[pirate22]

I will input 2 rules, "Cardinal"and hope there will be more via this forum.

A .... On an unnaposed auction what ever,be it 3n/t or major contract or minor contract,
if partner x's final contract and ones partner is on lead partner must lead the dummys first bid suit, be it even artificial.. example opp 1n/t pass 2cl (stayman) pass whatever pard has x the final contract---- one's partner must lead a club

B .... if ones partner opens 1n/t, be it weak/strong,and pard uses stayman (2cl)
response whatever.........if pard now bids 4n/t (ace ask)partner must respond,partner is not allowed to pass

are there any other cardinal rules????????? apart from plse return partners led suit,i usually do not have a second card in the suit

regards

[Codo]

C: Ignore rule A, it is silly

I like your B: Don'T pass blackwood and would like to improve it with: Don't pass Transfers and stayman either.

[mtvesuvius]

LOL

[barryallen]

There is one cardinal rule I see broken at the bridge table consistently, don't argue with your wife. Many adopt this maxim after many years with quantitative success, only to see it all fall apart at the bridge table.

[G_R__E_G]

The only rule that you never break is that if your partner offers you a breath mint you take it.

[mycroft]

If you screw up on two successive hands, offer to buy partner a Coke. If he screws up on two successive hands, offer to buy partner a Coke. If he doesn't drink Coke, know what he does drink.

This and many others at Jeff's Imperious Rules of Bridge. Please note, some of them are slightly less "Cardinal"...

[Phil]

mycroft, on Apr 21 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

If you screw up on two successive hands, offer to buy partner a Coke. If he screws up on two successive hands, offer to buy partner a Coke. If he doesn't drink Coke, know what he does drink.

This and many others at Jeff's Imperious Rules of Bridge. Please note, some of them are slightly less "Cardinal"...

Something everyone should read at least once a year.

I don't agree with 40 and 41 by the way.

[kfay]

There's only one rule I try to follow at bridge and that is be nice to my partner.

As far as I know all other 'rules' are fair game. Although some I would be more loath to break than others.

[kenrexford]

The one "rule" that I have considered enforcing with lethal force:

"Don't duck a damn Ace fourth to play unless you have a reason."

Nothing drives me nuts more than this.

I mean, ducking a damn Ace is often right. Even fourth to play. But, it should be done when there is a reason. Ducking an Ace just because you read somewhere that it sometimes is right is not a good reason.

The corollary of not ducking an Ace third to play or second to play without a good reason also justifies severe punishment, but anyone can get caught in the need to make a snap, gut decision. I understand that, somewhat.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Apr 21 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

The one "rule" that I have considered enforcing with lethal force:

"Don't duck a damn Ace fourth to play unless you have a reason."

Nothing drives me nuts more than this.

I mean, ducking a damn Ace is often right.  Even fourth to play.  But, it should be done when there is a reason.  Ducking an Ace just because you read somewhere that it sometimes is right is not a good reason.

The corollary of not ducking an Ace third to play or second to play without a good reason also justifies severe punishment, but anyone can get caught in the need to make a snap, gut decision.  I understand that, somewhat.

Sorry, Ken.. but this is terrible advice!

Yes, one should normally win the Ace in 4th seat... but this is FAR from mandatory, even if you don't yet see a reason... and it is IMPERATIVE that, if you duck, you do so in tempo... and sometimes you can't anticipate everything... thus if declarer, for example, leads from a holding in dummy of 10xxx and plays the 9 and you hold Axx.... if they are in 3N, declarer will most often hold KJ9... you should usually, but not always, duck... also, if dummy held KQ10xx and declarer led to the K, we are usually supposed to duck with Axx or Ax in order that declarer have a losing option when he leads towards the Queen next time.

There are many possible scenarios.

This is not uncommon.. in the last month I twice ducked an Ace in 4th seat... on the first hand, it was the only defence to beat the contract, even tho I could not see the exact layout at the time and had ducked only on general principles, and the other time it was neutral.

BTW, the original 2 Cardinal Rules are silly... far worse than yours... yours will often work out, while the first two in the OP are flat out wrong.. in the first case, 'the lightner double rule', it is just often wrong, while in the second it is absolutely wrong. Oh well.

[rbforster]

mycroft, on Apr 21 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

This and many others at Jeff's Imperious Rules of Bridge.  Please note, some of them are slightly less "Cardinal"...

"#23. If something strange is going on, double the Israeli. "

[matmat]

LOL

[awm]

If the opponents are in a game-forcing auction, do not penalty-double them in a contract below game regardless of how many tricks you have them beat.

All too frequently you miss the opportunity to penalty double a more lucrative game contract later, sometimes even in the same strain!

[kenrexford]

mikeh, on Apr 21 2009, 12:22 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Apr 21 2009, 11:37 AM, said:

The one "rule" that I have considered enforcing with lethal force:

"Don't duck a damn Ace fourth to play unless you have a reason."

Nothing drives me nuts more than this.

I mean, ducking a damn Ace is often right.  Even fourth to play.  But, it should be done when there is a reason.  Ducking an Ace just because you read somewhere that it sometimes is right is not a good reason.

The corollary of not ducking an Ace third to play or second to play without a good reason also justifies severe punishment, but anyone can get caught in the need to make a snap, gut decision.  I understand that, somewhat.

Sorry, Ken.. but this is terrible advice!

Yes, one should normally win the Ace in 4th seat... but this is FAR from mandatory, even if you don't yet see a reason... and it is IMPERATIVE that, if you duck, you do so in tempo... and sometimes you can't anticipate everything... thus if declarer, for example, leads from a holding in dummy of 10xxx and plays the 9 and you hold Axx.... if they are in 3N, declarer will most often hold KJ9... you should usually, but not always, duck... also, if dummy held KQ10xx and declarer led to the K, we are usually supposed to duck with Axx or Ax in order that declarer have a losing option when he leads towards the Queen next time.

There are many possible scenarios.

This is not uncommon.. in the last month I twice ducked an Ace in 4th seat... on the first hand, it was the only defence to beat the contract, even tho I could not see the exact layout at the time and had ducked only on general principles, and the other time it was neutral.

BTW, the original 2 Cardinal Rules are silly... far worse than yours... yours will often work out, while the first two in the OP are flat out wrong.. in the first case, 'the lightner double rule', it is just often wrong, while in the second it is absolutely wrong. Oh well.

With all due respect, Mike, my guess is that your talent at defense is probably sufficient to warrant a gut-feeling knowledge of when ducking an Ace is right. Hence, your "reason" would be that you know what the H. you are doing. Most of the bridge world, however, ducks Aces in fourth chair because they see people like you duck Aces in fourth chair successfully and therefore do it without any knowledge of what they are doing.

In other words, whereas you may spot holdings where a duck just intuitively seems right and may have a general knowledge of pattern so as to just know that a duck cannot or is extremely unlikely to hurt, you really need to have serious credentials to be able to do this.

I have done similar things. One of my favorite was popping K from Kxx when Declarer, who had opened a weak two in hearts and was declaring in a heart contract, led his stiff heart from dummy. I had no specific plan, but it intuitively seemed right. In practice, we ended up scoring extra hearts on a cross-ruff when Declarer believed me. This worked because I had a general feel of the game and of the general layout of the cards such that my subconscious sent me the right message.

I have witnessed, however, probably a 100:1 ratio of weaker partners trying this stunt unsuccessfully and just losing their Ace.

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

Yes, one should normally win the Ace in 4th seat... but this is FAR from mandatory, even if you don't yet see a reason... and it is IMPERATIVE that, if you duck, you do so in tempo... and sometimes you can't anticipate everything... thus if declarer, for example, leads from a holding in dummy of 10xxx and plays the 9 and you hold Axx.... if they are in 3N, declarer will most often hold KJ9... you should usually, but not always, duck... also, if dummy held KQ10xx and declarer led to the K, we are usually supposed to duck with Axx or Ax in order that declarer have a losing option when he leads towards the Queen next time.

There are many possible scenarios.

Yeah, but don't those all qualify as reasons to duck? I think Ken was railing about ducking for no reason, which I also hate. When there exists absolutely zero layouts where a duck helps you, and many layouts where it hurts. I had a partner who used to do this, drove me nuts until I trained him to have a plausible reason. And I've gotten an uncountable number of tops from opponents random ducking with absolutely no discernable reason to do so. Not ducking because of needing to on certain layouts, but ducking because they've learned that it's sometimes right to duck and deciding randomly to do it on this particular hand even though looking at dummy it should be obvious that it can't possibly help your side.

Also, ducking in tempo, although desirable, is only necessary on certain layouts where declarer has a guess, or to avoid UI to partner. There exist some layouts where you don't hurt yourself to take your time to get it right.

[jdonn]

I said it recently, but my best rule is to always lead an ace against slam if you hold two of them. Failure to do so has led both me and my opponents to much regret.

[awm]

jdonn, on Apr 21 2009, 01:38 PM, said:

I said it recently, but my best rule is to always lead an ace against slam if you hold two of them. Failure to do so has led both me and my opponents to much regret.

As a corollary to this one, if you are on lead against a slam with two aces, and you cash one of them at the first trick and find yourself on lead to the second trick, cash the second ace unless it's really obvious not to. I've seen people cash one ace and then continue that suit, only to see their second ace go away on a few occasions too.

[whereagles]

The only rule that always works in bridge is

"When in doubt, THINK."

[Elianna]

Rob F, on Apr 21 2009, 09:24 AM, said:

mycroft, on Apr 21 2009, 10:37 AM, said:

This and many others at Jeff's Imperious Rules of Bridge.  Please note, some of them are slightly less "Cardinal"...

"#23. If something strange is going on, double the Israeli. "

I had a partner who would comment at least once a session that he wished he could follow that rule.

My favorite is #28, which I absolutely believe in: Arrive at least 15 minutes early. There are people I won't play with who don't follow this.

[gwnn]

Yes #40 is a joke lol, it sounds like some profound wisdom but...