Is this bad form?

[nickf]

Playing f-f the other night, my pd was dealer but his LHO opened 1H out of call. We didnt call the Director (I know, bad but kind of irrelevant to this story). I picked it up, said it wasnt right and my partner passed and opps sauntered into a mama papa 4H.

 

My pd after the game suggested he had erred by not taking advantage of this AI and should have opened 1H himself. I had a 1NT response to a normal 1H opener and I have no idea whether the opps would have recovered during the auction.

 

What's your opinion? Would this have been bad form? It certainly would have engendered ill will at the table, something none of us wanted but we were playing in a state championship and maybe it should be no holds barred.

 

nickf

sydney

[inquiry]

It depends upon rather you follow the Bridge World concept from long ago that you are obligated to maximize your chance to win under the conditions of contest (which includes, by the way, throwing a match late in a round robin if the conditions of contest mean by losing, you improve your chance of winning the entire event). Or if such win at all cost concepts is counter to your understanding of the gentleman-like nature of the game. I am somewhere between these two extremes. For sure I would have called the director. And I might have "made and overcall" by opening light, but it would have been more or less natural if I had.

[geller]

I would have called the director on the opening bid out of turn. But other than that I wouldn't psche a 1♥ open myself or anything like that. But there's nothing wrong with taking the legally prescribed penalty for the opening out of turn. Similarly, if we're the ones who committed the infraction we should ungrudgingly pay the penalty.

[mrdct]

I strongly believe that it is completely ethical, honourable, gentlemanly and the only fair thing to do for the field to take absolute maximum advantage of any leads out of turn, bids out of turn, penalty cards, etc. The laws of the game are quite clear about what the penalties are and if you don't enforce them, you might as well throw the rule book away.

 

The non-calling of the director is idiotic and unfair to the field. If the director had been called, dealer would've been informed by the director that if he passes, LHO would be compelled to bid 1♥ and the auction would proceed without penalty, whereas if dealer makes a call of 1♥ or higher, LHO gets one bite at the cherry, RHO is barred from the auction and if LHO doesn't bid ♥ there will be lead penalties against RHO.

 

Starts to make a fairly compelling argument for you partner to open 1♥ or perhaps a weak 2 in something.

 

Depending on the vul, if dealer opened 1♥, LHO will probaby work out that he is playing funny-buggers and either bid 4♥ or 3NT.

 

Finally, in Hobart remember that I am in charge of calling the director and speaking to the director! (note to self: insert this in the system notes with Nick).

[Codo]

NOT to call the TD was unethical and unfair against the field.

 

To violate the law - by not calling the director- makes any following action irrelevant and unfair.

 

When I started bridge, I thought, that it was gentelmanlike to be kind to opponents who make revokes or bids out of turn. But this is nice against them, but not nice against their (and your) other opponents.

 

If the TD arrives, it is absolute legal to make any bid -even a psych-, but I would prefer to make the bids which I had made anyway, even if this does not maximise my chances for success.

[pbleighton]

"NOT to call the TD was unethical and unfair against the field."

 

Unethical? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Attitudes like this do a lot to drive people away from bridge.

 

Repeat 100 times, "bridge is just a game".

 

Peter

[bearmum]

"NOT to call the TD was unethical and unfair against the field."

 

Unethical?  Absolutely ridiculous.

 

I would disagree with your "ridiculous" comment, and think that IF an infraction of the rules occurs at any level in a duplicate game the correct thing to do is to call the director, and I am surprisef that a player of nickf's ability didn't do so :lol:

[Codo]

"NOT to call the TD was unethical and unfair against the field."

 

Unethical? Absolutely ridiculous.

 

Attitudes like this do a lot to drive people away from bridge.

 

Repeat 100 times, "bridge is just a game".

 

Peter

Hi Peter,

 

I can underwrite most of your statements, but not this time.

 

"Bridge is just a game" is no reason to think, that you or me or anybody should break the laws.

 

There is no reason to think, that it is more ethical to refuse advantages you win from opponents mistakes in following the laws then to refuse advantages you win because the opps had a bidding misunderstanding and play in their 3-1 fit.

 

Yes bridge is a game, but like any game, it has rules. I am not in a position to change these rules, so I must follow them.

[Elianna]

I'd say that not to call the director does more to drive people away, because it helps establish the attitude that calling the director is a "bad thing" and thus makes director calls into something to be afraid of.

 

I think that the right thing to have done if you wanted to be law-abiding and "nice" is to have called the director, get your options told to you, and then proceed as you did. This way opponents can see even "nice" people call the director, and the next time a director is called on them, they don't proceed to the next table talking about how "mean" their opponent was.

 

As you might be able to tell, I direct club games, and I hate when players make their own rulings because they're too social and afraid of seeming unpleasant. I basically tell those people that I get really bored, and would love to be involved. I really would rather be called when the problem is easy, rather than when it gets more complicated.

[pbleighton]

""Bridge is just a game" is no reason to think, that you or me or anybody should break the laws. "

 

Failing to call the director in this situation is not breaking the laws.

 

I am not opposed to calling the director, and in fact I would have in this situation, but calling the failure to call the director "unethical" IS ridiculous. You may think he SHOULD have called the director, but to say that someone who failed to take advantage of something which might have been to his advantage, and which certainly would not have been to his disadvantage, is standing the meaning of the word "unethical" on its head.

 

Peter

[nickf]

read original post please.

 

Its intention had nothing to do with my failure to call the Director.

 

nickf

[mink]

Of course it would have been ok for your partner to open 1♥ after the opp had taken back his bid.

 

But I would object doing so without calling the director. The only thing that could be legally done without the director would be a call by nickf without asking his partner, thereby accepting opp's 1♥ lead. If you do anything else without calling the director, there is a great risk that the procedures defined by the laws are not followed.

 

You can also argue that it is impossible to follow the procedures if the laws require the director to e.g. take back a bid - you cannot tell you opp to take back his 1♥bid, and it is completely illegal that opp bids 1♥, then your partner passes, and then you pass. Why not play a trick counter-clockwise from time to time, or?

 

Karl

[mrdct]

Failing to call the director in this situation is not breaking the laws.

Wrong. Refer Law 9B(1)(a):

 

"The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity"

 

Please take careful note of the word "MUST" which is defined in the Scope and Interpretation of the Laws in the following terms:

 

Prior to the 1987 Laws words such as may, should, shall and must were used without much discrimination. In 1987 they were rationalised, and the practice is continued in the current Laws. When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction"), the failure to do it is not wrong. A simple declaration that a player "does" something ("....dummy spreads his hand in front of him...") establishes correct procedure without any suggestion that a violation be penalised. When a player "should" do something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement..."), his failure to do it is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardise his rights, but which will seldom incur a procedural penalty. In contrast, when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something ("No player shall take any action until the Director has explained...."), a violation will be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, "must" ("before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards"), indicates that violation is regarded as serious. Note that "may" becomes very strong in the negative: "may not" is a stronger injunction than "shall not", just short of "must not."

[Codo]

read original post please.

 

Its intention had nothing to do with my failure to call the Director.

 

nickf

In my opinion is anything you do after you failed to call the director wrong, because there is nothing right what you can do after this mistake.

 

But lets say, that you called the TD and he judged, that your pd should open the bidding (and gives some more informations about allowed and not allowed informations etc...). In this case it had been absolute legal to open a psych of 1 Heart.

And I won´t name someone unethical, unfair or whatsoever who does so- but I still won´t do it.

[barmar]

"NOT to call the TD was unethical and unfair against the field."

 

Unethical?  Absolutely ridiculous.

 

I would disagree with your "ridiculous" comment, and think that IF an infraction of the rules occurs at any level in a duplicate game the correct thing to do is to call the director, and I am surprisef that a player of nickf's ability didn't do so :)

Not following the rules is not the same as being unethical. Ethics refers to a code of moral values and proper behavior. To be unethical, you have to know that what you're doing is wrong and immoral.

 

Is driving over the speed limit unethical? It's against the law, but speed laws are based on safety, not morality.

[mycroft]

A well respected TD has said (paraphrased):

 

- If you do something that violates the Proprieties, you are doing something improper.

- Since the Proprieties define "bridge ethics", if you do something improper deliberately, you are being unethical. (similarly, if you do something the proprieties specifically allow - like make psychic calls, or take full advantage of the penalties applied to an irregularity by the opponents - you are being Ethical, no matter how shady it "seems" to the non-educated. I had to explain this to a lawyer, who should understand a legal code of ethics that is much different from what common sense would expect, more than anyone else)

- if you do something unethical with intent to gain therefrom, you are cheating.

 

Until 1970, the Proprieties were an appendix to the Laws. There were some who thought that if it isn't illegal, it's fair game, and if they're considered boors, that's okay as long as they win - and they did win. The lawmakers saw this endrun as "not bridge", and so made the Proprieties Laws. Now being improper is illegal, and being deliberately improper is deliberately breaking the Laws. And since one of the Proprieties, sorry, one of the Laws (Law 72B2), is that to deliberately break the Laws, even if there is a penalty you are willing to pay, is itself improper, sorry, against the Law,...

 

Note also that it is perfectly proper to call the Director and ask him to waive the penalty (Law 72A3). He may choose not to (the laws say he can do it "for cause, at his own discretion", Law 81C8), but that is a perfectly proper action to take.

 

As the correct Law (31A) would cause all kinds of havoc for the opponents (your partner doesn't have to bid 1H, all he has to do is not pass and the 1H bidder is probably choosing the final contract (partner has to pass once if he bids hearts, and forever if he doesn't) (31A2)), you may, if you wish, decide to either call the TD and accept the call, or call the TD and ask to waive the penalty, or you can call the TD and pass, or you can call the TD and psych, or you can not call the TD, make your own ruling, and we'll be happy to listen to you whine when it goes wrong. Quoting myself from a tournament a while back:

 

"If you had called me at the appropriate time, I would have explained what the ruling would be, and you could have chosen what to do. Instead, you chose to make your own ruling. I don't see any reason to change it."

 

Michael.