Bridge Ethics

[Echognome]

Had a nice discussion with one of my regular partners about this topic. I wondered what others thought.

 

All of this discussion centers around live bridge as most irregularities are not a part of online bridge.

 

Suppose your partner committed an irregularity. I'm thinking specifically about bid out of turn, lead out of turn, or revoke. Neither of the opponents notice it. Do you inform them? Do you think it is ethical to inform them?

 

Suppose you yourself committed an irregularity and no one noticed. Would you call attention to it?

 

Do your answers above depend on the type of irregularity?

 

In all of the above, I'm assuming that the irregularity was an accident (unintentional).

[the hog]

No I would not draw attention to either my partner's unintentional irregularity or to my own. If you are dummy, you have nothing to say during the play anyway. I regard this as part of the game.

[barmar]

This is something that is often referred to as "active ethics". The bridge laws do not require players to draw attention to their own irregularities. However, except in cases where this would result in unauthorized information, they don't generally disallow it. As such, this is going "beyond the call of duty", and players who do so are often praised for preferring to win through their good bids and card play, not by an accident that the opponents happen not to notice. But there shouldn't be any shame in not drawing any attention to your mistakes; it's a personal choice.

[Guest Jlall]

But there shouldn't be any shame in not drawing any attention to your mistakes; it's a personal choice.

100 % accurate. I would tell them I revoke and somewhat similarly I let them take back penalty cards or whatever, but I would never criticize anyone who did not do these things.

[the hog]

But there shouldn't be any shame in not drawing any attention to your mistakes; it's a personal choice.

100 % accurate. I would tell them I revoke and somewhat similarly I let them take back penalty cards or whatever, but I would never criticize anyone who did not do these things.

Don't you think this is unfair to the rest of the field at MPs? At Imps if you have discussed these situations with your partners and they concur its ok, otherwise you have a responsibility to the team.

 

A while back I allowed an opp from a considerably weaker team than ours to take back a revoke, which actually allowed a cold game to make instead of go off. We lost that match by 2 Imps. Partners were not pleased.

[zasanya]

If I notice any irregularity,I point it out to the tournament director, privately, the moment i notice it.In case there is no tournament director, then I will point it out only if opponets are novices.

[Guest Jlall]

Don't you think this is unfair to the rest of the field at MPs?

No, anyone who happened to be playing against me would be the beneficiary of my generosity, so all of the pairs have an equal likelihood of this happening.

 

At Imps if you have discussed these situations with your partners and they concur its ok, otherwise you have a responsibility to the team.

 

A while back I allowed an opp from a considerably weaker team than ours to take back a revoke, which actually allowed a cold game to make instead of go off. We lost that match by 2 Imps. Partners were not pleased.

 

Is this how you would want to win? Is this how your partners would want to win? Some are "win at all cost" types, but personally I would get no satisfaction in this type of win. Neither way is right or wrong, but you should not feel bad about your decision because it caused you to lose.

 

I had a similar situation in a national swiss when I let them take back a penalty card which would have let me make a game when we were in contention for the event. We ended up in 4th instead of 2nd in the event because of this. I did not regret it at all. My teammates (including my father) expressed some displeasure, and I just told them that they can find a new teammate if this will be a problem. That is my attitude about this.

 

My view is simply that gaining edges through litigation or from technical errors is not what bridge is about. There are very obvious counter arguments to this but I feel very strongly in my personal views about this issue and am not willing to compromise them.

 

Please note I do not think anyone who takes advantage of these kinds of things is unethical in any way, and I would never expect the same treatment that I give. As Barry said this is a personal thing.

[jillybean]

It depends on the type of infraction, you may not conceal a mistaken explanation during the auction.

 

LAW 72 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES

 

B 3. Inadvertent Infraction

There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of

law committed by one’s own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a

mistaken explanation).

[Echognome]

As many others have pointed out, it is certainly legal not to call attention to your own irregularity. However, it is also legal to call attention to any irregularity. (except for dummy during the play period)

 

A. Calling Attention to an Irregularity

 

1. During the Auction Period

Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call.

 

2. During the Play Period

(a) Unless prohibited by Law, declarer or either defender may call attention to an irregularity that occurs during the play period.

 

(b ) Dummy (dummy’s restricted rights are defined in Laws 42 and 43)

 

(1) Dummy may not call attention to an irregularity during the play but may do so after play of the hand is concluded.

 

So whether one should do so or not is part of ethics and not laws. So this is just how you view the game of bridge should be played. I think the term "active ethics" is not very well defined, so I will shy away from such arguments.

 

I view bridge to be a game of mistakes. Part of being a better player is avoiding making mistakes yourself and taking advantage of mistakes opponents make. I may make a mental error by misjudging the bidding, playing too quickly, not paying attention to the auction, or the cards being played, etc. I may make a physical error by pulling the wrong card from the bidding box, pulling the wrong card from my hand, dropping a card, not sorting my cards properly so a card is stuck behind another card, etc.

 

The question is, which mistakes should carry an automatic penalty and which mistakes should only carry a potential penalty and how should that penalty be assessed. If I make a misbid, the opponents are not entitled to know I misbid. They must figure it out for themselves. Why should the same not be true for a revoke? I've made a mistake and it is up to the opponents to figure out that I made that mistake. If I don't draw an outstanding trump and this means my cold contract may now be defeated, isn't it up to opponents to figure that out? There are many, many examples where you can make a mistake and you should only suffer a penalty if opponents figure it out. Why should we think any different of a mechanical mistake? Note that a bid out of turn, a lead out of turn, or a revoke can be due to a mental or physical error. Likewise a misbid may be from a mental or physical error. Why should we treat the two any different? To me it is inconsistent to say "If I revoked and opponents didn't notice, then I should tell them," but also say "If I misbid and opponents didn't notice, then I shouldn't tell them." It is certainly legal to tell them in both instances. As declarer you are allowed to show the opponents your hand. So what is it that makes us view a misbid so differently from a revoke?

 

I'm not saying this is the right answer and how everyone should feel ethically, as I'm certainly willing to listen to the counter arguments.

[blackshoe]

"Active Ethics", at least as espoused in the ACBL's document of that name, has nothing to do with telling your opponents things you don't have to tell them. Rather it has to do with making sure you tell them everything you're supposed to tell them.

 

The ethics of the game are defined by its laws. The laws do not require you to expose an inadvertant infraction by your side, except in the case of mistaken explanation, as Jilly says (though "during the auction" isn't quite correct - Law 75 says you reveal the (presumed) mistaken explanation either after the final pass, or after the play, depending whether your side is declaring or defending.)

 

Since the laws don't require you (with that one exception) to expose an inadvertant infraction by your side, and since the ethics of the game are defined by its laws, it is completely ethical to not expose such infractions.

 

As far as waiving penalties is concerned, be aware that a player is not permitted, on his own initiative, to do that - all he can do is ask the director to do it. (See Laws 10A, 72A3, and 81C8).

[Finch]

Personally - and I agree this is very personal -

- I "never*" waive penalties for opponents' irregularities (allow them to correct revokes, take back penalty cards, etc)

- I would always point out my or my partner's irregularities, if I noticed

- I also point out incorrect TD rulings even if they were in my favour

 

"*never" excludes against novices or near novices; I might ask the TD to waive the penalty in other extraordinary circumstances

[Flame]

I dont like justin's idea of taking back penalty card. I think the law has an idea beyond it, the penalty cards options arent just a random set of rules for punishment but a set of rules to make things fair since the partner of the player who expose the card shouldnt benefit from seeing it.

About revokes made by myself i will tell them, but if made by my partner i'll usually shut up.

[mrdct]

But there shouldn't be any shame in not drawing any attention to your mistakes; it's a personal choice.

100 % accurate. I would tell them I revoke and somewhat similarly I let them take back penalty cards or whatever, but I would never criticize anyone who did not do these things.

I'll criticise you for making up your own rules and perverting the results in your field. If the laws of bridge intended penalty cards to be optional, they would've said so.

[Echognome]

About revokes made by myself i will tell them, but if made by my partner i'll usually shut up.

Since you share the result either way, what difference does it make who revoked?

[paulg]

I have dual standards on this.

 

In events I care about I enforce all penalties. It does not matter if I am winning or losing.

 

In events I play 'for fun', typically club bridge of a moderate standard, I am much more relaxed.

[mrdct]

Suppose your partner committed an irregularity.  I'm thinking specifically about bid out of turn, lead out of turn, or revoke.  Neither of the opponents notice it.  Do you inform them?  Do you think it is ethical to inform them?

 

Suppose you yourself committed an irregularity and no one noticed.  Would you call attention to it?

Take a revoke situation where partner has ruffed a particular suit at some point of the play and then when declarer eventually claims one-down and faces his hand it is clear that there were only 12 cards in that suit. Partner shuffles his cards and puts them back in the board and your opponents are none-the-wiser that they have gone down as a result of a revoke - but you know exactly what's happened. In my view you have a clear ethical and legal obligation to draw attention to the apparent revoke.

 

Ethics aside, refer Law 72.A.2.

 

Scoring of Tricks Won

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

 

I would interpret this as covering the above situation such that my opponent has made claim for an incorrect number of tricks given that he is entitled to a two trick penalty. It is against the proprieties of the game to knowingly get away with it.

 

If it had been me who revoked and then when declarer claimed, I breathed a sigh of relief that no-one noticed, shuffled my cards and put them away - that would be clear cut cheating.

 

As for waiving of penalties, refer Law 72.A.3

 

Waiving of Penalties

In duplicate tournaments a player may not, on his own initiative, waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction, even if he feels that he has not been damaged (but he may ask the Director to do so - see Law 81C8).

[Echognome]

How about:

 

Concealing an Infraction

A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by

committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or

mixing the cards prematurely.

 

Clearly if your partner was trying to conceal the infraction he was being unethical and it should be your obligation to point it out. (And certainly to have a discussion with your partner about it.)

 

My question was about an inadvertent irregularity that you did not try to conceal.

[mink]

Bid out of turn: This is so obvious that I never experienced that opps did not notice it. Therefore I would wait for opps to call director. If they do not call but rather continue to bid, I would rather think that they have chosen to accept the bid out of turn, which is possible without the director.

 

Play out of turn: The dummy should say nothing, even though he is allowed to. if it happens to me when I am declarer, calling attention to it would most time be in my own interest. But if I recognize I have just ordered a card from the dummy whom I could not reach otherwise, I would take it back if it is still time to do so. If it happens to a defender, it is quite possible that the declarer likes the lead out of turn or sees that it is irrelevant and just continues. I see no reason why the director should be involved in such a case. Again, I think cases where the declarer does not notice that the wrong defender lead a card are very seldom.

 

Revoke: Paying attention and counting is part of the game. If opps did not see our revoke, they simply did not pay attention, so I consider this is an error like any other bridge error. Of course, if I revoked and the revoke is not yet established, I shall call the director, because normally a penalty card is cheaper than the addidional tricks we lose as a consequence of an established revoke. Even in case of revokes, opp usually see most of them.

 

Not to call the director when somebody has drawn attention to the irregularity is not an option. The problem is, if some people allow their opps to take back a lead out of turn, this will be considered to be a friendly act, and consequently calling the director tends to become an unfriendly act in such an environment. Therefore, as a director, I will always insist on being called in case of any irregularity becomes obvious.

 

Karl

[Al_U_Card]

We ended up in 4th instead of 2nd in the event because of this. I did not regret it at all. My teammates (including my father) expressed some displeasure, and I just told them that they can find a new teammate if this will be a problem. That is my attitude about this.

 

My view is simply that gaining edges through litigation or from technical errors is not what bridge is about. There are very obvious counter arguments to this but I feel very strongly in my personal views about this issue and am not willing to compromise them.

 

Please note I do not think anyone who takes advantage of these kinds of things is unethical in any way, and I would never expect the same treatment that I give. As Barry said this is a personal thing.

I have to say that I agree. Ethics, while personal, should always transcend the rules of the small-minded and greedy. So what if bridge made rules for this or that reason.....I don't play bridge for those reasons. I play bridge for my own enjoyment (and as much as possible that of my partner,teammates, other players etc.).

 

When the cashier gives me 39 cents too much change, I give it back. Just as if it was $200. Ethics and morals and viewpoints are much too valuable to be backwashed into the lowest common (or even uncommon) denominator of society. Good for you Justin.

[Finch]

When the cashier gives me 39 cents too much change, I give it back. Just as if it was $200. Ethics and morals and viewpoints are much too valuable to be backwashed into the lowest common (or even uncommon) denominator of society. Good for you Justin.

This is not the same thing at all.

 

Bridge is a game, and it has rules. As long as you abide by those rules (and by the spirit of those rules e.g. full dlisclosure) you are both ethically and morally spotless.

[Al_U_Card]

Sorry Frances, as much as I agree with you in most things, this is way too personal and important to go the bean-counter route. Even were they to start inflicting penalties...I wouldn't change my approach (just perhaps the venue ;) )

[sceptic]

I am impressed with Justins ethics, but the I hate jobs worths at the best of times

[Flame]

About revokes made by myself i will tell them, but if made by my partner i'll usually shut up.

Since you share the result either way, what difference does it make who revoked?

I cant really explain it, i guess even though we are partners we still have our individuality, when i make a nice endplay i get the complement and when i make a stupid revoke i get the blame, so i will take the blame when i made the revoke, but i will not tell that my partner revoked, if he want he can do that imself, its just feel wrong to do it for him. If ill think his moral arent good enough for me then i will not play with him again, but i wont call the director on him.

I would feel more or less the same with a friend who do something questinable that i wouldnt do, i wouldnt tell anyone but if i think its bad enough i might decide not to be his friend anymore.

[inquiry]

There was an editorial on this in Bridge World in the 1980's, or maybe it was a long reply to a letter to the editor. It had to do with a revoke by declarer, which had not been noticed. And the declarer noticed it a trick or two later.

 

My memory of the BW position follows with respect to several issues.

 

Was he required ethically to tell the opponents that he revoked? Answer No

 

Could he choose a line from that point forward to make it harder to realize he revoked? I think the answer was yes

 

Could he revoke again to hide the first revoke? The answer was no

 

Could he concede the remaining tricks to hide the revoke? The answer was no, but he could concede the remaining tricks by placing his cards face up on the table to give the opponents another opporutnity to catch the revoke (face down or placing them in the board was a definite no-no.

 

The issue also dealt with "fogiving" penalties against you. The issuee was that if you did not extract the appropriate penalty you were CHEATING the remainder of the field sitting the same direction as the violators at your table. So Frances position seems 100% in agreement with BW position.

 

I have not relooked these up...

[jtfanclub]

Bid out of turn: This is so obvious that I never experienced that opps did not notice it.

 

Play out of turn: The dummy should say nothing, even though he is allowed to. if it happens to me when I am declarer, calling attention to it would most time be in my own interest.

I cannot imagine saying anything about an insufficient bid by partner during the tournament.

 

Let's say that LHO opens 1♠ and partner 'overcalls' 1♥. RHO now bids 1NT, intended as 6-9 nonforcing.

 

1) Nobody at the table knows if partner pulled the wrong card or missed the opening.

 

2) Nobody knows if my partner will interpret the 1NT as a response to 1♠ (6-9 hcp) or as an overcall (15-18 balanced).

 

If I draw attention to my partner's error, I am effectively 'waking him up'. I am helping my partner more than my opponents, who likely realize the problem but have decided to allow him to 'sleep'.

 

The same goes for any play where, if the opponent follows, the play is valid. If partner calls for a card from dummy when he's in his hand, I'll say something, and if he looks like he's about to play a card from his hand when it's dummy's play, I'll say something, but if he plays a card out of his hand when it's dummy's turn to play before I can say something, I'm not going to correct him. If my partner leads out of turn, and the next player lays down his cards, I'm not going to say anything. Even on an opening bid out of turn, I'm not going to say anything. To do so may help us more than it helps our opponents.

 

Revokes are an exception, or rather, they're not an exception because the opponents playing to it doesn't cause the problem to go away. I point out both my and partner's revokes at the end of a hand, because otherwise we may accept a claim, put our cards away, and then hear dummy say 'wait a minute...' and we have to rebuild our hands. Gross.