Your Bridge Ethics Quiz

[Echognome]

There are a few gray areas in bridge that I wrestle with from time to time. Just wondered what people thought about these. I don't believe there are right answers to these, just people's opinions on how they want the game played. What do you think?

 

1. You are defending a contract at say trick 4 and it is your turn to lead. Your partner accidentally leads out of turn. You have a few seconds before declarer eventually plays to the trick. Do you?

 

a. Immediately inform declarer that there has been an irregularity and your partner has lead out of turn.

b. Let declarer play to the trick, thus accepting the lead out of turn and then point out the irregularity.

c. Let declarer play to the trick and not say anything as the declarer has accepted the lead out of turn.

 

2. You arrive at a table running a little late from the previous table, sit down and pick up your cards. Your partner, not paying attention opens the bidding out of turn. Similar to above, do you?

 

a. Immediately inform opponents that there has been an irregularity and your partner has bid out of turn.

b. Let RHO bid, thus accepting the bid out of turn and then point out the irregularity.

c. Let RHO bid and not say anything as the opponents have now accepted the lead out of turn.

 

3. You are defending a contract and your partner, that joker, has unintentionally revoked. As it turns out, your side has not won any more tricks, so there is no equity issue on the board. Do you?

 

a. Point out the revoke to opponents.

b. Carry on to the next board without saying anything.

 

4. You are defending a contract and your partner, that joker, has unintentionally revoked. As it turns out, your side has won a subsequent trick, but other than that, there was no equity issue on the board and it didn't seem to cause declarer to misplay the hand. Do you?

 

a. Point out the revoke to opponents.

b. Carry on to the next board without saying anything.

 

5. You are dummy and your partner is declaring a tricky contract. The lead is in her hand, but she looks like she is about to lead from dummy. Do you?

 

a. Try to prevent partner from leading from dummy.

b. Let partner call for the card and play it and see if LHO follows thus accepting the lead.

 

6. Do you ask partner "having none?" when he fails to follow to the current trick? Why or why not?

 

7. You are declaring a contract and at about trick 7, RHO is about to play to the trick in turn and fumbles his cards and drops one accidentally. Do you?

 

a. Call the TD.

b. Let him pick it up and say to play on.

 

8. You are under time pressure to finish the last board of the round before time is called. The bidding goes without issue and your partner is about to declare. Unfortunately, RHO leads out of turn. You know all of the options you are allowed by law. Do you?

 

a. Call the TD.

b. Just choose the appropriate option and let play finish.

 

9. You are playing on BBO with your regular partner. You open an exotic preempt (such as a multi 2♦ or a Frelling 2♥). Your opponents are a new partnership and LHO pauses for thought. Do you?

 

a. Suggest that the opponents discuss their agreements.

b. Wait and see what happens?

 

10. You are playing on BBO and declarer claims 4 out of the last 5 tricks. Declarer doesn't realize that he has all 5 tricks if he plays them in the normal order. Do you accept the claim?

[Echognome]

Just noticed that the last two questions don't work well for offline bridge. The reason I put it in this category are that leads out of turn, bids out of turn, and revokes do not work so well in online bridge.

[jtfanclub]

1. A

 

2. A

 

3. B

 

4. A

 

5. A

 

6. No. Too much risk of UI. Besides, my (RL) partner doesn't revoke.

 

7. In pairs, B, if partner is willing. In teams, A.

 

8. I either tell the person to pick it up and have the proper person lead without penalty, or call the TD.

 

9. B, unless it's a non-tournament game or the person is a sub.

 

10. Usually yes.

[MickyB]

In answer to most of the early questions, I wouldn't normally point out partner's infraction once it had been committed. Waiting until it has been condoned and then pointing it out seems pointless, it's just likely to cause needless upset.

 

If partner was about to lead out of the wrong hand I would try to stop him.

 

In the case of a dropped card, I'd normally let the defender pick it up. The exceptions are -

 

If I thought the oppo would/could take advantage of this info

If it was a big event and I couldn't see past winning at that moment in time!

 

In the case of the lead out of turn, I'd normally call the TD.

 

On BBO, I'm much less competitive. Oppo are welcome to discuss agreements (although if they do that after we had to guess on a previous board I might be slightly annoyed) and I'd probably accept the claim for four tricks before I'd read it, let alone counted their tricks :) But if I did spot the error in time I'd usually decline.

[awm]

Generally I would not point out an irregularity committed by partner. My understanding is that there's no such requirement, and in general the laws are designed to "punish the offender" rather than "restore equity" in many of these situations (I am not sure why revokes are treated so differently from UI in the bidding, but so it is).

 

So:

 

1. C

2. C

3. B

4. B

 

In general if partner tries to make me revoke (i.e. call a card from my hand when I'm dummy, when it's not my turn to lead) I will let everyone know what's occurred. On the other hand, I don't feel entitled to make random comments to partner while defending even if the laws permit (a lot of UI risk here), or to prevent partner from playing a card illegally from his own hand. So:

 

5. A

6. No.

 

For the last few, I tend to want equity to be restored. If a fumble was unintentional and won't likely give partner UI, then tell them to pick the card up. Otherwise call director.

 

7. B (unless obvious that it will help defender's partner to have seen the card)

8. A

 

9. A, but I usually don't play a lot of exotic preempts on BBO.

10. I try to accept if and only if a director would allow the claim. So if it's "obvious" declarer has the rest I would reject; if there's some subtle line that declarer may not see/state that gives him the rest I would accept.

[Halo]

Generally wouldn't stupidly interfere with my opponents rights make their own decisions.

 

Wouldn't comment on partner's revokes.

 

Wouldn't manipulate partner as dummy.

[Elianna]

1. I used to always do a. Now I do c.

 

2. Depends on my mood. I will almost always likely do a, usually because I will just be too shocked to do anything else. Sometimes I'll be out of it (I missed who was dealer) and do c.

 

3. It is the opponent's job to point out a revoke (but we can't shuffle our cards or not show any to hide them). so b.

 

4. Again, obligation is b. But here, I will likely do a.

 

5. If I'm paying enough attention to do it before the play, then a. Usually, b just happens.

 

6. No. I trust partner to look at his cards. Also, I find it very distracting to remember to say that.

 

7. It depends. Almost always b. But there are certain pairs that I will exercise a, mainly because I find them annoying, and I'm a petty person.

 

8. neither. In a club, with opps that know me, I inform the opponents that I know the options, and am going to choose one, and ask them if that's ok. If they prefer a director, then we call them. At a tournament, especially with opps I don't know, it depends on the option I choose (if it has to do with accepting lead, no director call. Otherwise, director call). BTW, bridge laws say that a director should be called when an irregularity is brought to attention, so this is breaking laws.

 

9. a

 

10. no

[blackshoe]

1. c.

2. c.

3. b.

4. b.

5. a. Particularly if I'm sure leading from her hand is better for us.

6. no. I'm usually thinking about other things - like what declarer will do next. Besides, as Elianna says, partner can see his own cards - he should know if he still has one of the suit led.

7. a. Although if nobody said anything and he simply picked it up and put it back in his hand, I would probably let it slide, in a club game.

8. a. This one's more complicated. I know the rules, but I'm a player - I don't have the right to make a ruling at the table.

9. b, assuming we have pre-alerted this unusual agreement.

10. No. He's entitled to the trick; I'm not going to steal it from him.

[JanM]

1. a

2. a

3. b

4. a

5. a

6. Don't ask because of the chance it may give away information, but if partner has demonstrated that s/he is tired or otherwise might not be accurately sorting his or her hand, I'll start asking. If I do ask ever, I try to ask on all hands of that session, even when I know partner is out.

7. b I tried to find the BW editorial when Edgar strongly criticized Lew Stansby for allowing an opponent to pick up an Ace that had accidentally dropped out of his hand, but I couldn't - it was probably in the 80's - I still think that Lew was right :).

8. a, because it always seems to take longer to convince the opponents I know what the options are :)

9. a, mainly because I'm usually playing to practice and it's a lot better practice for me if the opponents know what they're doing.

10. no, if I did I'd probably have nightmares about it for days. Ditto at the table when someone claims fewer tricks than would be taken by any reasonable line of play.

[Codo]

1 c

2 c

3. B

4 b

5a

6 sometimes when I am awake Why? I dislike him to revo´ke again and the laws explicit allow me to do so.

7 b nearly alwys I let him take the cards up

8 a if he is near, else I would ask if anybody knows the possibilities and choosen one

9 a I want them to defend as good as possible. There is no honour in winning because of soem bizarre bidding misunderstandings from pick ups.

10. I had this situation and would always decline the claim.

[nick_s]

1. a

2. a

3. b

4. a

5. a

6. No - unless playing with a novice

7. jtfanclub has this right for me: At pairs B, at teams A

8. a - I'm not confident I know all the options and even if I were, I wouldn't want to try convincing the opponents that I did indeed know them.

9. a - but I don't play tournaments on BBO

10. yes

 

If I'm not 100% comfortable with my actions, I wind up thinking about what I should have done for several hands afterwards. It's my higher power's way of letting me know I screwed up.

[MFA]

1. c (I will call the TD afterwards if I judge it is a possible § 23 (new laws) situation (this is rare); there was a long lead out of turn thread about this recently.)

2. c

3. b

4. b

5. a

6. Only if I'm 100% sure he has revoked

7. b in general - I might choose a in specific situations

8. a in general, b is possible

[paulg]

1-4 are declarer's responsibility, not mine.

 

1. c

2. c

3. b

4. b

5. a - always try to prevent an irregularity, after all I have few rights as dummy!

6. Never ask - not legal in the UK. I don't in the ACBL either as it's not legal in the UK and don't want to get into the habit of it.

7. Depends on the event. I call the TD in a serious tournament, let them pick it up at the club, let them pick it up in a minor tournament if they are weak players.

8. a

9. a - i always say that our opponents can discuss their defences to our stuff if they've had no warning

10. Decline the claim.

[Roupoil]

1&2. a

3&4. b

5. a

6. no (never had my partner revoking while being declarer)

7. b

8. b

9. don't know, almost never plays on BBO with regular partner, and when it is a case, i usually play with regular opponents as well

10. accept

[Finch]

1. a

2. a

3/4 usually b

 

The laws are clear that you are not obliged to point out your side's irregularity, so I'm not sure why I feel differently about 1/2 and 3/4.

 

5. a

This is attempting to prevent an irregularity, rathing than pointing out one that's already happened, so is different.

 

6. No. It's currently not legal in England (although that is changing with the 2007 laws) but I won't do it anyway - my partners are capable of following suit.

 

7. a at anything remotely serious, b at my local club

 

8. a. I feel strongly on this one (the only exception is if I am playing people I know well and we both know we know the rules).

 

9. I only play friendly/practice games on BBO which always involve a fair amount of table chat about agreements.

 

10. I only play friendly/practice games on BBO with people I know. I can't imagine this happening, but if it did he gets only the tricks he claimed.

[Free]

1. You're not obligated to point out an irregularity of your own side. Once declarer has accepted, there's no need to do it as well.

c. Let declarer play to the trick and not say anything as the declarer has accepted the lead out of turn.

 

2. You're not obligated to point out an irregularity of your own side.

c. Let RHO bid and not say anything as the opponents have now accepted the lead out of turn.

 

3. Again, you're not obligated to point out an irregularity of your own side.

b. Carry on to the next board without saying anything.

 

4. Again...

b. Carry on to the next board without saying anything.

 

5. This is one of your few rights, so use it!

a. Try to prevent partner from leading from dummy.

 

6. Do you ask partner "having none?" when he fails to follow to the current trick? Why or why not?

Sometimes, especially if it surprizes me. Why? Because it's one of my few rights, and it's just stupid to lose this way.

 

7. You are declaring a contract and at about trick 7, RHO is about to play to the trick in turn and fumbles his cards and drops one accidentally. Do you?

a. Call the TD.

However, on a clubevening I'll let my opponent take back his card...

 

8. You are under time pressure to finish the last board of the round before time is called. The bidding goes without issue and your partner is about to declare. Unfortunately, RHO leads out of turn. You know all of the options you are allowed by law. Do you?

a. Call the TD.

This is the appropriate action according to the laws.

 

9. You are playing on BBO with your regular partner. You open an exotic preempt (such as a multi 2♦ or a Frelling 2♥). Your opponents are a new partnership and LHO pauses for thought. Do you?

a. Suggest that the opponents discuss their agreements.

It's an online game, what do I care about the results...

 

10. You are playing on BBO and declarer claims 4 out of the last 5 tricks. Declarer doesn't realize that he has all 5 tricks if he plays them in the normal order. Do you accept the claim?

No

 

 

Last but not least: it can't be called unethical to let the laws be applied!

Only the last 2 questions are imo about ethics...

[Rossoneri]

1. c

2. c

3. b

4. b

5. a

6. Usually not, I assume partner knows what he is doing. Only if it doesn't seem to fit his bidding will I ask. Besides, I am sometimes taking a mental break when I am dummy.

7. At the club, I let him take it back. In a serious even,t I call the TD

8. a

9. b. Usually I would have already alerted. If the opponents ask if they can discuss, I will usually allow.

10. No.

[DWM]

1.c

2.c

3.b

4.b

5.b (if I am awake and not thinking how I let such a joker of a P play a contract)

6.no (never have)

7.b (for some reason don't like taking advantage of a mechanical error)

8.b ish (would explain options to ops and ask if they are ok to continue without TD)

9.b (if they ask if they can agree what they are playing I will let them, unless im in a mood)

10. yep, happened to me a few times.

 

For the first few if my P made revoke/out of turn type mistakes often I might make a point of it at a club night, but never a league/cup match

[Ant590]

Further to Matt's questions here are two that I recently struggled with (f2f):

 

11) You deal and pass. LHO opens the auction 1♠:

pass – (1♠) – dbl – (2 ♠)

2NT

which you mean as a preliminary to signing off (i.e. Leb). This is apartnership agreement. No alert...

2NT – (pass) – 3♣

do you alert before bidding you 3♥, or not?

 

12)Your LHO opens 1NT, for which your (previously discussed) defense is 2♣=majors, rest natural.

(1NT) – pass – (pass) – 2♦

this is alerted and explained as spades and another...

(pass) – 2♥

so this is meant as "bid your 5 card suit", but in your frame it is natural. Do you alert? Does the context of you hand make a difference (e.g. if you believe you would pass 2♥ with no UI?)

[paulg]

Further to Matt's questions here are two that I recently struggled with (f2f):

 

11) You deal and pass. LHO opens the auction 1♠:

pass – (1♠) – dbl – (2 ♠)

2NT

which you mean as a preliminary to signing off (i.e. Leb). This is apartnership agreement. No alert...

2NT – (pass) – 3♣

do you alert before bidding you 3♥, or not?

 

12)Your LHO opens 1NT, for which your (previously discussed) defense is 2♣=majors, rest natural.

(1NT) – pass – (pass) – 2♦

this is alerted and explained as spades and another...

(pass) – 2♥

so this is meant as "bid your 5 card suit", but in your frame it is natural. Do you alert? Does the context of you hand make a difference (e.g. if you believe you would pass 2♥ with no UI?)

In both cases you must alert bids within your own frame of reference. The fact that this may create UI for partner is a problem for him, and potentially the TD, to deal with but it is an infraction if you fail to alert your agreements properly.

 

Important to remember that creating UI is not an infraction, just using it is.

 

You should alert your agreements even when you believe that only partner can gain, which may be the case here. Trying to second guess these situations will only get you into greater trouble at some point in the future.

 

Paul

[Ant590]

In our regulations (EBU) it is interesting as one is meant to alert as to the partnership's agreements, even if that conflicts with one's own frame of reference... whilst bidding in one's own frame naturally.

 

In these two problems I was ok because my frame of reference was our agreements!

[pclayton]

1. c

2. c

3. b (was a initially)

4. a

5. a

 

6. Usually no, but if its about impossible for pard to show out in a suit (dummy has 1, we have 1, and pard shows out on the 1st trick when we have 3) I can't see any UI problem by asking. The rules allow it.

 

7. b - unless the presence of the card gives some sort of advantage to offender's partner. Even then, if I strongly feel the partner of the offender will not take advantage of, I'll allow him to put it back.

 

8. a (changed from B) - time pressure just means people need to stay poised. A time penalty isn't the end of the world, but blowing a full board on doing something stupid, like not calling the director can be very costly.

 

9. a

 

10. No

[P_Marlowe]

#1 c, I try to stop partner, but if he did it,

declarer is a gown up

#2 a

#3 a if I recognise it

#4 a if I recognise it

#5 a

#6 never, my partner is grown up

#7 depends on the opponents, the state / history

of the current match, how important it is

#8 b

#9 a If I think about it, but since I play on BBO for

training purposes, what do i gain from a bidding

accident of my opponents

#10 no, but only if I recognise it, which would mean, I look closer,

and I will do this only, if it is make or break

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mycroft]

Ethically, it is entirely correct to not point out any irregularity you see (your side's MI excepted). Nobody can question your ethics should you choose to play that way (well, they can, but they're wrong, and the Laws are very clear about it. I've had to go through Law 71A1, 4, B3 (and usually Law 40A, these explanations are usually after "odd" bids) to show the "hard done by" what Bridge Ethics actually are).

 

Whether I do so depends on the class of the game and the identity of my opponents. I like playing to the letter of the law, and expect my opponents to hold me to them as well - and if I believe my opponents don't know the laws well enough to do that, I will do what is necessary (unless the opponents really annoy me, then they're on their own. Yeah, that's petty, but it's the way it works). That means that if I think I have done the right L73C thing, but I'm not 100% sure, I'll call the TD to protect my opponents, unless they're good enough to know their rights (or obnoxious enough for me to not care). I find, even (especially?) with opponents who know about use of UI, it's a calmer TD experience if I call than if they are allowed to express their indignance that a TD would even consider bidding after (whatever)...

 

So, that's my answer to 1-4, and provided the game itself is polite, I have no problems with "letter of the law" players. I have no problem with "ah, let's be a little casual" players, too, provided it's not the GNT Zone final or something. What really annoys me is people who expect a little casual when they make a mistake, but are letter of the law when I do. They get the full benefit of my TD knowledge as to letter of the law after that :-)

 

5: I try to stop LOOT as dummy. I'm allowed to, and it's always a hassle when it happens. Of course, it could be RHO that objects, and depending on how it works, they may get legal information as to how best to defend!

 

6. This I don't do - as dummy or (as I'm in a zone that allows it) as defender. It just annoys me. Yeah, I pay off to one or two revokes a year, but it's just not worth it. Plus, those who "sometimes ask" - and almost everybody "sometimes asks" - pass the exact information as defender that means that you're not allowed to do that outside the ACBL, and that really annoys me.

 

If someone asks me to ask, I will. But I'd rather not play with them.

 

7. I call the TD. If it's a small card, they need to know the mPC restrictions (or lack of them), or they might play it wrong. If it's an honour, and I believe that the player has a problem with their hands, I'll request a waiver of the penalty L81C8 - I may not get it, but I'm not allowed to waive it on my own authority (L72A3), so I don't. Of course, see above about how my willingness to be nice evaporates under certain conditions.

 

8. I may know the options, but do the opponents? They have the right to know my options and defend with the knowledge that I believe that the option I take is the best for me; if they don't know that, then they're damaged. Plus, making your own rulings at the table is Wrong. And what happens if I decide to let them lead whatever they want, and then after the SA cashes, I then decide to exercise my MPC rights? Defenders almost certainly won't believe me, and that causes a lot of animosity.

 

I know this is a bugger, because this TD call takes almost a minute just to recite the options. But it's important to do.

 

9,10: Again, if I'm playing in a tournament, I expect people to be prepared for everything reasonable. No, you don't get to discuss how to defend over an EHAA 2C opener, or a Precision 2D, or a 10-12 NT. We told you what we were playing off the top, if you wanted to discuss, you could have then.

 

In a pickup game, especially against pickup opponents, I want them warned and prepared; otherwise they'll just grumble and leave. It's no fun playing a practiced partnership playing an odd system against randoms unless they are given a fighting chance - go ahead and discuss stuff. Feel free to discuss which KC you're playing, too - just remember it later.

 

BBO has a nasty little habit on claiming, if you claim mid-trick (which I like to do - lead the trump to make it clear I'm pulling the last one, and claim, for instance). If the trick ends, you'll end up claiming one more or one fewer than you wanted. When that happens, I'd expect that the opponents would cancel, and I would as well, if it was made immediately clear that that's what I'm doing. I feel really uncomfortable when I misclaim and they let me have more tricks than I would take, for instance.

 

Anyone who accepts a clear misclaim, violating Law 71, and doesn't immediately apologize for a misread or the like - and it happens on BBO, if you're not careful - becomes persona non grata to me. I'm on the hook if I make a claim that misses a line. I am not - legally - if I claim zero tricks when in fact I can't take less than 3. Again, in a tournament, I'll call the TD and ask for a L79C rectification - whether I am claimer or accepter.

 

Michael.

[barmar]

I agree with most of the other responses here.

 

Regarding 6, I never ask. It's simply not a habit I ever acquired, and I know it's important to be consistent. My regular partner always asks, and he's very consistent about it. I find it a bit annoying, but I don't complain, and I DO check my cards every time he does it just in case.

 

He once revoked as declarer and asked me to start asking, but I wasn't able to get into the habit.