Tournament Rules

[1eyedjack]

Alan Sontag advocates an even more restrictive policy in Power Precision:

"Always play a hand out." If my understanding is correct, he will accept an opponent's correct claim or concession but never claims or concedes.

Indeed, the story behind that quote is rather strange. His policy derived from an incident in which he had claimed a contract that involved the concession of a trick yet to be lost, for one down. The opponents rejected his claim, in the hope of taking it two off. The hand was played out and the opponents misdefended to allow the contract to make. They then claimed a score of one-off on the grounds that Sontag had conceded one-off.

 

I cannot remember what the final ruling was (I think he was allowed to make), but what strikes me as odd is that the hand was allowed to be played out at all.

 

It now appears, as pointed out by Erick, that Sontag's policy is in breach of the proprieties.

I don't think so.

 

You are allowed to not claim if the opponents still have some tricks to come (they may, after all, misdefend). But you shouldn't play on if you have all the tricks.

 

Eric

Whatever the facts and law relating to the incident that provoked Sontag's policy, he is in print as saying that you should "never claim, never concede". That policy does appear to be at odds with Law 74B4 that you have drawn my attention to, as it advocates NOT claiming when all tricks are held.

 

The laws have undergone revision over the ages. Power Precision is an old book. I have no idea whether the book predates this law.

 

However, on reflection Sontag's policy does not in my view breach that law. If he never claims and never concedes then the motive for playing on in a particular instance cannot be to disconcert the opponents. I may decide to change my own policy in line with this.

[EricK]

I would be surprised if Sontag doesn't claim when all the tricks are clearly his (there are after all time constraints and penalties in many events).

 

But in that particular case, the only person who can make a mistake which affects the outcome is him, and then it can only make his score worse. In the other situations (i.e. when opponents have a possible trick, or even all the remaining tricks) there is usually a possibility (however slim) that they may throw a trick away.

 

I must also add, that I have never got upset, or called the director etc, if someone has played on when all the tricks were clearly theirs. It is practically always the case that by that time, my partner and I both realise that we have no more tricks coming, so it doesn't actually cost us any mental energy - and who knows, maybe declarer will blow a trick somehow!

 

Eric

[luis]

Just as a matter of personal preference to avoid this kind of hassle, I never claim if there are any outstanding potential winners. In this hand, knowing the location of the spade Queen, I pick it up and then claim.

In a serious event I adopt the following policy:

 

If it is obvious to the opponents that I have the rest, I will claim, to avoid an inadvertent slip in the play by me.

 

If it is obvious to me but not to the opponents that I have the rest, I will play them out. Forcing the opponents to think about the defence when I do not have to think about the play contributes to wearing them down more than me, which may pay dividends in a later hand, and give partner (dummy) a slightly longer rest.

I believe that this is considered unethical.

 

Eric

Where is this published, please? Anyone else agree with Erick? What are the underlying principles that bring the ethics of this practice into doubt?

I agree it is unethical.

 

But you have to be careful, sometimes an opponent doesn't claim just because he doesn't know he has all the tricks.

[Free]

Yes it is unethical to play when you KNOW you have ALL tricks. However, if there's a slight chance they can still make a mistake and give you an extra trick, you should still go for it.

 

Btw, what do YOU win when you weaken your oppenents to play against other people anyway?? Worst (or best, whatever you like) case is that you just make fake results by giving some oppenents better scores because you tired your direct opps...

[JRG]

Yes it is unethical to play when you KNOW you have ALL tricks. However, if there's a slight chance they can still make a mistake and give you an extra trick, you should still go for it.

 

Btw, what do YOU win when you weaken your oppenents to play against other people anyway?? Worst (or best, whatever you like) case is that you just make fake results by giving some oppenents better scores because you tired your direct opps...

I suspect the comment applied to Team Games and not really to Duplicate Pairs.

[1eyedjack]

Yes it is unethical to play when you KNOW you have ALL tricks.  However, if there's a slight chance they can still make a mistake and give you an extra trick, you should still go for it.

 

Btw, what do YOU win when you weaken your oppenents to play against other people anyway??  Worst (or best, whatever you like) case is that you just make fake results by giving some oppenents better scores because you tired your direct opps...

OK, the only statutory authority so far cited in favour of its being unethical is Law 74B4. That law specifies two conditions both of which must be satisfied for a breach of proprieties (under the authority of that section): (1) prolonging play unnecessarily and (2) motivated by an intention to disconcert the opponents. An example cited is when you have all of the remaining tricks but I think it significant to note that this is only an example (in parentheses) and it is clear from the grammatical structure that it exemplifies only condition (1).

 

It is clear to me, from this, that Free's statement that "Yes, it is unethical to play when you KNOW you have ALL tricks" is not by itself substantiated by this law as the only condition that is satisfied is condition (1) and satisfaction of both is required. It may yet be unethical if it is covered by some other law that no-one has yet quoted, but it is not unethical if sole reliance is placed on law 74B4.

 

Free's second paragraph is valid if you are playing in a Pairs, Swiss or Round Robin event. I would only suggest the tactic if you expect to benefit from your opponents' exhaustion and this might be the case in the event of a long knockout teams event such as a round of the UK Gold Cup (48+ boards against one team).

 

Out of interest I duplicated this question in the International Bridge Laws forum at the following link:

 

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=522

 

This produced a mixed bag of responses. Frances Hinden, one of UK's leading players (Gold Cup winner this year), agrees that it is unethical, but I (personally) think she makes an unwarranted conclusion that if an opponent is in fact "disconcerted" by the action then this is a satisfaction of condition (2), where I maintain that the motivation not the effect is critical.

 

Ed Reppert, one of the foremost world authorities on ethics, appears in that thread to come down in favour of the action not being considered unethical although he feels that it is unlikely to be a unanimous view among TDs.

 

Interesting (to me) question arising from this: Is every unethical practice covered by the Laws in some way? Or is there some wider concept of ethics that the laws, proprieties, and sponsoring regulations do not address?

 

There is an argument that the fact that the Laws make attempt to address the question of ethics entitles a player to expect that the attempt is complete and that if a situation is not prohibited by the Laws, particularly those which address ethical conduct, then it cannot be unethical. This is a view put forward by Doug Couchman in that thread.

 

Anyway, the whole issue seems to be sufficiently in doubt that my conscience in the matter is clear, even if I decide not to pursue the policy in light of its contentiousness.

[mikestar]

To clarify my own policy--it is not quite Sontag's published one, but close--I will only make self-evident claims that require no statement; in other words, cases where I can't lose a trick by any legal play of the cards including irrational ones.

 

The legal standard of "careless or inferior but not irrational" is equitable but it leads to absolutely endless wrangling over disputed claims.

 

At one time I directed two games at a senior center--an ACBL sanctioned game run strictly by the book, and a non-sanctioned game run mostly by the book but with several house rules. One such house rule required all hands to be played out. The games drew the same players (at least 80%). The non-sanctioned game was always faster--the time lost by playing out the hands out never exceeded the time saved not having to adjudicate disputed claims.

[the hog]

Is it unethical not to claim? There are a couple of opponents against whom I never claim because it actually saves time not to. eg I am on lead and have all the tricks because I can discard my S loser on a winner in dummy. These opps will invariably say, "I still have a S trick to come", &/or ask me to play the hand out. Then the director has to be called and time is wasted. Far better to play it out originally.

[Shrike]

Thanks for bringing this up (in both forums). I have been sloppy about this, claiming quickly and often. This is not the best way to win.

 

Hereafter, in serious matches I will not claim, and will instruct my teammates not to do so, unless a slow-play penalty looms. (This policy doesn't work well in pair games, of course, where you want your opponents to be LESS tired when they face their next opponents, against whom your results are being scored.) It is apparent that this is legal; I am convinced that it is therefore ethical.

[xx1943]

Is this a hypothetical ending or real world. There are ways, south can legitametly know EAST has the ♠Q say WEST dealt and failed to open, but so far won all three tricks for the defense with AK in on suit and Ace in another, and has shown up with a two jacks to boot. South will know that EAST has the spade Q.

 

Yes it was from real life and S knew nothing about our hands, because we were silent in the bidding. He knew also nothing about distribution. But you are right to prove that statement one must see the full hand, bidding and play to this moment.

 

I regret for not reporting the full deal. so sorry :(

Next time I'll do better.

 

Was my first post in the forum at all.

[spwdo]

Is this a hypothetical ending or real world. There are ways, south can legitametly know EAST has the ♠Q say WEST dealt and failed to open, but so far won all three tricks for the defense with AK in on suit and Ace in another, and has shown up with a two jacks to boot. South will know that EAST has the spade Q.

 

Yes it was from real life and S knew nothing about our hands, because we were silent in the bidding. He knew also nothing about distribution. But you are right to prove that statement one must see the full hand, bidding and play to this moment.

 

I regret for not reporting the full deal. so sorry :(

Next time I'll do better.

 

Was my first post in the forum at all.

hi,

 

 

welcome on the forum, nothing wrong with your post.Saw far wurse, some here try to disagree when it is obvuis, even when u know the queen is there simple thing is to say u do, believe ths wanst tds best disission because def. irl they had to play it from top, online some room to explain in claimbox what u gameplan is

 

 

 

hope to see/read soon from you

 

 

spwdo