Ethics Question

[RMB1]

The OP asked if this was unethical, not if it would result in a penalty.

 

Robin

[kfay]

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).

Not sure if people understand the full story here. Like myself, I think my friend often designates cards as 'top heart' or 'heart.' The former meaning the highest rank, the latter meaning the lowest.

 

In this intance he said 'Play the high heart' emphasis on THE! to give the impression that it was, in fact, high. It wasn't just a nonchalant way of calling for the card.

 

Anyway, maybe it's not unethical. It just struck me as such but if people don't think so...

[barmar]

It seems to me that an opponent would have to be really out of it for the distinction between "a high heart" and "the high heart" to fool him. And it would require a declarer with incredible table sense to realize that this coup would work. But I guess he doesn't really have to know it will work -- if it doesn't, he's no worse off than if he hadn't tried it.

 

What I had trouble following in the original story was how declarer got back to dummy. The post started out saying that dummy had two hearts, but I guess it also had a high trump that wasn't mentioned (but implied when you said that crossing to dummy drew the last trump).

[mikeh]

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.

I couldn't express my feelings any better than this.

[TimG]

In this instance he said 'Play the high heart' emphasis on THE! to give the impression that it was, in fact, high. It wasn't just a nonchalant way of calling for the card.

This seems to me to be blatantly unethical.

[Jlall]

So is calling for the jack in hopes that they cover it wrong when you have JT9 in dummy? Or KJT in dummy and I call for the jack hoping they play the queen? What if I have KJT in dummy and Axxxx in my hand and no entry so I call for the ten or low hoping they duck and I can take 5 tricks?

 

I know I do stuff like this sometimes, I will def stop doing it of course if it is wrong/cheating even though everyone I know will also do this. FWIW I never thought it was against the rules or even unethical.

[Echognome]

I think there are definitely gradations here and making an unnecessary emphasis crosses the line. Compare the following statements:

 

 

1. "Play the top heart winner"

2. "Play the high heart"

3. "Play a top heart"

4. "Play a high heart"

5. "Play the heart ten"

 

I don't think it's right if you purposely vary your speech to gain an advantage. I think it's perfectly legitimate to play different spot cards or honor cards for a psychological advantage, but view that as entirely different as varying your speech in calling for the same card. To me, that is the difference between something being ethical and unethical.

 

If you call for different cards with touching honors, say you hold JT9 and call:

 

a. "heart jack"

b. "heart ten"

c. "heart nine"

 

There is simply no issue.

[mikeh]

So is calling for the jack in hopes that they cover it wrong when you have JT9 in dummy? Or KJT in dummy and I call for the jack hoping they play the queen? What if I have KJT in dummy and Axxxx in my hand and no entry so I call for the ten or low hoping they duck and I can take 5 tricks?

 

I know I do stuff like this sometimes, I will def stop doing it of course if it is wrong/cheating even though everyone I know will also do this. FWIW I never thought it was against the rules or even unethical.

No: you are, in specifying the card to be played, in complete compliance with the law. However, if, knowing that RHO was half-asleep and that the Q was missing, and held by RHO, you said: 'cash the top heart', hoping that RHO would ruff the card you have just, falsely, described as a winner, then that would be cheating.... and calling for the 'high' heart when knowing that you are supposed to call for the jack, and when you do so INTENDING to catch the half-asleep opp...that's indistinguishable, in my view, in ethical terms, from the more blatant reference to 'cashing' the top heart.

 

Calling for the 'high' heart with no intent to mislead, perhaps from laziness, or habit, does not constitute cheating. Since this question of intent makes cheating almost impossible to prove in these situations, in my view ethical players should and in my experience do strain to call for cards by spot or rank unless it is clear to all at the table that there is no issue... as in both opps are known to be void... or dummy has either a stiff or a solid sequence.

[blackshoe]

If the question is one of a player who wishes to be ethical, the answer is simple: always call for cards from dummy in the manner specified in Law 46A.

[Jlall]

No: you are, in specifying the card to be played, in complete compliance with the law.

Ok. I would obviously never say "cash the high heart." I do sometimes say top heart rather than calling for the exact card, pretty sure this is random. I routinely just say "heart" if I want the lowest one.

[JoAnneM]

I doubt that the person that we purposely place under the strongest light in the room because of his eye disease is insulted because of our consideration.

 

I doubt that the lady that has her cards pre-sorted for her by the previous player because of her failing eyesight feels insulted. She actually wouldn't be able to play without this extra help. We also say our bids out loud and announce our plays vocally.

 

I actually don't know of any player who has failing eyesight or hearing who was insulted by receiving some accommodation at the table.

 

And if I thought that anyone was taking advantage of these people by playing to their handicaps - well, I wouldn't want to be in the same club with them.

 

On another subject in this thread, somewhere I read that intentionally discarding a same color card, hoping to cause the opponent to miscount, is illegal. Can't remember where I saw it.

[ggwhiz]

I can't believe anyone thinks this "gamesmanship" (original example, not Jlall or others) is remotely acceptable. Not unethical, perhaps and well debated here BUT......

 

There are so many reasons that Bridge has never made it as a spectator sport and I think this kind of action is a big one, not to mention the rookies that quit the game shortly after playing in their first stratified events.

[matmat]

I can't believe anyone thinks this "gamesmanship" (original example, not Jlall or others) is remotely acceptable. Not unethical, perhaps and well debated here BUT......

 

There are so many reasons that Bridge has never made it as a spectator sport and I think this kind of action is a big one, not to mention the rookies that quit the game shortly after playing in their first stratified events.

sorry. i don't get it. if it is not unethical or illegal, what's wrong with it?

[gnasher]

Ok. I would obviously never say "cash the high heart." I do sometimes say top heart rather than calling for the exact card, pretty sure this is random. I routinely just say "heart" if I want the lowest one.

Randomly varying how you call for a card is technically illegal, but also harmless and acceptable to just about everybody. That's completely different from varying how you call for a card in order to gain an advantage.

[gnasher]

I can't believe anyone thinks this "gamesmanship" (original example, not Jlall or others) is remotely acceptable.  Not unethical, perhaps and well debated here BUT......

 

There are so many reasons that Bridge has never made it as a spectator sport and I think this kind of action is a big one, not to mention the rookies that quit the game shortly after playing in their first stratified events.

sorry. i don't get it. if it is not unethical or illegal, what's wrong with it?

The example in the original post is both unethical and illegal. I've quoted the laws that make it illegal.

[blackshoe]

The example in the original post is both unethical and illegal. I've quoted the laws that make it illegal.

You quoted a couple of laws, some of which arguably have nothing to do with the action in question. You missed this one though:

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

"Must not" is the strongest prohibition in the laws. Since failure to uniformly call for cards by naming the denomination and rank of the card is an infraction of Law 46A, Law 72B1 would apply to the scenario in the OP. To me, that puts paid to any argument that doing so is "okay".

[ggwhiz]

sorry. i don't get it. if it is not unethical or illegal, what's wrong with it?

 

I don't agree that it is not unethical and if it's not illegal it should be. Keep chasing away the Flight B and C players like this and you can start holding tournaments in a phone booth.

 

Eight trips to the mound in one inning of the World Series is legal but greatly harms the game. MLB will deal with that in the off-season but the Bridge World has never been able to act quickly or comprehensively enough. It's up to the players.

[hanp]

How many of you have ever tried to gain an advantage by calling for a card from dummy, knowing that you were in hand? If you saw somebody do it, would you find it funny, disgusting, or a bit of both? Does it matter if the opponents are LOLs or Bermuda Bowl winners?

[helene_t]

I saw the advice in one of Ron Klinger's books to discard a diamond on hearts and v.v. in the hope that declarer doesn't notice.

 

Unethical? No. Unsportsmanlike? IMHO not but I might be wrong.

 

As for the OP question: I think it is unethical. That said, one should be careful with accusing someone of making such a coup intentionally. "High heart" just means the highest of the hearts in dummy. It could be the 4 from 42, regardless of whether the 3 was out, in your hand, or with an opponent. It could be the 3 from 32.

 

Playing the Q from QJT9 when you want it to get covered and the 9 when you don't is certainly not unethical, and if someone finds it unsportsmanlike I would strongly disagree.

[ArtK78]

How many of you have ever tried to gain an advantage by calling for a card from dummy, knowing that you were in hand?

The times that I have seen this done is when dummy is high but without an entry, and declarer is in hand. And it was always done as a joke.

[aguahombre]

How many of you have ever tried to gain an advantage by calling for a card from dummy, knowing that you were in hand?

The times that I have seen this done is when dummy is high but without an entry, and declarer is in hand. And it was always done as a joke.

Yep, in tournaments it is a common joke. At the club, unfortunately not.

[hanp]

I've seen it two times this fall. The first time was actually the other way around, declarer was in dummy and wanted to be in hand. Declarer grabbed a card from hand but dummy stopped him before he played. Declarer put the card back, thought for a few minutes and then quickly played the card from hand before dummy could stop him. So perhaps I should count that as 2 so that I've seen it three times!

 

It was in a serious tournament and was not meant as a joke. The first time the opponent was a former Bermuda Bowl winner and accepted the card without thinking about it. The second time the opponents were less strong.

[gnasher]

You quoted a couple of laws, some of which arguably have nothing to do with the action in question.

I quoted one law (74A3) which makes the coup described in the original post illegal, and one law (74B4) which makes it illegal to do something that was mentioned later in the thread ("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.")

 

Are you objecting to my incorrect use of the plural, or are you really saying that Law 74A3 arguably has nothing to do with the action in question? If the latter, then argue it.

 

You missed this one though:

A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

"Must not" is the strongest prohibition in the laws. Since failure to uniformly call for cards by naming the denomination and rank of the card is an infraction of Law 46A, Law 72B1 would apply to the scenario in the OP. To me, that puts paid to any argument that doing so is "okay".

This doesn't make any distinction between people who call for "a high heart" because they feel like it, and people who call for "a high heart" because they want to provoke a misplay. The argument, as I understand it, is that if the former is only a very minor infraction then so is the latter. You can't refute that argument by saying "But they're both illegal."

[barmar]

So is calling for the jack in hopes that they cover it wrong when you have JT9 in dummy? Or KJT in dummy and I call for the jack hoping they play the queen? What if I have KJT in dummy and Axxxx in my hand and no entry so I call for the ten or low hoping they duck and I can take 5 tricks?

 

I know I do stuff like this sometimes, I will def stop doing it of course if it is wrong/cheating even though everyone I know will also do this. FWIW I never thought it was against the rules or even unethical.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. There's no question that you're allowed to play any card you want from dummy. At issue is the manner in which you designate the card. Specifying the suit and rank is the prescribed method, so this can never be wrong.

 

Are you asking whether it's unethical to choose a particular card from equals in the hopes of tricking the opponent, e.g. the J to provoke a cover, the T to provoke a duck? I don't think so. The law we've been discussing prohibits intentionally committing an infraction in order to gain an advantage, the specific infraction being an incomplete designation of a card. Since calling for "heart ten" is not an infraction in the first place, it doesn't violate that law. You're allowed to gain an advantage by your choice of cards, but not by using an incomplete designation to refer to it for that specific purpose.

 

As has also been said, proving that someone used an incomplete designation for this purpose would be pretty difficult. I think the only way would be to hear him bragging in the bar "I called for a high heart, and the LOL fell for it and ruffed her partner's winner."

[pooltuna]

How many of you have ever tried to gain an advantage by calling for a card from dummy, knowing that you were in hand? If you saw somebody do it, would you find it funny, disgusting, or a bit of both? Does it matter if the opponents are LOLs or Bermuda Bowl winners?

On BBO I do this all the time with the same result everytime :D