Mechanical error

[pran]

I don't know anything that makes it illegal for me as a Director to vary a PP depending upon the outcome of an irregularity once a PP is warranted?

No, Sven, it is not illegal [despite someone earlier, Ed I think, suggesting it is]. But a lot of people, me included, think it undesirable. I believe the level of PP should depend on the level of offence, not on the effect of the offence.

Don't misunderstand me. I do not automatically vary a PP according to the outcome. What I argue is to assess the estimated consequence of the irregularity as can be expected by the offender and vary the PP accordingly. And it makes a lot of difference to me when an irregularity appears to having been deliberate rather than accidental.

 

If the irregularity is likely to have only a minor effect on the result I have almost found it also to having been accidental. In such cases I very seldom impose PP other than in the form of a warning.

 

However, when the irregularity bears every sign of having been deliberate and in addition likely (in the offender's mind) to have a major effect on the result I sure stand ready to impose a much stronger PP.

 

And I shall "reserve my rights" to do just that.

 

(The description given by OP clearly IMHO fits this last alternative.)

 

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

De jure, the reason for a PP is

for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of

an adjusted score at another table.

There is no guidance in law as to when to issue a (lawful) PP, or how big to make it. Those are left to TD discretion. So legally you can do whatever you want. However, as David says, and I agree with him, the size of the PP should depend on the level of the offense, not on the TD's guess as to how much (in MPs or whatever) the player may have expected to gain by whatever action generated the need for a PP.

 

In the case in point, we have neither a complete auction nor any idea how the cards were distributed amongst the four hands, so I think it folly to assume that South expected a zero if the contract were 5NT, and an average (or better) if it was something else. Certainly he might expect that 5♠ would do better than 5NT, but that's a different thing.

 

I did say upthread

It is my view that awarding procedural penalties in an amount designed to "rectify" the score is not just bad practice, it's illegal.

I was thinking of

the director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side

and that in spirit, at least, the laws do not intend that we use PPs to "help" in rectification. I have to admit there's no specific prohibition. Maybe there should be (but that's a topic for a different thread).

[dan_ehh]

I would appreciate it if someone addressed McBruce's and my own suggestions that this is a case for L23.

[blackshoe]

I think Law 23 does apply here, but not to disallow a change of call, as Dan suggested. Rather to allow the TD to adjust the score if the change of call damages the NOS. The irregularity that leads to Law 23 is not the change of call itself, of course, it's North's actions directing South's attention to his unintended call.

[bluejak]

Perfectly normal.  A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error:

I'm pleased to see that it's now "probably a majority" rather than "about 99.9% of bridge players". However, I think you're still very wrong about the proportion of players who would deliberately do any of the things I've described.

It is probably a majority because it is a different situation. You surely do not believe that people do not act differently in different situations? I believe that when a person makes a strange bid 99.9% of people call over it without any thought of asking whether he meant it. I believe that when a player shows you his cards a large number, probably a majority, will look. Two totally different situations.

 

Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

Even if you are right about this, so what? A contemptible action still merits contempt, regardless of how many other people would take the same action.

I do not believe taking advantage of your opponents' mistakes is really a matter for contempt.

[bluejak]

I think Law 23 does apply here, but not to disallow a change of call, as Dan suggested. Rather to allow the TD to adjust the score if the change of call damages the NOS. The irregularity that leads to Law 23 is not the change of call itself, of course, it's North's actions directing South's attention to his unintended call.

It is possible, I suppose, but it seems a reach. Law 23 is generally used for a perfectly normal infraction which everyone makes all the time, but special circumstances apply and Law 23 kicks in. Here we have an attempt to communicate with partner, which does not feel the same to me at all.

[gnasher]

I believe that when a person makes a strange bid 99.9% of people call over it without any thought of asking whether he meant it.

But we're talking about a situation where

North bid 5NT, obviously intending to bid 5♠.

To make absolutely sure that I hadn't misunderstood the situation you described, I asked:

As I understand your description of the situation, it's obvious to everybody except North that 5NT was a mechanical error.  Is that correct?

So, unless we've been talking at cross purposes for then past twenty posts, we're not talking about something East thinks is a "strange bid"; we're talking about something that East knows, or is almost certain, is a mechanical error. The action I have been discussing is East's bidding over what he believes to be a mechanical error. If East didn't think it was a mechanical error, or just didn't think at all, of course I wouldn't criticise him.

 

Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

Even if you are right about this, so what? A contemptible action still merits contempt, regardless of how many other people would take the same action.

I do not believe taking advantage of your opponents' mistakes is really a matter for contempt.

Yes, we know that. My point was that the argument "Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed." is spurious. The morality of a particular action is not dependent on the number of people who would take that action.

 

Anyway, this talk of ethics is getting away from my original point, which was this: I play bridge because I like to win at bridge. Somebody who intentionally takes advantage of an opponent's mechanical error, or intentionally looks at a dropped card, plays bridge because they like to win. I don't think I would have much in common with such a person.

[Trinidad]

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

 

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

 

 

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario. I really hope you're not going to say that each of these is also a normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Perfectly normal. A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error: you believe that some errors and not others should be taken advantage of. While I do not object to you acting the way you seem to believe, of course, I doubt that you can have any legitimate complaint against the people who do not. It is the subject I keep hammering away at: personal/active ethics against legal ethics. Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

Fortunately, my experience is that these personal ethics are almost universally followed. I feel sorry for you if you are submersed in a culture where these personal ethics are "nowhere near universally followed". (Maybe it is the TD bias: a TD usually sees the troubles when he is called. It is a very rare occurance that a player calls the TD to express how pleasant the oppponents were.)

 

If I would be in a position where these personal ethics were not almost universally followed, I would stop playing bridge. If there would be a "lot of people, probably a majority that see no problem" with these actions, I would leave the planet.

 

Ethics in bridge go beyond the bridge law book, just like ethics in life go beyond the law books. After all, bridge is part of life.

 

Rik

[iviehoff]

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

 

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

 

- An opponent drops a card on the floor, face-up but in a position where only I can see it. I look at it rather than looking away.

 

- An opponent reaches for the bidding box when it's not his turn. I don't try to stop him, because I want to benefit from a bid out of turn.

 

- An opponent seems to think that he won the last trick, whereas in fact I won it. It looks as though he's about to lead to the next trick. I don't warn him that he's not on lead, because I want to benefit from a lead out of turn. [Edit: my first version of this probably wasn't legal, so I changed it.]

 

I believe that these are all legal (though I'm prepared to be corrected).

 

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario.

An important difference in some of the cases you mention here, especially the 3rd and 4th, is that under Law 9A3 a player (with some exceptions) may attempt to prevent an irregularity. So the law gives you explicit permission to say something.

 

Or else saying something, although strictly extraneous, is harmless. I have the following conversation frequently. "I suggest you hold your cards up." "Sorry." "I think you mean 'thank you'. "

 

In contrast, in the case of another player's possible mechanical error, it is unwise to speak, because you just can't be sure what has happened. If you are wrong, you may end up on the wrong side of an adjustment because of the damage caused by your extraneous comment.

[dan_ehh]

I don't think this was the original topic of the thread, but since so much has been said already, I would like to add my two cents:

 

I personally avert my eyes when someone shows me their cards, and also tell them to "hold their cards back", and I would never try to look at a dropped card. However, I act like this because of my personal desire not to win this way, and not because I think it is, or should be, a universally accepted moral.

 

Trinidad wrote:

Ethics in bridge go beyond the bridge law book, just like ethics in life go beyond the law books. After all, bridge is part of life.

It is my belief that Ethics and Bridge are two terms completely unrelated to each other. Ethics apply in real life, and Bridge is a game. Human beings require a set of moral rules to live by, because no one has a rule book for life (the penal code is a beginning but is insufficient).

In a game, however, we have a set of clear rules which constitute the game, and as long as we are acting within the boundaries of these rules, we are not doing anything wrong.

 

gnasher wrote:

The morality of a particular action is not dependent on the number of people who would take that action.

This is true, but I do not think it has any bearing on our game. I will even give you an example.

As an online TD, I often encounter this claim: "1♥ was a misclick? Then he should have informed us about it", to which I reply that there is no lawful obligation to do so. Often another message arrives, saying "perhaps not, but I would have, because that is the ethical thing to do".

Different people have different opinions as to how the game SHOULD be played.

I don't think exploiting your opponents' mistake (mechanical or not) is anything to be frowned upon.

 

What do you think about the rare case when you get to make a grand slam missing the trump ace because someone revokes? Revoking is often a mechanical error in the sense that the revoker does not realize he did not follow suit until it is too late.

[bluejak]

I believe that when a person makes a strange bid 99.9% of people call over it without any thought of asking whether he meant it.

But we're talking about a situation where

North bid 5NT, obviously intending to bid 5♠.

To make absolutely sure that I hadn't misunderstood the situation you described, I asked:

As I understand your description of the situation, it's obvious to everybody except North that 5NT was a mechanical error.  Is that correct?

So, unless we've been talking at cross purposes for then past twenty posts, we're not talking about something East thinks is a "strange bid"; we're talking about something that East knows, or is almost certain, is a mechanical error. The action I have been discussing is East's bidding over what he believes to be a mechanical error. If East didn't think it was a mechanical error, or just didn't think at all, of course I wouldn't criticise him.

Ok, but I still think that this is not a position where players will tell their opponent that he has done the wrong thing. They will not know whether it is legal to do so - I am not sure it is legal - and I still do not believe players will do anything but play on. I still think the situation is totally dissimilar from seeing an opponent's hand that has been presented to you.

 

I really did understand what I was answering, and still think it a strange bid. I merely tried a shortcut - and then have to defend and show that I mean what I said. Perhaps I shall write it all out next time, which will be a pity.

 

Anyway, this talk of ethics is getting away from my original point, which was this:  I play bridge because I like to win at bridge.  Somebody who intentionally takes advantage of an opponent's mechanical error, or intentionally looks at a dropped card, plays bridge because they like to win.  I don't think I would have much in common with such a person.

Such a player likes to win at bridge. You have different personal ethics from him, and maybe you do not want to be like him, but he is still playing bridge and trying to win at bridge.

 

Fortunately, my experience is that these personal ethics are almost universally followed. I feel sorry for you if you are submersed in a culture where these personal ethics are "nowhere near universally followed". (Maybe it is the TD bias: a TD usually sees the troubles when he is called. It is a very rare occurance that a player calls the TD to express how pleasant the oppponents were.)

I play an amazing amount of bridge nowadays, far, far more than almost any other TD in England, and my experiences of players and their ethical views and so on is based on playing not as a TD where these type of problems are very rare. Furthermore I do not direct nearly as much as I would like. I am always looking for new opportunities, especially outside England/Wales.

[gnasher]

I really did understand what I was answering, and still think it a strange bid.  I merely tried a shortcut - and then have to defend and show that I mean what I said.  Perhaps I shall write it all out next time, which will be a pity.

 

Sorry. It hadn't occurred to me that anyone would write "strange bid" when they meant "mechanical error". And whilst it's undeniably more concise, in that it is six letters shorter, I'm unconvinced that the benefit justifies the potential for misunderstanding.

[bluejak]

I did not mean mechanical error. When opponents are raising spades, 5NT is a strange bid, and I would expect players to bid over it automatically without considering. Now, you say it is obviously a mechanical error, fair enough, it said so in the OP, but it does not matter. When an opponent makes a strange bid of this or any other sort, 99.9% of opponents bid over it, they do not ask whether it is a mechanical error. When an opponent shows you his hand, some people look, but many do not, so it is considerably fewer than 99.9% and it is a completely different situation.

[barmar]

What do you think about the rare case when you get to make a grand slam missing the trump ace because someone revokes? Revoking is often a mechanical error in the sense that the revoker does not realize he did not follow suit until it is too late.

My feeling is that there are some errors that are considered "part of the game". Something that most of these have in common is that there are laws that specifically cover them. If there's a law, you don't have to apply your personal morals to it, you just have to do what the law says. This suggests that it's acceptable to take advantage of such errors as revokes, penalty cards, leads out of turn, and insufficient bids -- the fact that the lawmakers went into such detail to address them indicates that players shouldn't try to deal with them personally.

 

It is my belief that Ethics and Bridge are two terms completely unrelated to each other. Ethics apply in real life, and Bridge is a game. Human beings require a set of moral rules to live by, because no one has a rule book for life (the penal code is a beginning but is insufficient).

In a game, however, we have a set of clear rules which constitute the game, and as long as we are acting within the boundaries of these rules, we are not doing anything wrong.

Suppose professional tennis didn't have a rule saying that you could be punished for cursing a line judge. Would we then say that Serena Williams' behavior in the US Open was OK, because it was in the context of a game, not real life?

 

I believe that games are played within real life, and morals still apply. There may be situations where the game rules specifically contradict normal morals (otherwise, you couldn't have sports like boxing). But where the game rules are silent or ambiguous, morality can help you decide how to behave.

[dan_ehh]

What do you think about the rare case when you get to make a grand slam missing the trump ace because someone revokes? Revoking is often a mechanical error in the sense that the revoker does not realize he did not follow suit until it is too late.

My feeling is that there are some errors that are considered "part of the game".

Why are errors of one kind considered "part of the game" while errors of another kind are not? And more importantly - who gets to decide which error belongs to which kind? Why aren't all errors "part of the game"?

 

Suppose professional tennis didn't have a rule saying that you could be punished for cursing a line judge.  Would we then say that Serena Williams' behavior in the US Open was OK, because it was in the context of a game, not real life?

Sorry, but this is a very bad analogy. The manner in which a player speaks to another player/the umpire/the director is not part of the game, it is just part of regular human interaction. And yes, I am aware of the part in the Bridge Laws referring to conduct and etiquette, and while I don't mind it, I find it unnecessary.

I do agree that morals still apply while playing the game, but when you are playing a game, the moral you should be following is "I have agreed/promised/contracted to play by the rules of this game and so I should do that".

 

where the game rules are silent or ambiguous, morality can help you decide how to behave.

I strongly disagree. If the rules are silent it means you don't have to do it. If they are ambiguous, well, that's a problem in them, but I still don't think morality should come into the picture, seeing as the concept of morality is a very fluid one.

 

Lastly, I will mention L72A which specifically addresses "lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws" (emphasis added). I don't know what exactly was meant by the author(s) of this specific article, but it sounds to me as though they meant to emphasize the fact that these are the complete laws and nothing outside is required.

[campboy]

Why are errors of one kind considered "part of the game" while errors of another kind are not? And more importantly - who gets to decide which error belongs to which kind? Why aren't all errors "part of the game"?

Is getting lost on the way to the venue and missing the first session "part of the game"? It is certainly an error. But bridge is not a test of navigation, any more than it is a test of being able to hold your cards without dropping them.

 

"The game" is about making calls and plays. Errors in making calls and plays, whether they are infractions of law or just poor bridge, are part of the game.

[campboy]

It has occurred to me that there is a very simple way to see if an error is "part of the game". Is the player allowed to get help from outside the game to avoid making it? A disabled player can have someone else hold and play his cards, but you can't ask a kibitzer to stop you bidding out of turn.

[jeremy69]

Is getting lost on the way to the venue and missing the first session "part of the game"?

 

It's likely to be part of the score with late play penalties coming into play. Part of the game involves being at the table ready to participate at the appointed time.

[dan_ehh]

Why are errors of one kind considered "part of the game" while errors of another kind are not? And more importantly - who gets to decide which error belongs to which kind? Why aren't all errors "part of the game"?

Is getting lost on the way to the venue and missing the first session "part of the game"? It is certainly an error. But bridge is not a test of navigation, any more than it is a test of being able to hold your cards without dropping them.

 

"The game" is about making calls and plays. Errors in making calls and plays, whether they are infractions of law or just poor bridge, are part of the game.

The discussed issue is whether people are contemptible for trying to profit from an error made by the opponents. No one profits from you being late for the game, the only effect it has on the score is that you get penalized.

 

It has occurred to me that there is a very simple way to see if an error is "part of the game". Is the player allowed to get help from outside the game to avoid making it? A disabled player can have someone else hold and play his cards, but you can't ask a kibitzer to stop you bidding out of turn.

I don't have any problem with an outsider assisting a disabled person to hold the cards, but what if the person assisting drops the cards? The point is that mechanical errors will always occur, and trying to artificially separate them from the game using "ethics" is wrong.

 

I have just remembered an unfortunate example from my own past: I was declaring a contract and after cashing my top tricks, I was in the middle of a cross ruff. I was young(er) and foolish(er) (is that a word?) and so I was playing very fast, and accidentally pulled the wrong card from my hand, intending to ruff it in dummy. A moment later I realized this was actually a trump so it could not be ruffed in dummy. I asked the opponents if I could take it back and they said no. I called the director, and showed him my hand, making it very clear that this was a mechanical error and that I was in the middle of a cross ruff, but he still didn't let me take it back, because the rules say the card is played. Unlucky, but that is the game. Should my opponents be ashamed of themselves? I don't think so.

[campboy]

The discussed issue is whether people are contemptible for trying to profit from an error made by the opponents. No one profits from you being late for the game, the only effect it has on the score is that you get penalized.

Well, as I hope my previous posts made clear, I do not think anyone is "contemptible" for trying to legally profit from an opponent's error, whether or not I would do the same myself.

 

However, in my last couple of posts I wasn't commenting on the main issue. You asked the difference between errors which are "part of the game" and those which aren't. I think the distinction between the two is clear.

 

Incidentally, your opponents get average+ on any boards you miss, so yes, they do profit.

[bluejak]

No one profits from you being late for the game, the only effect it has on the score is that you get penalized.

Try telling that to Robson, who got a PP of 6 imps [actually, two PPs of 3 imps each] after winning a k/o match by 5 imps.

 

Of course penalties lead to other contestants benefiting. They would be pretty pointless otherwise.

[bluejak]

Having considered the matter, this is the reply sent to my correspondent. I do not think it actually follows what was decided here!

 

Dear Xxxxxx

 

I am sorry that it has taken some time to reply but opinions on your

problem differ. However, having listened to advice, I have decided this

is the effects of the Laws.

 

When a player makes a mechanical error he is permitted to change it

under Law 25A so long as there is no pause for thought and his partner

has not subsequently called.

 

It is accepted that the pause for thought is from the realisation of

the error, which means in practice this part of the law is hardly ever

relevant and not in this case where he attempted to change it once he

realised.

 

It is also accepted that it does not matter if the player's

realisation is because of partner's actions that would normally be

unauthorised, so if he realises he has made the wrong call because of

partner's alert he is allowed to change it.

 

That means that he is allowed to change it because of his partner's

antics on this hand: a change is legal under Law 25A.

 

However, Law 73A1 reads:

 

LAW 73: COMMUNICATION

A. Appropriate Communication between Partners

1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be

effected only by means of calls and plays.

 

Also, Law 73B1 reads:

 

LAW 73: COMMUNICATION

B. Inappropriate Communication between Partners

1. Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which

calls or plays are made, extraneous remarks or gestures, questions asked

or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not

given to them.

 

I consider that while the South player has done nothing wrong, and is

allowed to change his call, the North player has communicated with him

illegally. So I would rule he is in breach of those two Laws I have

quoted and I would adjust the score back under Law 12A1 at the end to

5NT doubled making however many seems appropriate, which I believe to be

the score likely obtained without the illegal communication.