An ethics question (I think)

[blivet]

In a relaxed game, a player who rated herself more experienced than I (me 'beginner', she 'novice') conceded the last 4 tricks and I accepted, even though it looked to me like she could have taken some of them. My partner admonished me, but would not explain why, and in fact, did not speak to me after that. Another player explained that my accepting the concession was 'not nice'. I had acted on the assumption that to reject an advantage would be playing against myself. I'm also a poker player, and that's definitely the way such a situtaion is viewed in that game. The opponent certainly wasn't colluding with me (we'd never played together before).

 

I repeatedly asked the other players for clarification of what I'd done wrong, but got the impression that I was being ostracized. I could be wrong about this. What is the opinion of others on this discussion board? Should I have rejected the concession, since I wasn't sure it was necessary?

 

Did I act unethically by accepting the conceded tricks, when I wasn't so sure the concession was necessary?

 

blivet

[Stephen Tu]

In bridge, the expectation is that you aren't supposed to accept tricks that you can't possibly win. If they can make some sort of error and give you extra tricks then you can take them. If they can't lose the tricks no matter what you shouldn't accept a concession.

 

If it's a situation where the opp almost certainly hit the wrong button (e.g. they obviously have the rest of the tricks but are conceding), it would be unsporting to not reject and let them correct. You are supposed to derive satisfaction in winning by making better bidding & card play decisions, not winning by taking advantage of opp's clumsiness with a mouse & the claim dialog.

 

You should post the actual hand and situation if you want an opinion on the specific hand.

[dburn]

The Law says this:

 

LAW 71 - CONCESSION CANCELLED

 

A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession:

 

1. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or

 

2. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

 

The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

If a player at the table considers that he or another player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by normal play, his proper course is to summon the Director and ask for a score adjustment. His proper course is not to cast aspersions on the morality of any other player.

[JoAnneM]

This is an interesting question on ethics and the new player, and how they should be treated. Of course the answer to the basic question is that you do not accept tricks that do not belong to you.

 

We had a new player come to our club from rubber bridge. The first time she pulled out a card when following suit, then put it back and played another one, only later to have us discover that she had a singleton we almost went ballistic. However she said that in her rubber bridge club that kind of thing was standard procedure and "part of the game".

 

This is when you direct the player to the Proprieties and Laws of the game, not when you shun them.

 

Law 71

Concession Canceled

A concession may be canceled by the Director in the following situations when made within the correction period established in Law 79:

1. If a trick has been conceded that has already been won.

 

2. If a trick is conceded that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards.

 

If playing online I would change to Concession Rejected

[jdonn]

I'm also a poker player, and that's definitely the way such a situtaion is viewed in that game.

I believe the lesson to take from this is that the ethical standards in poker are quite different from those in bridge.

[Echognome]

If playing online I would change to Concession Rejected

And what if the player was in the Main Bridge Club on BBO, where there are no directors?

 

It's not easy adapting all of the laws to the online game. I think people will have their personal views and the original poster should note from the reactions that many people will view that you should not accept such a claim.

 

All that being said, I will often auto-accept any claim if I'm not paying attention and the claimant is a credible person.

[blackshoe]

I think that the law most pertinent here is

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.

 

Further to this, from the introduction to the laws:

Established usage has been retained in regard to “may” do (failure to do it is not wrong), “does” (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that the violation be penalized), “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized), “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), “must” do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger — just short of “must not.”

 

So doing what one "must not" do is "a serious matter indeed".

[pirate22]

To add to this post can someone advise on this problem

 

lets say i am south in relaxed or main bridge S opens 1 d--pass--1ht -- pass

then an undo request comes up from W (having already passed) what is the protocol now, who is the person to accept/reject the "Undo" is it N or is it south?

 

I presume its north's perogative,also lets assume North accepts the undo,and west now bids 1sp/2cl,this does now, cloud ones further bidding judgement,to some extent,thats why i hate undo's

what is the best procedure? regards

[blivet]

I tried to add a fast reply to this, but it didn't work. The gist of the reply was that I get it, my bad. I should have let the concession time itself out, and not accepted it with such alacrity, since it really wasn't as obvious to me as to the other players that the concession was invalid. I don't know all these laws yet, but I did have a hunch that the conceding player shouldn't be conceding, and I now know that my behavior was 'not nice'.

 

Sorry folks.

 

blivet

[JoAnneM]

What I was trying to point out is that there are different proprieties in different games and that a new player cannot be expected to know them. I think you were treated badly, and that is not good for bridge.

[blivet]

I sent a msg to the player apologizing for acceopting her concession. She graciously replied it was no big deal to her, and that she was not offended, to my great relief.

 

By the way, both of us had continued to play for several hands after the incident. I guess she wasn't mad, since she didn't quit in anger.

 

blivet

[barmar]

I'm also a poker player, and that's definitely the way such a situtaion is viewed in that game.

I believe the lesson to take from this is that the ethical standards in poker are quite different from those in bridge.

Indeed. Table talk, and trying to fool opponents with mannerisms, is an accepted part of poker proprieties. Poker is much more of a psychological game than bridge is supposed to be, although cutthroat rubber bridge can sometimes be like this (you need to know the players and what they expect).