Forked Tongue

[BunnyGo]

I suspect you do not really believe this: Suppose said revoker had parkinson's, or had lost a hand? Are you really saying that one should not give an allowance for the fact that they revoke more often than normal, and should instead tell them that "dexterity is part of the game"? That it would be unfair if I allowed you to play the card that you meant to, since I should have the chance to benefit from your disability?

 

Really, your argument now has devolved to "pity the disabled...help them at bridge"? I'm happy helping the disabled, hold a door, carry a chair down the stairs, social services, etc. But quite frankly, I won't patronize them...that's just insulting.

 

My grandfather was half blind the last time I played with him. So he followed a spade lead with a club, and when I asked "no spades" he said "of course I.." Needless to say, the declarer took *very* full advantage of his penalty card to force a lead out of me and find an entry to dummy that I was sure to prevent otherwise.

 

Is this wrong of him? No. He is playing by the rules. Anyone who sits down to play should play by the rules and expect to be judged by them. Anything else is pandering, and quite frankly, not bridge.

[blackshoe]

The laws do say that any play that the flawed claimer will benefit from will be lumped in with plays that are careless and inferior. How far is "stupid" from "careless and inferior"?

 

Quite a ways, IMO.

[blackshoe]

I really do not believe this. This is like saying it is "ethical" to be rude to everyone that you meet, just because free speech protects ones right to do so. (Edit, you are basically advocating legalism, which is to say that obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue, but there are plenty of obvious examples where that is not so.)

 

Do not try to tell me what I advocate, or try to put words in my mouth. :angry:

 

I did not say anything like "it is 'ethical' to be rude to everyone you meet". I did not say (nor do I believe) that "obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue".

 

I don't agree with the rest of your post, either, but this is not the place to debate it.

[blackshoe]

No,a director's call should be a request for restitution, which is not gain, but the restoration of equity.

 

That others scores are affected is a double edged sword. In a flat 3NT do I really deserve a top/give everyone else below average, because my opposition revoked? Such a score randomly takes points from half the pairs and gives it to the other half purely because of the direction they happened to be sitting.

 

If your opponent revokes, yes, you deserve to have the legal penalty for that revoke applied. You also deserve to have the penalty applied if you revoke.

[billw55]

Aha, this could give me a new technique as declarer! If I have two possible lines to make my contract, I need no longer choose between them. Instead, I will claim based on one line. If that line fails, I will say "oops what I meant to say was ... " and try the other line. I will call this "combining my chances", so that my opponents and the director will be impressed with my knowledge.

[campboy]

I suspect you do not really believe this: Suppose said revoker had parkinson's, or had lost a hand? Are you really saying that one should not give an allowance for the fact that they revoke more often than normal, and should instead tell them that "dexterity is part of the game"? That it would be unfair if I allowed you to play the card that you meant to, since I should have the chance to benefit from your disability?

There is a difference between the two situations. The laws do not permit you to waive rectification (such as for a revoke) yourself, but they do permit you to request the TD waive rectification. However, the TD is only permitted to do this "for cause" ie if there is a good reason in his opinion. If the player has an illness or disability which caused the infraction, that is cause. (Laws 10A, 81C5)

[Vampyr]

I really do not believe this. This is like saying it is "ethical" to be rude to everyone that you meet, just because free speech protects ones right to do so. (Edit, you are basically advocating legalism, which is to say that obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue, but there are plenty of obvious examples where that is not so.)

 

In any legal system there are are unethical actions which do not have a proscribed punishment, sometimes because the law would be unenforceable (e.g., reverse UI), sometimes because such a law would only make a bad situation worse etc. An obvious situation in RL is adultery - making it illegal generally does not lead to better outcomes for anyone, nevertheless, cheating on ones partner remains unethical.

 

There is always difficulties in human society because the rules can never be sufficient for dealing with all the situations that might arise. That is why legal systems should always leave room for judgement in the application of the law. In the west if comes in three times. Once when the Police decide whether or not to press charges, twice when the jury decide whether or not one is guilty, and thrice when the judge decides the appropriate sentence. Law applied without regard for context is basically mandatory sentencing, and is unjust for all of the same reasons.

 

What are you talking about? Bridge is a game. A game is played by following its rules. That is all there is.

[aguahombre]

Is it possible that we have lost focus, here? The OP refers to the person who objected to the claim as a Secretary Bird. His ruling will encourage more Secretary Birds.

 

I can imagine a player at an extremely high level of competition tangling his tongue when talking about two different suits and what he would do. I can also imagine him using "break" when referring to that suit, and meaning if it runs for 4 tricks.

 

What I can't imagine is, at an extremely high level --or any level where reasonable bridge is being play -- someone objecting to the claim or disallowing it.

 

Next hand would have begun without ado.

[iviehoff]

Aha, this could give me a new technique as declarer! If I have two possible lines to make my contract, I need no longer choose between them. Instead, I will claim based on one line. If that line fails, I will say "oops what I meant to say was ... " and try the other line. I will call this "combining my chances", so that my opponents and the director will be impressed with my knowledge.

No, in general changing your statement won't work. In the present case, the player obviously made a slip of the tongue; he said something quite incoherent that was obviously rectified by swapping two words; thus we see it as an obvious slip of the tongue, and most people here seem happy to allow a correction to what he obviously meant, although this is a bit off the script as far as the law is concerned. In your case, you would have no chance at being able to make a correction, because what you said first time would be plausibly what you meant.

[phil_20686]

Do not try to tell me what I advocate, or try to put words in my mouth. :angry:

 

I did not say anything like "it is 'ethical' to be rude to everyone you meet". I did not say (nor do I believe) that "obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue".

 

I don't agree with the rest of your post, either, but this is not the place to debate it.

 

I am sorry if I have offended you, but with all due respect, all I did was change the situation for your argument: you said "The ethics of bridge are defined by its laws." I pointed out that it would be absurd to say that "The ethics of life are defined by its laws", and it seems absurd to take a different approach to ethics within a game than one would in every day life. Particularly in a game that involves real people.

 

@Bunnygo, yes I think what happened to your grandad was unethical, although I do not claim it is illegal.

 

@Vampyr, is that not exactly the point? In this example the behaviour of east will certainly have detracted from south's enjoyment, is that not enough reason to chastise him?

 

@Aguahombre: Agree 100%.

 

The laws are designed the way they are to stop people from taking advantage. If there was no penalty for a non established revoke or a mis-claim people could take advantage, but it seems like any time one is certain that the transgression is an innocent mistake, one should ignore it. Obviously there are cases where it cannot be ignored, and cases where it may not be clear, in which case one should apply the laws. The example in this case is not one of those cases. It is 100% clear what south meant to say, I am sure that even east knows that.

 

I do not believe waiving rectification in the case of an innocent mistake is ever patronising; rather it is charitable and gracious.

[barmar]

Absent a qualifier, I would usually interpret "break" to mean "break evenly".

 

If dummy didn't have the C10, that's certainly what he would have meant. It's also possible that he didn't notice that card, since he could have saved lots of confusion by saying "If the club jack falls" (although that still doesn't encompass the obvious change of plan if East shows out on the second club). Can we interpret his choice of statement to suggest this? Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt, since he was clearly somewhat tongue-tied.

[shyams]

Absent a qualifier, I would usually interpret "break" to mean "break evenly".

I would prefer that the usual interpretation be "break kindly". This would cover 5-1 or 6-0 breaks (with long suit onside) and any 4-2 / 5-1 breaks where the Jack falls early.

 

The laws do say that any play that the flawed claimer will benefit from will be lumped in with plays that are careless and inferior. How far is "stupid" from "careless and inferior"?

I think RMB1 makes a valid point. IMO this issue results in many debates on this forum -- what appears normal to some posters is still deemed careless or inferior by others.

[Vampyr]

@Vampyr, is that not exactly the point? In this example the behaviour of east will certainly have detracted from south's enjoyment, is that not enough reason to chastise him?

 

No, my point was that the following, from your last post (paraphrased in some of your others) is nonsense:

 

"The ethics of bridge are defined by its laws." I pointed out that it would be absurd to say that "The ethics of life are defined by its laws", and it seems absurd to take a different approach to ethics within a game than one would in every day life. Particularly in a game that involves real people.

 

While it is true that in the bridge laws we often favour solutions that feel like "natural justice", this does not mean that bridge or any other game is the same as real life. Should a Monopoly player give an extension on the rent because another player is in bad financial shape? Should a poker player tell, or show, everyone what his hand is because otherwise he will be attempting to gain by deceit and secrecy? Should a backgammon player refuse to take advantage of his good rolls because he has had way more than his share of the luck in this particular game? You can come up with any number of examples, one more ridiculous than the next.

 

A game has rules, and if you are not following them, you are not playing the game. You may be playing some other game, but this forum is about bridge.

[billw55]

No, in general changing your statement won't work. In the present case, the player obviously made a slip of the tongue; he said something quite incoherent that was obviously rectified by swapping two words; thus we see it as an obvious slip of the tongue, and most people here seem happy to allow a correction to what he obviously meant, although this is a bit off the script as far as the law is concerned. In your case, you would have no chance at being able to make a correction, because what you said first time would be plausibly what you meant.

Of course I was being a bit tongue in cheek. But .. allowing any change of claim statement after an intervening event (in this case, the opponents announcing that the stated line fails) opens the door for other similar cases, with varying shades of gray, so to speak. My point is: why introduce subjectivity and judgement into the rules where they are not necessary? Here we have a simple objective criteria: the line of play announced in the claim statement works or doesn't. In a tournament setting - serious competitive bridge - I would prefer harshness in the rules to ambiguity.

 

If the claimer stumbled on his words and wishes to correct his statement, fine: do so before opponents reply, and all is good. I think of it like a mechanical error with bidding boxes. If I plunk down 2♠ instead of 2♥, then quickly say oops .. sure, I can pick it up and move on. But if the opponent has already made the next call? That is quite different.

[phil_20686]

No, my point was that the following, from your last post (paraphrased in some of your others) is nonsense:

 

 

Should a Monopoly player give an extension on the rent because another player is in bad financial shape? Should a poker player tell, or show, everyone what his hand is because otherwise he will be attempting to gain by deceit and secrecy? Should a backgammon player refuse to take advantage of his good rolls because he has had way more than his share of the luck in this particular game? You can come up with any number of examples, one more ridiculous than the next.

 

All your examples are about actions within the rules, the L&E is concerned with what happens when somebody breaks the rules. There is a distinction here. A more relevant example would be what to do in monopoly if a player accidentally moved their piece the wrong number of squares, and no one noticed until the next person had started their go? Indeed, this type of ethical problem should not arise in any complete information game, as you cannot pass any information by dropping your cards. For example: chess needs no rules about what would happen if you attempted to make an illegal move. Your opponent would just inform you. The fact that you have a partner in bridge is fairly unique, and gives rise to many ethical problems that are far more akin to RL than most other games.

 

Moreover, the rules of bridge, in terms of the mechanics, are far more open to abuse than any other game I have ever played. Thus the rules are geared towards preventing abuse, rather than doing what is "fair" in the majority of cases.

[Vampyr]

I think of it like a mechanical error with bidding boxes. If I plunk down 2♠ instead of 2♥, then quickly say oops .. sure, I can pick it up and move on. But if the opponent has already made the next call? That is quite different.

 

No.

[phil_20686]

why introduce subjectivity and judgement into the rules where they are not necessary? Here we have a simple objective criteria: the line of play announced in the claim statement works or doesn't. In a tournament setting - serious competitive bridge - I would prefer harshness in the rules to ambiguity.

 

I'm sure this will work particularly well when the person is claiming in his second third or fourth language. This is one of the primary reasons why at international level people are pretty relaxed about claim statements. A typical claim in the above hand would invlove displaying ones hand and going *shrug*. Clubs. Finesse.(possibly gesturing vaguely at a diamond).

[lamford]

Absent a qualifier, I would usually interpret "break" to mean "break evenly".

There is an argument that it could also be interpreted as "break favourably", but we do not need to decide what the claimer meant, as we are told in Law 70A:

<snip> any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. <snip>

 

It is doubtful whether the claimer meant "break favourably" or "break evenly" or "break 3-3". Therefore this doubtful point is resolved against him, and he is one down. If his first language is not English, then we would have to decide based on his English generally what he meant.

[lamford]

(1) I am not sure you really know what a colour coup is.

Indeed, I had not heard of it, nor has Google either it would seem, and I presumed it was discarding a card of the same colour when following to trumps, hoping the declarer would not notice a bad break. But your proposed coup is permitted as long as it is not accompanied by your suggested breach of 74C. Playing any card, in tempo, for whatever purpose can never be unethical.

[lamford]

In cricket the opposition captain is entitled to ask his opposite number to withdraw any appeal, so if you think India were acting within the rules, you must admit that so did the English. Since you seem to think that the spirit of the game is synonymous with the rules of the game.

I can find nothing in the Laws about the captain asking the opposing captain to withdraw an appeal. The laws state:

 

8. Withdrawal of an appeal

The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only if he obtains the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls. He must do so before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.

 

In this case, the outgoing batsman had left the field of play, so the umpire was mistaken in allowing Bell to return. In my opinion the action of Strauss was "criticising an umpires decisions by word or action or showing dissent" in attempting to persuade the opposing captain to illegally reverse the decision.

[barmar]

I am sorry if I have offended you, but with all due respect, all I did was change the situation for your argument: you said "The ethics of bridge are defined by its laws." I pointed out that it would be absurd to say that "The ethics of life are defined by its laws", and it seems absurd to take a different approach to ethics within a game than one would in every day life. Particularly in a game that involves real people.

It may actually be reasonable to treat them differently.

 

In life, ethics come first, and we then write laws to try to codify those ethics. But the laws don't always reflect the ethics perfectly. There are also ethical disagreements, in which case it's not possible for the laws to match some people's ethics (gay marriage, assisted suicide, abortion, teaching evolution are some of the most notable examples). Also, in life we sometimes decide that certain activities should not be controlled by the government, but are a matter of personal responsibility, so we don't make any laws about them.

 

Card games, on the other hand, are artificial constructs. The rules define the game, they aren't made after the fact. And because the scope of a game is limited, we don't have to worry about the "areas of personal responsibility".

 

However, there's a grey area. While the mechanics of the game can be prescribed easily in the rules, games are also a social activity. As such, "life ethics" sometimes encroaches. We have people saying "While the Laws allow me to take advantage of such-and-such technicality, I don't feel look a good person if I win that way." Although we have a Law in bridge that can be construed to prohibit acting on that feeling, as it explicitly requires you to try to win (it was presumably intended to prevent things like dumping, but its generality prohibits less ethically dubious activity).

[AlexJonson]

I would have allowed this claim as a player, and have often allowed similar claims in the sense of those that are badly expressed.

 

Difficult as a TD, though probably more difficult in the EBU where the words about equity in this Law are usually disregarded as 'meaningless'.

 

As to games being defined by their rules. I think that is an argumentative simplification for complex/team/partnership games. Suggest if you play chess, you have a look at how Navara qualified in the World Cup the other day. There is more to playing with self respect, than applying the rules to win.

[gordontd]

Difficult as a TD, though probably more difficult in the EBU where the words about equity in this Law are usually disregarded as 'meaningless'.

I find this puzzling. Would you explain what you mean by it?

[phil_20686]

I can find nothing in the Laws about the captain asking the opposing captain to withdraw an appeal. The laws state:

 

8. Withdrawal of an appeal

The captain of the fielding side may withdraw an appeal only if he obtains the consent of the umpire within whose jurisdiction the appeal falls. He must do so before the outgoing batsman has left the field of play. If such consent is given, the umpire concerned shall, if applicable, revoke his decision and recall the batsman.

 

In this case, the outgoing batsman had left the field of play, so the umpire was mistaken in allowing Bell to return. In my opinion the action of Strauss was "criticising an umpire’s decisions by word or action or showing dissent" in attempting to persuade the opposing captain to illegally reverse the decision.

 

My comments were based on the discussion of the sky commentators, Nasser Hussein, David Lloyd, and David Gower, if i recall correctly. They all seemed to think this was the case, and had some example about a run/out stumping in new zealand. I have never even seen a written copy of the laws of cricket.

 

The reports I saw indicated that dhoni refused to see strauss/flower, and that it was tendulkar who persuaded dhoni to withdraw his appeal. I dont think that strauss criticised the umpires per se, he never indicated that he thought it was wrong decision, only that he thought dhoni was wrong to appeal. It was all very strange. At the time when bell was "run out" the two batsmen were already walking off. Several of the indians on the replay were walking off. The fielder appeared to think it was for 4 given he was in no particular hurry to throw it back. Dhoni said he had already decided to withdraw it by the time strauss and flower came round, you can see dhoni's interview here

[AlexJonson]

I find this puzzling. Would you explain what you mean by it?

 

Simpler if you tell me I am wrong, and that you have never seen such a view in the EBU domain.

 

I imagine I have read many posts from Laws experts originating in the EBU, where almost unimaginable contortions are pursued as to the meaning of rationality and normality in the context of claims, while equity is ignored as a relevant concept.

 

I am content if you disagree with me.