Is it moral? Sure, and it is performed on a regular basis (for actual bridge causes, see Joe’s reply). It is just not required to assist declarer when it will not assist accomplice.

What’s not moral is telling the opponents your signalling technique, after which having it not be. “We play commonplace carding” is just not the identical as “we agreed commonplace carding however since my accomplice has the evaluation expertise of a moist fish, and would not take note of my indicators if I used a flare gun, my accomplice’s indicators are meaningless, and I lie about 50, 60% of the time”, even when that has by no means been really mentioned (due to course it was by no means really mentioned).

Note that that is one thing that good opponents will work out in a short time. Some will simply return to studying your “falsecards” higher than your accomplice; some will name the TD after sufficient instances that it isn’t “Just Bridge” and pressure the difficulty; some will simply convey it as much as the TD after the spherical in order that she is conscious, can take note of it, and drop the hammer when she is satisfied.

In sure jurisdictions (the ACBL is one), you’re required to have a signalling technique, you cannot simply say ‘we play playing cards randomly’. This is as a result of individuals do not ever ‘play playing cards randomly’, they play playing cards ‘randomly’ based on patterns, and people patterns do get labored out by their accomplice, even when they do not know they’re doing it.

“We sign solely when it’s important for accomplice to comprehend it; after we do, it is right-side-up perspective or rely” is ok; if it seems that it is by no means essential for accomplice to know as a result of accomplice does not look anyway, nicely.

In rubber bridge, issues are completely different. First, you are enjoying with whoever you narrow; second, everybody on the desk has the identical information of your accomplice’s ignoring them after they’ve lower your accomplice, to guess how correct your indicators are.