Ethical Transgression

[MickyB]

Playing in a national event, you and partner have the auction

 

2♣:2♦, 2NT:3♦, 3♥:3NT, P

 

RHO asked a few questions over 3♦, then thought before passing.

 

His partner, from xxxx xxxxxx J Qx, finds the J♦ lead, of course. It didn't exactly help in this case, because the whole hand was:

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sxxhkqjtxdxxcjxxx&w=sxxxxhxxxxxxdjcqx&e=sakjxxhdxxxxxcxxx&s=sqxhaxdakqtxcaktx]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

The question is, what do you do about the situation? You may expect to see this happen in a club, but surely she will run into problems in future if she does this in national events. If the type of player involved would affect your decision, assume it is a LOL.

[hrothgar]

Hi Mike

 

I think that you have two reasonable choices

 

1. Call the Director after the lead is tabled and note that you believe that there may be a UI issue

 

2. Ignore the situation completely

 

I don't believe that its appropriate for players to give lessons on proprieties.

 

Moreover, I don't appreciate players who are unwilling to raise these issues directly. I find side channels complaints to the directorial staff deeply distasteful.

 

If you want to raise the issue, raise the issue. Otherwise keep quiet. What's the old saying "Speak now or forever hold your piece"

[helene_t]

Agree with Richard.

 

E should be told that she should try to avoid such questions and W should be told that she probably can't lead a diamond if she has a LA. However, it's not you duty to teach ethics.

[Guest movingon]

Although, I know it can be thought rude to discuss proprieties or ethics with the opponents,after the round is over, I think I would, as nicely and inoffensively as possible, suggest to my rho that she/he be more careful in the future: that her question might be thought by others to be indicating an interest in diamonds and suggesting a diamond lead. This puts pressure on her partner to NOT lead a diamond, and if she or he does, the director might be called.

 

I think it less upsetting to the opponents to do this than to call a director.

[Finch]

It's nothing to do with the ethical question, but I feel obliged to point out that in our match on this board:

 

At one table NS for the opponents played in 4H which eventually went 3 off after the defence started with 3 rounds of spades and declarer tried to draw trumps.

 

At one table EW for the opponents played in 4Hx which eventually went 9(!) off after the defence forced declarer and he tried to draw trumps.

 

We had to look up the imps for +2600...

 

(2D multi x 4H are you certain whether that is to play, or pass/correct to partner's major?)

[Gerben42]

I won't do anything, but other possibilities include:

 

* If the lead would have been possibly bad for me I would have called the director.

 

* If opponents are the kind who should know that kind of thing, I quiz him how he found the lead and evaluate their reaction.

 

*

[paulg]

I'd tell her that the right question is whether 3♥ denies 5 SPADES!

 

lol

[CSGibson]

Doesn't a singleton look like a natural lead? What, you mean it's no trump and partner had an opportunity to make a lead directing double of diamonds, but failed to do so? Whoops.

[Free]

I would rather claim that it's unethical to ask about the 3♦ bid when RHO won't bid, because now LHO may find a killing ♠ lead out of ethical considerations 'because he may not lead a ♦'... Leading a ♦ now is not unethical imo, but LHO needs a good reason to lead this way. A singleton while you don't have any values may be a good lead, so no big problem imo.

[brianshark]

We would give out a LOT more if LHO found a killing singleton diamond lead from a weak hand. As it is, the lead is a stupid one when partner asks about that suit. And it is correct he be reprimanded by a TD about it. What part we should play is up for question. I voted a quiet word to the director at the very least to let them know this is going on in case it is repeated later in the session.

 

And yes, had RHO talked an ethical partner out of leading a bum suit and into leading his actual suit then that would be worse. Much harder to do anything about in isolation though because it crosses the line into cheating.

[Gerben42]

And yes, had RHO talked an ethical partner out of leading a bum suit and into leading his actual suit then that would be worse. Much harder to do anything about in isolation though because it crosses the line into cheating.

 

Now that is a cunning plan!

[Guest Jlall]

I don't know about non ACBL events but in ACBL events the procedure would be to file a recorder form. The recorder tracks stuff like this and if a pattern is established then disciplinary action happens.

[MFA]

Hi Mike

 

I think that you have two reasonable choices

 

1.  Call the Director after the lead is tabled and note that you believe that there may be a UI issue

 

2.  Ignore the situation completely

Hmm, I'm not calling the director before I learn what they have. Maybe there is no problem at all. I might (seldomly) want to ask the opp's if they agree that there was a break of tempo or whatever the issue was.

 

I don't believe that its appropriate for players to give lessons on proprieties.

 

Agree! The opponents will feel that they are being accused of cheating, which is basically also the case. It's not enough to try to appear polite when the message is not. This is the director's job.

 

Moreover, I don't appreciate players who are unwilling to raise these issues directly.  I find side channels complaints to the directorial staff deeply distasteful.

 

If you want to raise the issue, raise the issue.  Otherwise keep quiet.  What's the old saying "Speak now or forever hold your piece"

 

Agree strongly! If I think there is a case, I must raise it at the table or keep quiet. The aftertalk is so often one-sided and unfair to the opponents, and they really deserve to hear it directly, if there is a possible problem. Perhaps it's all a misunderstanding?!

[SoTired]

Although, I know it can be thought rude to discuss proprieties or ethics with the opponents,after the round is over, I think I would, as nicely and inoffensively as possible, suggest to my rho that she/he be more careful in the future: that her question might be thought by others to be indicating an interest in diamonds and suggesting a diamond lead.  This puts pressure on her partner to NOT lead a diamond, and if she or he does, the director might be called.

 

I think it less upsetting to the opponents to do this than to call a director.

I strongly disagree with this. THERE IS NO WAY to say that nicely. 75% of players and especially LOL, will take your comment as a direct accusation of cheating, and YOU may be charged with a zero tolerance violation.

 

Either call the director after the dummy comes down and you think you were damaged or shut up.

[ArtK78]

Given that this is a NATIONAL event, I don't think you can let this matter go without comment.

 

I would call the director and report the incident. If the director instructs me to file a recorder form, I will do so. But the question is completely out of line, as this is a basic auction that anyone in a National event should know.

 

The lead was silly, and appears to be influenced by the question. That it was wrong on the hand is justice, but that doesn't mean that you should not report it.

[finally17]

I think the proper general response is to call the director immediately and report the incident and your issues with it.

 

However, I wouldn't do so in this case. The lead has not hurt me, it has helped me. And in my experience, LOLs tend to just get nervous and upset, rather than learn the lesson about the impropriety that has happened, especially when they have a director hovering over them.

 

So a director call isn't going to rectify any situation at the table, and I don't believe it's going to further the cause of ethical responsibility either, it's just going to upset someone who has accidentally helped me out. Since, as far as I can tell, result correction and a righting of the opponents' ethical standards are the two main goals of a director call, and neither of these causes is furthered, I do nothing.

 

For most everyone else the director is called immediately.

[jdonn]

Unlike some others, I would in this case probably do nothing at the table, then mention it to the director after the round. This avoids the giant fuss that would be caused at the table (against this particular opponent) but still let the matter be known in case the director wants to have a quiet word with her later. Calling the director right away may be "correct" but would be completely counterproductive in this case, as finally17 essentially said.

 

The absolute worst thing to do would be the earlier suggestion by movingon of trying to politely mention it to her myself. That is not my place, and could be too easily misinterpreted as an accusation.

[pclayton]

If I wasn't damaged theres no way I'd call the director. Such things are for busybodies who feel their lot in life is to rid the world of unethical players.

 

If I had time I'd mention it to the director, who might remember to say something if its a slow day.

 

I wouldn't waste time with a recorder form either unless I had jury duty or had to serve a jail term and had a lot of time on my hand.

 

This person has been proably doing things like this for a long time and nothing I say or do will change that.

 

Obviously if I'm damaged I will call the cops.

[Echognome]

As my regular partners know, if I felt there was the possibility of UI and damage, I would simply call the TD after the lead. State the facts. State that I have no idea if there was an issue, because I can't see the opponent's hand and for all I know, it might be the only sensible lead. I would make no accusations whatsover, just state it how I saw it. Of course, if it was someone I knew or trusted, I wouldn't say anything at all and I might not say something if I don't really feel in the mood for it. But I would rather say something after the lead, than say something later.

 

One might argue that you should wait until the hand is over and say something if you felt that the lead was influenced by the UI. But then it just seems like it was sour grapes by then. That's why I prefer to either bring to the attention of the TD right away (again stressing that we don't know if anything is wrong) or not say anything at all.

[MFA]

As my regular partners know, if I felt there was the possibility of UI and damage, I would simply call the TD after the lead.  State the facts.  State that I have no idea if there was an issue, because I can't see the opponent's hand and for all I know, it might be the only sensible lead.  I would make no accusations whatsover, just state it how I saw it.  Of course, if it was someone I knew or trusted, I wouldn't say anything at all and I might not say something if I don't really feel in the mood for it.  But I would rather say something after the lead, than say something later. 

 

One might argue that you should wait until the hand is over and say something if you felt that the lead was influenced by the UI.  But then it just seems like it was sour grapes by then.  That's why I prefer to either bring to the attention of the TD right away (again stressing that we don't know if anything is wrong) or not say anything at all.

Is this how you would handle possible UI influence on the bidding as well? Say somebody takes a bid after a noticeable pause from his partner. Do you call the director immediately then?

 

If you do, doesn't that lead to many "unnecessary" TD calls and annoyed opp's, who feel that you are pursuing everything without even considering if there is a case?

 

Just curious :D

 

I'd think that the correct procedure is to make sure that we agree on the UI, and then wait and evaluate afterwards. When the UI was some questions asked (the actual case), there is no need to have the opponent confirm that he really did ask. Very rarely there would be a dispute about this afterwards.

[Echognome]

Is this how you would handle possible UI influence on the bidding as well? Say somebody takes a bid after a noticeable pause from his partner. Do you call the director immediately then?

 

If you do, doesn't that lead to many "unnecessary" TD calls and annoyed opp's, who feel that you are pursuing everything without even considering if there is a case?

 

Just curious :D

 

I'd think that the correct procedure is to make sure that we agree on the UI, and then wait and evaluate afterwards. When the UI was some questions asked (the actual case), there is no need to have the opponent confirm that he really did ask. Very rarely there would be a dispute about this afterwards.

Actually the correct procedure varies by NBO.

 

In the ACBL, my understanding is that it is preferred to call the TD to verify the hesitation, whereas in the EBU it is sufficient to just ask the opponents "do you agree there was a hesitation?"

 

Although I'm stating no opinion as to what I think is right on that account.

[MFA]

Interesting! I didn't know that there was this possible difference in procedure. ACBL rules continue to surprise me :D

[ASkolnick]

I'm in the ACBL.

 

I will always call the director at the time of the infraction, even if there is no effect for a few reasons.

 

1) It doesn't look like you are waiting for a result, therefore taking a double shot at scores.

 

2) Since the directors are notified, they know there may be an issue.

 

3) Agreeing on a hesitation. Much rather do that with the director present, so you don't get into petty squabbling.

 

As for the case of the diamond lead, yes you should call the director assuming you feel that the questions led to the diamond lead even though it was a good lead for you. It is very possible that the people were unaware UI was passed along, and it is the directors, not your responsibility, to inform them why there might have been an infraction.

 

As for recorder forms, nobody does anything with them and in this case I don't feel its necessary.

[mycroft]

The one time I filed a recorder form, I got a call the following Monday from the District Recorder clarifying my issues. I don't know if anything went from there, but that wasn't the point - it was formally on the record that this player did the thing I was complaining about, and did it regularly, and that he knew that it was on the record.

 

If he chooses to continue to do it on a regular basis, and someone else complains about it, that record is there, and he can't say "well, everybody does this occasionally. I made a mistake this time."

 

As Justin said, the Recorder form system is designed to show up a *pattern* of dubious, but not clearly unethical behaviour; one swallow does not a summer make, but 6 or 7 might. If people ignore the recorder "because it never does anything", then you're right, it won't. Instead what you get is the rumour grapevine, which is malicious, one-sided, and doesn't have a method to rebut the charges.

[TimG]

If you want to raise the issue, raise the issue. Otherwise keep quiet. What's the old saying "Speak now or forever hold your piece"

I suspect that you mean "hold your peace". Holding your "piece" at the bridge table might lead to disciplinary action. Then again, maybe that's what you're looking for.