Weinstein fair play

[vang]

http://www.worldbridge.org/tourn/shanghai....tin/bul1306.htm

 

On board 84 from semifinal USA - SAF, Weinstein could have made his 5NT by penalizing a card wrongly played by Cope. Ignoring the stakes, Weinstein choose the fair play way. Bravo!

[blackshoe]

Bravo indeed. Although... technically, a player is not allowed to waive a penalty on his own. Weinstein should have called the director and asked him to waive the penalty. :P

[mrdct]

To it more into context, the situation arose on the 4th board of the final segment of the semi-final at a point where USA1 were clinging to a 13 point lead, but were playing in a dodgey vulnerable 5NT contract where going down could quite easily have seen their entire lead disappear.

 

However, as observed by blackshoe, players shouldn't be making their own rulings at the table. In the event that the director may have insisted that the ♠5 remain on the table as a penalty card, Weinstein could still maintain his high sportsmanship by playing a ♠ to the A at the appropriate point.

[blackshoe]

I suspect it's rare for a player to ask the TD to waive a penalty. I would expect it to be even more rare for the TD to refuse.

[barmar]

It's players like this who give a bad name to those of us who are skillful enough to pull of a Sominex Coup on purpose. :)

[sartaj1]

In the 2003 Bermuda Bowl final, Bob Hamman wanted to waive a revoke penalty. According to the tournament book, he was overruled by the director.

[MFA]

In general, I much prefer the style where the TD takes care of all these things. Nobody is greater than the rules of the game.

 

The actual situation was very special because of the abnormal long pauses for thinking, so I think that Weinstein did the right thing here.

 

But it does carry some problems however.

 

What if Weinstein revokes against me next time we meet? Is he then entitled to special treatment of having the penalty waived? Does that go for out-off-turn bids etc. as well?

 

A much lesser soul (Howard would certainly not do that) might even apply the puppy's eyes against me, which would be most unsportsmanlike and put me in a very uncomfortable situation.

 

In fact, this situation could possibly arise against any opponent, who knows about the incident and knows that I know about it too.

 

I just want to play bridge. If the rules allow us to take the card back, when we revoke, then fine by me. If they call for a multiple trick penalty that's also fine. But I don't want to feel like a SOB by playing by the rules, which is what I'll continue to do whoever the "culprit" is (often myself).

 

After all, it's just a game :)

[helene_t]

I recall a BB final some years ago in which an Italian player was in a situation similar to that of Cope, but had a less generous opponent, and lost the final as a consequence of that. This gave rise to some bitter feelings. Very unfortunate.

 

MFA's post makes a lot of sense to me. I think we are better of just adhering to the rules. Disclaimer: I don't know if the two cases were really comparable.

 

Waiving a revoke penalty sounds as something different to me. I suppose the TD cannot force a declarer to take advantage of a penalty card. Yet waiving a revoke penalty is an adjustment, something the TD can do only subject to strict conditions, and something the players can never do. (Maybe declarer claimed one trick too few to compensate for the revoke penalty, I suppose that would technically be possible yet IMHO not a good idea).

[Walddk]

Michael (MFA) brings up an intereting issue. I agree completely with "no one is above the law". On the other hand, I can also understand why Weinstein did what what he did.

 

I don't know Howie too well (only met and played against him a couple of times), but to me he seems like a very nice person who would not expect anyone to return the favour. Fred is surely in a better position to judge.

 

Roland

[fred]

I do know Howie well and I have played on teams with him many times.

 

I am quite sure that for Howie the only important thing in such cases is to be able to look into the mirror the next day. He would not expect (and certainly not ask for) the same treatment from his opponents.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[MFA]

I am quite sure that for Howie the only important thing in such cases is to be able to look into the mirror the next day. He would not expect (and certainly not ask for) the same treatment from his opponents.

I'm certain that you are right.

 

It's just that I find it sad that this should be a matter of conscience.

 

Say the 5NT down had meant that SA instead had made it through to the final. I wonder now, how thrilled the SA player (don't remember who it was) then would have been with the vision of himself the next day in the bathroom?

I think not very. After all, he could just have insisted on the penalty card, couldn't he? Called the TD and let the process roll? Why didn't he do that? And so on.

 

I hate this dilemma. Howie did what he felt was right for impeccable reasons, but it was a BB semifinal and his action will inevitable create some sort of a precedent.

 

I would wish that the rules (written AND unwritten) toke a clear standpoint in these situations instead of letting it be up to the players.

[pclayton]

This thread has been up for a week now. When I first read it, my thought was, "I wonder how Weinstein's teammates would have feel if they would have lost, because Howie waived the penalty"?

 

I think Fred's "as long as he can look himself in the mirror the next day" is somewhat cryptic. I doubt he meant that Weinstein's conscience was limited to his demeanor towards his opponents.

 

In the 2003 Bermuda Bowl final, Bob Hamman wanted to waive a revoke penalty. According to the tournament book, he was overruled by the director

 

Wasn't Hamman defending in the famous final board in the Bermuda Bowl in Monte Carlo when Versace left the table in Monte Carlo and Lauria touched the card (and it was deemed played)?

 

Rules are rules, but I can see a case for extenuating circumstances. Say we are in the middle of a hand and there is some serious distraction. We have all turned over our trick, and theres a significant delay not caused by the players. I wouldn't hesitate to let an opponent see the cards played to the last trick in such a case.

 

I wasn't there when Weinstein waived the penalty, however, if he waived the rule based on a lengthy delay and nothing else, I would consider the gesture to be unusual.

[mycroft]

The Laws say that a player can ask the TD to waive the penalty for cause - and cause is treated liberally.

 

I'm sure if Weinstein had done it according to the Laws, the TD would have acceeded to his request to waive the penalty.

 

I don't really approve of these shortcuts (as a TD), but everybody (including me) shortcuts sometimes.

 

I admire his personal ethics, that he chooses not to win by mechanical mistakes. I am also 100% sure that were he to play against someone who doesn't feel that way, and the situation arises the other way, there would be no hard feelings over his opponent choosing to follow the letter of the Law, knowing that (according to the Laws themselves) that, too, is being perfectly ethical.

 

I happen to not have the same personal ethics as Weinstein - I insist on the penalties. I also insist on pointing out my mistakes, even when nobody else either notices or probably realizes that there may be a problem; and I expect people to hold me to the letter as well.

 

As with others, the only people that bother me are those who won't let anything slide when their opponents do it, but do their best to have things slide when they do it. I know a few; and they tend to get letter-of-the-law rulings against them (remember, the ACBL requires L12C2).

 

Remember, what cometh around, goeth around, says the Igor clan.

Michael.

[mrdct]

I have to admit that on the one ocassion that I've been on BBO vugraph a couple of years ago in the final stages of the Australian National Open Teams my right-hand oppenent and screen-mate failed to follow suit, thereby giving rise to a penalty card which I enforced to maximum advantage to make an otherwise unmakable non-vul 5♣ contract. There was certainly no tempo issue on my part that could've induced the failure to follow suit and, indeed, if it wasn't for the local rule in Australia of partners being allowed to say "no hearts partner?" it almost certainly would've become an established revoke within seconds.

 

I felt quite comfortable ethics-wise with this as I was being fair to the field (who could be adversely affected if I waived the penalty card) and to the rules of the game.

[bhall]

Bridge is a funny game, quite different from pro sports. Everybody looks at your ethics, not just your play, and everybody has a different idea about what is ethical.

 

Some believe that you are obligated to try to win the event by any means short of proveable cheating. Others regard the game as primarily a test of skill, with imperfect procedures for rectifying errors: In their eyes, using those imperfections to your advantage degrades the game.

 

It seems likely that Weinstein is in the latter group, and felt strongly that the circumstances made any penalty excessive.

[Echognome]

Bridge is a funny game, quite different from pro sports. Everybody looks at your ethics, not just your play, and everybody has a different idea about what is ethical.

The closest analogy I can think of in pro sports is golf. Most players will call their own penalties and they will bring in a rules official only if they are unsure of how to rule.

[jdonn]

I felt quite comfortable ethics-wise with this as I was being fair to the field (who could be adversely affected if I waived the penalty card) and to the rules of the game.

I have no problem at all with someone who follows the law exactly and enforces penalty cards and so on. But I have always thought this argument that it would be unfair to the field to fail to enforce an infraction is total nonsense. The field is not owed my opponents' revokes.

[blackshoe]

"The field" is some concept somebody made up, for what useful purpose I don't know.

[pclayton]

Bridge is a funny game, quite different from pro sports. Everybody looks at your ethics, not just your play, and everybody has a different idea about what is ethical.

The closest analogy I can think of in pro sports is golf. Most players will call their own penalties and they will bring in a rules official only if they are unsure of how to rule.

Well, yes and no.

 

When you are out on the course, frequently no one can tell if you've created an infraction.

 

At the table, its usually evident, but sometimes you'll have a misexplanation and you need to come clean.

 

In match play (golf), there are cases for certain concessions. As a matter of fact, there are rules that govern such actions. No such animal in stroke play.

[mrdct]

"The field" is some concept somebody made up, for what useful purpose I don't know.

Being "fair to field" is, imho, a reasonable position to take in assessing such matters. In a head-to-head KO match, failure to enforce a penalty card to maximum advantage is only going to hurt your own team, but when there is a "field" involved it has the propensity to affect other teams in the field.

 

In my particular case, the event was at a stage where a field of about 120 had been reduced to 6 teams who were then playing a round-robin to determine 2 teams to progress to the next stage. This was the 3rd of the 5 matches for that stage and all 5 teams were very much in contention to qualify at that point, so a decision about whether or not to take advantage of the penalty card had the propensity to affect all of the other teams (i.e. "the field").

 

The Weinstein situation was somewhat different due to the tempo issues immediately prior to the failure to follow suit which I very much think muddies the waters so far as the ethics of enforcing the penalty card goes.

 

In this actual case, if Weinstein had sought to enforce the penalty card the South African's may have argued under Law 50B it should only be treated as "Minor" penalty card on the basis that the card was exposed inadvertently.

[blackshoe]

In my particular case, the event was at a stage where a field of about 120 had been reduced to 6 teams who were then playing a round-robin to determine 2 teams to progress to the next stage. This was the 3rd of the 5 matches for that stage and all 5 teams were very much in contention to qualify at that point, so a decision about whether or not to take advantage of the penalty card had the propensity to affect all of the other teams (i.e. "the field").

In most ACBL events, AFAIK, the conditions of contest specify that a contestant is required to play each board to win that board. This rule was devised to disallow "dumping" when that might be advantageous, but it could be argued that the rule also applies to requesting waivers when that might be disadvantageous.

 

IAC, since there is nothing in the laws of the game about considering "the field" in such decisions, it seems to me those considerations are at best extra-legal.