Psychs

[1eyedjack]

If it can be managed I would have thought that the obvious solution to lawful dumping is to create a format in which it can never be beneficial. I expect that has already been considered and dismissed as impossible?

[helene_t]

If it can be managed I would have thought that the obvious solution to lawful dumping is to create a format in which it can never be beneficial. I expect that has already been considered and dismissed as impossible?

A simple knock-out scheme solves that problem but is of course not suitable for all tourneys.

[jdonn]

If it can be managed I would have thought that the obvious solution to lawful dumping is to create a format in which it can never be beneficial.  I expect that has already been considered and dismissed as impossible?

A simple knock-out scheme solves that problem but is of course not suitable for all tourneys.

Perhaps they could do a bunch of small round robins, say of four teams each, leading to a knockout stage. I'm thinking of how the world cup does it. By keeping the round robins as small as possible, the opportunities for advantageous dumping are much fewer than in a full round robin, I think.

[JoAnneM]

Thank you, TimG, I wanted to say that but didn't know how. You did it quite well.

[onoway]

I don't care about psychs, the only ones so far which have hurt are the ones my pards have bid. Although I have no problems with sacs against games, what DOES get an emotional response from me is the deliberate bidding of a totally unattainable 6 or 7 in an effort to prevent slam contract scores, the bidder KNOWING he is going down a bunch of tricks. I know it is part of the game and I don't whine about it but it still stirs a resentful feeling that it is poor sportsmanship and the penalties for failure ought to be higher.

Holdover from rubber bridge? yes. Rational? Possibly not. But it's still there.

[NickRW]

I don't care about psychs, the only ones so far which have hurt are the ones my pards have bid. Although I have no problems with sacs against games, what DOES get an emotional response from me is the deliberate bidding of a totally unattainable 6 or 7 in an effort to prevent slam contract scores, the bidder KNOWING he is going down a bunch of tricks. I know it is part of the game and I don't whine about it but it still stirs a resentful feeling that it is poor sportsmanship and the penalties for failure ought to be higher.

Holdover from rubber bridge? yes. Rational? Possibly not. But it's still there.

This is a total thread diversion, but they put up (like 20 odd years ago or something) the nv penalties for the 4th and subsequent undertricks to 300 from 200 to discourage exactly this.

 

Playing (money, not kitchen) rubber bridge I absolutely welcome big sacrifices - some dude who wants to be parted from his cash has paid to stop me making a contract that possibly might have been off anyway - and I get to carry on playing the rubber that he has already lost. Quick way to pay off the mortgage - bring it on!

 

Nick

[blackshoe]

So what do we tell beginners about these "unwritten rules"? "There are unwritten rules to this game. I can't tell you what they are. You'll have to just learn by experience"? Pfui. If you want these unwritten rules to apply to the game, write the damn things down. :(

 

I can tell you one thing: as a director, I am not going to enforce any of these "unwritten rules", and as a player, I don't particularly care if people follow them. For myself, I may follow some and ignore others — and I better not hear any accusations of "unethical!" or "cheating!" at the table.

[Hanoi5]

Perhaps they could do a bunch of small round robins, say of four teams each, leading to a knockout stage. I'm thinking of how the world cup does it. By keeping the round robins as small as possible, the opportunities for advantageous dumping are much fewer than in a full round robin, I think.

 

This is a pretty interesting idea. And isn't the Bermuda bowl played like this? Or the bridge Olympiad? There are several groups (maybe there are too many teams/countries in each group) and then they revert to the knockout stage.

 

Of course some people will say they are always in the 'death group' (Argentina anyone?), but I thnik it's a nice idea for tournaments where dumping has become an issue.

[NickRW]

Well, it depends on numbers of course. But, as an example, you can accomodate, say, 48 teams in 8 groups of 6. The winner qualifies for the knockout. 2nd and 3rd go into a draw and play off for the remaining 8 places in the knockout. 4th, 5th and 6th get to go home - but on the one hand they are not subject to the seemingly pointless expense of turning up for just one match - and on the other hand, with 3 teams getting a chance at the last 16, there isn't much room to complain about other teams chucking games to rest a pair or whatever. If you didn't finish in the first 3 of the group you just blew it.

 

Of course nothing is perfect. Now you get moans about the seeding for the round robin - such is life.

 

Nick

[peachy]

My teacher told me, as I said, that "the ethics of the game are defined by its rules". I suppose the flaw in this is that, willy-nilly, people will apply their personal ethics to what others do, whatever anyone else says.

I think that the difference in opinion here can be summed up by the difference between

 

"the ethics of the game are defined by its rules"

 

and

 

"the ethics of the game are defined by its rules, both written and unwritten".

 

You seem to be of the opinion that only the written rules are the basis for ethics.

 

I think of ethics in the bridge sense along the lines of Merriam-Webster's (online) 3rd definition for ethics "conforming to accepted standards of conduct". So, if there is a written rule which it is accepted practice to ignore, then breaking this rule does not constitute unethical behavior. Likewise, violation of an unwritten rule can be considered unethical even if lawful.

 

In short, I don't believe the codification of the Laws of Bridge means that these are the only rules that apply to the game.

I don't believe in unwritten rules. Could you post one of them?

 

When there are rules in a game (Laws and Regulations, in bridge) and they are written down, those _are_ the rules. If there are additional rules that the majority would like to include, then whoever is in charge of making the rules should be informed/petitioned/whatever and the "unwritten" ones incorporated into the written rules before they can be considered "rules of the game". Until then, they are personal preferences or matters of personal ethics, something like that. Life is full of them, within and outside of the game of bridge.

[Lobowolf]

I don't believe in unwritten rules. Could you post one of them?

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up.

[TimG]

I don't believe in unwritten rules. Could you post one of them?

Someone has already posted one that applies to soccer.

 

For bridge, how about: when an opponent is regularly holding their cards such that you can see the faces, inform them.

[matmat]

I don't believe in unwritten rules.  Could you post one of them?

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up.

how is this, or the one about informing your opp if you see their hand, a rule? Will the TD penalize me for looking if at the card that falls on the floor? is it my responsibility to make sure that my opponents keep their cards a secret from me? so long as I don't go out of my way to see their cards, I don't believe I am breaking any rules...

[jdonn]

This thread has certainly been a useful way to learn who the bridge lawyers are.

[matmat]

This thread has certainly been a useful way to learn who the bridge lawyers are.

hey,... I'd never actually look at their cards... but to call this an unwritten rule is silly.

[jdonn]

Also for an on-topic unwritten rule, check out the second post in this thread.

[matmat]

Also for an on-topic unwritten rule, check out the second post in this thread.

i don't think that's an unwritten rule either. There are (or at least, should be) palpable consequences for breaking a rule. if you, as an expert, psych against a novice, maybe it will raise some eyebrows, maybe the TD will say something to you at the end of the session, but you will not be, in any way, directly penalized. unethical, maybe, unsporting, probably...

[jdonn]

You are getting way too caught up in the terminology. An unwritten rule is not a rule as you are using the terms.

[Cascade]

Also for an on-topic unwritten rule, check out the second post in this thread.

That is no rule unwritten or otherwise.

 

It is an attempt by a group of people to claim the moral high ground without any basis.

 

As I have pointed out it is at best patronizing.

[jdonn]

Also for an on-topic unwritten rule, check out the second post in this thread.

That is no rule unwritten or otherwise.

Because you said so?

[Cascade]

Also for an on-topic unwritten rule, check out the second post in this thread.

That is no rule unwritten or otherwise.

Because you said so?

"Director please"

 

"Cascade has broken an unwritten rule"

 

LOL

[jdonn]

You just made up a quote that no one would ever claim and LOLed yourself? Ok.

 

Of course I wouldn't call the director for such a thing, in fact I think it is inherent in the definition that the referee or director can't enforce such a thing. Punishment for breaking unwritten rules comes in other forms. Cherdanno made a good rundown of one example.

 

In the soccer example, you are right the referee couldn't to anything. But the fans of the team would be embarassed, the fans of the opposing team outraged, and probably someone of the opponents would retaliate with an ugly foul. The commentators would be understanding of the ugly foul. If anyone in the team had been in the running of a fair-play award, the betfair odds for them would drop to 0.1% within a minute. These are all signs that there is a consensus that this is unacceptable unfair behavior.

[Cascade]

You just made up a quote that no one would ever claim and LOLed yourself? Ok.

 

Of course I wouldn't call the director for such a thing, in fact I think it is inherent in the definition that the referee or director can't enforce such a thing. Punishment for breaking unwritten rules comes in other forms. Cherdanno made a good rundown of one example.

 

In the soccer example, you are right the referee couldn't to anything. But the fans of the team would be embarassed, the fans of the opposing team outraged, and probably someone of the opponents would retaliate with an ugly foul. The commentators would be understanding of the ugly foul. If anyone in the team had been in the running of a fair-play award, the betfair odds for them would drop to 0.1% within a minute. These are all signs that there is a consensus that this is unacceptable unfair behavior.

I suppose that is fair ...

 

If they are unwritten then they are unenforcable.

 

I like that.

 

What do you call these things?

 

Oh rules.

 

LOL

[jdonn]

A sea horse is not a horse either. Get over it.

[TimG]

One definition of rule is "an accepted procedure, custom, or habit". It does not have to be formalized as through bylaws or documented as Law.