Lobowolf

More accurately, "Thou shalt not murder." Or so I'm told.

lol Agreed. By mentioning peers, though, I mean to point out that there may have to be a certain parity of ability in order to fully understand the nature of an action. For instance, if I'm playing against novice players and I open 1♥, LHO overcalls, and partner bids 3♥, they may not know that 3♥ is preemptive, or that it doesn't require an alert. If they assume my partner has a limit raise, and sell out incorrectly, they may think that my partner did something wrong in bidding 3♥ with a bad hand, or I did something wrong in not alerting his bid. I think it has SOMETHING to do with them in that not looking at a card on the floor is consistent with the spirit of the law prohibiting looking intently at an opponent's hand for the purpose of seeing his cards (74C5). But the fact that the word "rule" appears in the phrase "unwritten rule" doesn't imply that it's the same as a rule in the sense that a law of bridge is a rule. It's just a word with multiple meanings, and "unwritten rule" is an expression that has its own distinct meaning. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that violating an "unwritten rule" is the same as violating a bridge law.

Right. They should be left as unwritten rules. Perhaps the phrase "unwritten rule" is a colloquialism that doesn't extend beyond the USA, and is causing some confusion here. If you violate a bridge law, there are remedies and sanctions specifically provided for in the rules. The "unwritten rules" are, almost by definition, a bit hazier. The general consequences of habitually violating them is a lack of respect from your peers. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the director should impose a penalty for doing something that isn't proscribed the laws. The "penalty" is that if you typically do things like look at cards that get dropped on the floor, people will know ERRRRRR think you're a jackass. Unwritten rules are those things that, although not codified in the laws, are not done by players with a modicum of class. An overwhelming majority of people in any given endeavor agree as to most of them, and no amount of sophistry will change that.

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up. I would turn my head to not see it. Same about seeing somebody else's cards because they are holding them so that others can see. I would tell them I can see them if I looked. Those are my personal values, or ethics if we want to stay within the topic, nothing to do with the laws of bridge. I am sure the majority shares those values. If they were incorporated into the laws of bridge, they'd be "written rules."

Yes, absolutely, but then the correct explanation is that the bid is "asking for a spade stopper," not "denying a spade stopper." I agree that "no s" was very (sub-)minimalist.

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up.

Man, some of you guys play some strong weak raises! Passssssssssssssssssss.

He hit one, the rest were walks. Two scored (all runs came in the same inning) while he was on the mound, and he left the bases loaded. The relief was, ummm, relatively ineffective.

Gotta disagree. I think Fleming dropped the ball here. IMO, given that Bond is 1) intelligent, and 2) competitive I don't see him having the temperment or the inclination to pay a house commission to flip coins. I have much more respect for the character, and find him more believable, playing a game of skill.

Let's see, possible explanations... 1) No spades 2) No spade losers 3) No stopper NONE of which was the case. Does it really matter whether it was deliberate, the results of a misclick, or the result of limited language skills? I guess you could put it under a magnifying glass to distinguish between subsequent and consequent damage, but why does it seem like people are bending over backward to favor the side that clearly misinformed the other side?

Aside from that doubleton ace, that is. Misinformation, what misinformation?

"Ethics" is a word with a couple (ok, more than a couple, but a couple of main ones) of distinct definitions. One is a general definition akin to morality. This would be similar to sportsmanship, and by this definition, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical. Another is a set of rules that govern a profession. While that doesn't strictly apply to bridge (except for those who are playing a living), I think it's essentially what Blackshoe is talking about. Bridge is a self-contained, self-regulated system. It's rules are its ethics, in that sense.

Ability.

I think you got jobbed in the second case, but not in the first. I agree with pretty much everyone who's commented on first one. With respect to the second one, I agree with Helene. I also agree with the people who think that you should be more tolerant, as far the comment "They shouldn't play in the tournament," but such tolerance doesn't have much to do with the ruling. It seems patently obvious to me that in a tournament that designates an official language, if your inability to communicate in that language reults in misinformation that damages the opponents, that's on you, and an adjustment is appropriate.

Hey, was that a little bridge joke?!

That's got to be the craziest line I've ever seen.

3♠ and hold on like they were doing in Twister when the tornado hit. Not to leave my list of obscure movie references at just one, the sanguine replies remind me of Billy Bob Thornton in The Ice Harvest: "Roy, you are one @#$% optimist if you think you're ever getting out of that trunk." On the other hand, Roy DID get out of the trunk, so maybe I'm just too negative.

Because North has denied a 5-card suit. ok, ok, maybe dealer's suit doesn't count.

It's time to rename Hamman's Rule.

Let's give the opponents an average plus whenever there's a hesitation, too. Why de-incentivize people from hesitating, when a "logical alternative" analysis, subject to a director's discretion, might result in their not being penalized?

It's standard in the USA, but not if we didn't have the 9.

I would hope that the director's opinion would be informed by ascertaining the players' system.

I'd lead the queen of hearts. It strikes me as pretty clear-cut.

Way to go out on that limb, Winston!

Agree with y66; wtp?