Ethics Question

[kfay]

A friend of mine told me a story the other day that left me a little disconcerted.

 

He was playing against some LOLs at the local club when it seemed to him that RHO, a particulalry mean LOL, wasn't paying attention. Spades were trump and two hearts were left on board, LHO having the master in that suit. RHO had two trump left and he executed the following coup, leading from the dummy:

 

'Play the high heart.'

 

RHO duly ruffed and he overruffed, crossed to dummy (drawing the last trump) and enjoyed the long heart for an overtrick.

 

This got me to thinking. There are obviously many instances where you can try to exploit the opponents by phrasing your dummy calls in different ways; but there are equally many opportunities where, if your calls are always the same in certain situations, the opponents can exploit your limited lexicon. Is there a line?

 

It seems to me that maybe I should vary what I say if I find myself possibly giving a wire. But don't you think it's unethical to try to get an opponent to play a certain card through your language?

[Phil]

I don't have a problem these Jedi mind games. How many times have we held:

 

♣QJT9

 

♣x

 

and called for a LOW club in the hopes RHO does not pop K so we can take a ruffing finesse on the next round, or

 

 

♣QJT9

 

♣Axx

 

and called for the Queen to induce a cover?

[jdonn]

I think it's ok to always say low or high, or to always name the card, but not to switch it up and sometimes say 'low' and sometimes name the card. But it's one of those things you can't do anything about and everyone simply has to live with the choices they make.

 

Even though I feel pretty strongly I wouldn't be surprised if there is much disagreement. I've long been on record that I think it's unethical to play a card simply because you hope an opponent sees it incorrectly and thinks it's a card of the other suit of that same color. But some people seem to in fact be quite proud of pulling that one off, which seems quite awful to me. So all you can say is people view things differently.

[TylerE]

IMO: Unethical: No, Unsportsmanlike: Yes.

[ArtK78]

I have no problem at all with what was done. You have to designate a card from dummy and your partner did so. The fact that RHO was not paying attention and did not realize that the "high heart" was not the master heart is not your or your partner's problem - it is RHO's problem. I find the play to be neither unethical nor unsportsmanlike.

 

I have not been a part of any discussion concerning deliberately varying the manner in which one designates a card to be played from dummy, nor have I seen any discussion of such a "tactic" in the bridge literature. As long as the designation of a card from dummy is a legal designation, and is done without any undue emphasis or unusual tempo, I see no problem - legal, ethical, or otherwise.

 

Josh's suggestion that it may be unethical to play a card in the hope that an opponent will see it as something else (a color coup, for example - ♣Q led from dummy - RHO, who is void in clubs, "follows" with the ♠K hoping to induce the play of the ♣A by declarer) is probably in a gray area. It is a legal play and if done in tempo without any particular emphasis is probably more in the area of gamesmanship than unsportsmanlike or unethical behavior. But I can see how it might bother someone.

[cherdanno]

I think it's ok to always say low or high, or to always name the card, but not to switch it up and sometimes say 'low' and sometimes name the card. But it's one of those things you can't do anything about and everyone simply has to live with the choices they make.

 

Even though I feel pretty strongly I wouldn't be surprised if there is much disagreement. I've long been on record that I think it's unethical to play a card simply because you hope an opponent sees it incorrectly and thinks it's a card of the other suit of that same color. But some people seem to in fact be quite proud of pulling that one off, which seems quite awful to me. So all you can say is people view things differently.

Agree with 1, disagree with 2 (I wouldn't do it but I don't mind it). I think Kevin's story would be clearly unethical if declarer had said "cash the hearts" or s.th. like that.

[jdonn]

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

 

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

[cherdanno]

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

 

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

I was assuming people were just trying to exploit their opponent's failure to pay attention. Trying the colour coup against someone with bad eyesight indeed is unethical (both in the bidge and the common sense of the word).

[pooltuna]

I think it's ok to always say low or high, or to always name the card, but not to switch it up and sometimes say 'low' and sometimes name the card. But it's one of those things you can't do anything about and everyone simply has to live with the choices they make.

 

Even though I feel pretty strongly I wouldn't be surprised if there is much disagreement. I've long been on record that I think it's unethical to play a card simply because you hope an opponent sees it incorrectly and thinks it's a card of the other suit of that same color. But some people seem to in fact be quite proud of pulling that one off, which seems quite awful to me. So all you can say is people view things differently.

So in the Josh universe we are required to discard an opposite colored suit? :unsure:

[pooltuna]

IMO: Unethical: No, Unsportsmanlike: Yes.

So in the Tyler universe we unsportsmanlike if we require the opponents to "PAY ATTENTION"? :unsure:

[pooltuna]

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

 

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

Okay Josh let's try this one. You are in a long team match playing vs some near and octogenarians. You are in a contract where you already know exactly how many tricks you are going to take but also know that the opponents can't tell exactly what is going on. Do you play out the hand to try to tire them out so that their endurance will be at the lowest for the end of the match or are you ethically bound to claim? :unsure:

[jdonn]

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

 

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

I was assuming people were just trying to exploit their opponent's failure to pay attention. Trying the colour coup against someone with bad eyesight indeed is unethical (both in the bidge and the common sense of the word).

Now we have to be judges of the eyesight of the opponents to be ethical?

 

What do you think of the example I gave? It could also catch someone with good hearing who isn't paying very close attention.

[jdonn]

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

 

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

Okay Josh let's try this one. You are in a long team match playing vs some near and octogenarians. You are in a contract where you already know exactly how many tricks you are going to take but also know that the opponents can't tell exactly what is going on. Do you play out the hand to try to tire them out so that their endurance will be at the lowest for the end of the match or are you ethically bound to claim? :unsure:

Thank you for (not?) answering my question?

 

In your example you should claim. You should not try to take advantage of the health of your opponents in any of these cases.

 

And in the Josh world you get to discard whatever you think is the best bridge play but not to consider what it may appear as visually to opponents. It's intent that matters.

[pooltuna]

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

 

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

Thank you for (not?) answering my question?

Frankly it would never have occurred to me. But then again that doesn't stop the opponent from waiting to play until dummy detaches it from the board. Frankly I don't think physical limitations is an excuse for misplay if you can't handle them you shouldn't be playing and that includes stamina [not that I would play out the hand as I usually try to end the hand ASAP]

[cherdanno]

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

 

I don't see the difference between that and thinking to yourself "I'll play a club since hopefully he will see a spade." One just takes advantage of bad hearing and the other of bad eyesight. Yet when I have posed this question to people in the past, I have many cases of people thinking the first one is dispicible and the second one is a perfectly great strategy.

I was assuming people were just trying to exploit their opponent's failure to pay attention. Trying the colour coup against someone with bad eyesight indeed is unethical (both in the bidge and the common sense of the word).

Now we have to be judges of the eyesight of the opponents to be ethical?

 

What do you think of the example I gave? It could also catch someone with good hearing who isn't paying very close attention.

I don't remember who said this somewhere else in the thread:

It's intent that matters.

[ArtK78]

Okay Josh let's try this one. You are in a long team match playing vs some near and octogenarians. You are in a contract where you already know exactly how many tricks you are going to take but also know that the opponents can't tell exactly what is going on. Do you play out the hand to try to tire them out so that their endurance will be at the lowest for the end of the match or are you ethically bound to claim? :unsure:

Many years ago a friend of mine was playing in a Spingold match. He was about 22 years old (I was only a year or two older at the time). He related to me about the advice that he received from a bridge acquaintence of his. The advice was to never claim - play every hand out no matter how trivial the play of the hand. In that way, the opponents would have to expend all of their energy on defense of non-existent problems and it would tire them out.

 

Sure enough, my friend's team won against a favored (not a top) team.

 

It was still early in my bridge life when this happened. A while later I found out that this was unethical - that a player is under an ethical obligation to curtail play when the result is a certainty. Forcing your opponents to defend against non-existent problems is unethical. Unless I am mistaken, this is found in the proprieties - it is not a matter of law, but it is considered to be absolutely wrong.

[jdonn]

I just can't get it Arend. So after the session you can say to yourself "it was ok that I fooled him, but not ok to fool her, and for that guy I thought it would have been ok to fool him but I was mistaken at the time about the nature of his health, oh well accidents happen." This is much like the earlier discussion of computer bridge where I argued people are wrongly equating the cards as part of the game. There is no reason in bridge that cards should look similarly to each other, or sound that way, it's simply how they are as a practical matter since they have always been that way and people think they are nice to look at. As such I don't think one should take advantage of those aspects as a strategy to win at bridge.

 

Nothing is wrong with taking advantage of someone not paying attention through methods like discarding down to a singleton king before you think he is watching your discards, or discarding an ace from A7 when the only other card left is a 4 since you think he didn't pay attention to whether the 7 was played. But I can't accept taking advantage of a club looking like a spade.

 

I probably should leave this thread now given pooltuna's dispicible comment about people with physical limitations, as I couldn't give it a fair reply without offering up comparisons that appear offensive or otherwise making comments that would probably get me warned.

[Phil]

Suppose you hold A82 in dummy and Q3 in hand, are leading one off dummy and would prefer RHO to duck holding the king. What do people think of calling "eight" simply because it sounds like "ace" and you hope RHO will hear you incorrectly?

Pretty sure the Ace - Eight designations let the opponent correct their play if they mishear you. A rules guru can cite chapter and verse here.

[RMB1]

Incomplete designation in calling for cards from dummy (e.g. "high", "low") are infractions.

• Law 46 A: "... declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank ...".
  
• Introduction: '... "should" do (failure to do so is an infraction ...)'.
  

I think that trying to gain an advantage by committing an infraction is unethical.

 

Robin

[ArtK78]

Incomplete designation in calling for cards from dummy (e.g. "high", "low") are infractions.  

• 
   
   
  
• Law 46 A: "... declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank ...".
   
   
  
• Introduction: '... "should" do (failure to do so is an infraction ...)'.
   
   
  

I think that trying to gain an advantage by committing an infraction is unethical. 

 

Robin

Before you jump to a conclusion about the commission of an infraction, you should quote the ENTIRE law, not just a snippet that seems to support your conclusion. Here is Paragraph B of Law 46:

 

B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call of a Card

 

In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply, except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible:

 

1. (a) If declarer in playing from dummy calls “high”, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the highest card.

 

(b ) If he directs dummy to “win” the trick he is deemed to have called the lowest card that it is known will win the trick.

 

(c ) If he calls “low”, or words of like meaning, he is deemed to have called the lowest card.

 

2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated.

 

3. If declarer designates a rank but not a suit

(a) In leading, declarer is deemed to have continued the suit in which dummy won the preceding trick, provided there is a card of the designated rank in that suit.

 

(b ) In all other cases declarer must play a card from dummy of the designated rank if he can legally do so. If there are two or more such cards that can be legally played, declarer must designate which is intended.

 

4. If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy, the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card.

 

5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying “play anything” or words of like meaning), either defender may designate the play from dummy.

 

Furthermore, the quote from the introduction to the laws reads as follows:

 

"...'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),..."

 

So, while you may be technically correct that the call for a "high" card or a "low" card from dummy is an infraction, it is an infraction that is corrected by the interpretation provided in Law 46B 1. and is not subject to penalty.

[gnasher]

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from ...

prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

These are part of the Laws. That makes most of the things discussed in this thread illegal. If you knowingly break the Laws with the intention of gaining an advantage, you're cheating.

 

Pretty sure the Ace - Eight designations let the opponent correct their play if they mishear you. A rules guru can cite chapter and verse here.

I'm not a rules guru, but I believe that the rules are:

- If dummy mishears and plays the wrong card, and a defender plays before the error is corrected, the defender can correct it. The information from the withdrawn card is authorised to the other defender, and unauthorised to declarer.

- If a defender mishears and plays out of turn, he's stuck with his choice. And quite right too.

 

Here is Paragraph B of Law 46:

That deals with what should take place following the infraction of an incomplete designation. It doesn't make the incomplete designation any less of an infraction.

 

Furthermore, the quote from the introduction to the laws reads as follows:

 

"...'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),..."

 

So, while you may be technically correct that the call for a "high" card or a "low" card from dummy is an infraction, it is an infraction that is corrected by the interpretation provided in Law 46B 1. and is not subject to penalty.

"Not often penalized" does not mean the same as "not subject to penalty". If you intentionally commit an infraction for the purpose of gaining an advantage, you're cheating, and in any sane jurisdiction you will be punished accordingly.

[ArtK78]

Furthermore, the quote from the introduction to the laws reads as follows:

 

"...'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),..."

 

So, while you may be technically correct that the call for a "high" card or a "low" card from dummy is an infraction, it is an infraction that is corrected by the interpretation provided in Law 46B 1. and is not subject to penalty.

"Not often penalized" does not mean the same as "not subject to penalty". If you intentionally commit an infraction for the purpose of gaining an advantage, you're cheating, and in any sane jurisdiction you will be punished accordingly.

Given that 99.9% of all players will occasionally call for a "high club" or a "low heart" or a "heart" from dummy without any intention to "cheat," I object to your characterization of the intentional commission of an "infraction" as "cheating."

 

And I understand that you have qualified your comment with "for the purpose of gaining an advantage," but I cannot see how it is possible that such a designation of a card can possibly gain an advantage (notwithstanding the original post in this thread).

[gnasher]

Given that 99.9% of all players will occasionally call for a "high club" or a "low heart" or a "heart" from dummy without any intention to "cheat," I object to your characterization of the intentional commission of an "infraction" as "cheating."

 

I didn't. As you acknowledge in your next paragraph, I very explicitly said " If you intentionally commit an infraction for the purpose of gaining an advantage, you're cheating".

 

Is this really so hard to understand? If you say "high club" because you feel like it, you're committing a trivial and socially acceptable breach of the rules. If you say "high club" in order to influence an opponent's play, and you know that it's against the rules, you're cheating.

 

If you say it in order to influence an opponent's play, but you don't know that it's against the rules, you're not cheating, but you require education and your score may require adjustment.

 

And I understand that you have qualified your comment with "for the purpose of gaining an advantage,"  but I cannot see how it is possible that such a designation of a card can possibly gain an advantage (notwithstanding the original post in this thread).

Then you will never suffer from this problem. kfay, on the other hand, believes that he can gain such an advantage, and if he now tried to do so he would (assuming that he now understands what the rules say), be cheating.

[pooltuna]

I just can't get it Arend. So after the session you can say to yourself "it was ok that I fooled him, but not ok to fool her, and for that guy I thought it would have been ok to fool him but I was mistaken at the time about the nature of his health, oh well accidents happen." This is much like the earlier discussion of computer bridge where I argued people are wrongly equating the cards as part of the game. There is no reason in bridge that cards should look similarly to each other, or sound that way, it's simply how they are as a practical matter since they have always been that way and people think they are nice to look at. As such I don't think one should take advantage of those aspects as a strategy to win at bridge.

 

Nothing is wrong with taking advantage of someone not paying attention through methods like discarding down to a singleton king before you think he is watching your discards, or discarding an ace from A7 when the only other card left is a 4 since you think he didn't pay attention to whether the 7 was played. But I can't accept taking advantage of a club looking like a spade.

 

I probably should leave this thread now given pooltuna's dispicible comment about people with physical limitations, as I couldn't give it a fair reply without offering up comparisons that appear offensive or otherwise making comments that would probably get me warned.

treating opponents with physical ailments in a different manner than you would treat other opponents is usually considered by same as insulting

[barmar]

Since this "infraction" is so common, it's true that it would practically never result in a penalty on its own. It also seems unlikely that a player would be able to tell that declarer had used an incomplete designature for the purpose of gaining an advantage. About the only way I think he could be caught would be if he bragged about it afterward (as he apparently did to the OP).