the second trick what should have been done on ...


1

Once dummy's hand is laid down, there is no restriction on declarer's speech as far as hiding information goes, as dummy is a non-participant in play beyond turning over cards at Declarer's behest. Thus, declarer is welcome to thank, or not thank, dummy however they wish, following other guidelines and reasonable decorum. Of course, dummy is still ...


1

Suppose you're playing a three player game with wheat, barley, and corn. For one of the trading players to win with wheat, the two trading players must have nine wheat between them, which is the same as the shut out player not getting any wheat. To get a hand, we choose 9 cards out of 27. There are C(27,9) ways of doing that, where C is the binomial ...


1

(I'm mostly ignoring Bull and Bear rules here, but I think they can be added in with a little fiddling.) If you just want to know whether it's possible, then it's not a question of probability but of showing that there is at least one arrangement of cards that would allow a player to win without trading. And it's pretty easy to see that this must exist, ...


1

There are many ways to evaluate a hand, and you and your partner are at liberty to choose whichever you wish. But you are not entitled to insist that your opponents use the same system; if you tell them that you will open any hand with 13 points and then pass with 14 you have misled them, which is what the system is designed to prevent. You also appear to ...


1

It's neither - it's simply terrible bridge. Good bridge is to make those choices during the play instead of during the bidding, when one actually has enough information to make a sensible risk assessment. Further, you are talking about a change in partnership bidding style - this is simply not allowed during a session, and the meaning of a call is not ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible