Ethical Obligation

[BunnyGo]

Suppose declarer claims conceding one of the tricks. What are my obligations in the following 2 scenarios:

 

1) Looking at my hand, I know there is no reasonable line where he can lose the trick, but it is technically possible for him to give it to us if he plays badly.

 

2) There is absolutely no order of cardplay where we can take any tricks. Even if he collides every honor and plays bottom up.

[aguahombre]

My obligation would be on the first one to let the director decide after explaining to him exactly what you explained to us.

 

My obligation on the second one would be to tell the declarer to score it up as taking all the tricks.

 

My obligation might not be everyone's.

[Vampyr]

My obligation might not be everyone's.

 

This is not true. Your obligation under the Laws of Bridge is the same as anyone's. Your inclination might be different from some.

[aguahombre]

This is not true. Your obligation under the Laws of Bridge is the same as anyone's. Your inclination might be different from some.

There I go again, with my literary license. Stefanie will always keep me in line. In this case I have a hunch my inclination and my obligation might be the same.

[iviehoff]

You actually have no obligations at all. The polite thing to do is simply accept the concessions unfussily. In the first case, there is no realistic prospect of undoing the concession, so that should be the end of it. In the second case, your opponent will get the trick back if he attempts to cancel the concession, but it is for your opponent to cancel the concession, you can't do it for him. If you don't like free gifts from opponents, you could point this out to him, but are under no legal obligation to do so, and he is under no obligation to cancel a concession he has made.

 

Legal explanation. Your opponent has conceded the tricks to you. Under L71, those tricks are yours now, unless your opponent seeks to cancel the concession. So, given you are apparently certain about the outcomes, it would be unhelpful to contest the concession under L70, because that in effect says either "your concession was insufficiently generous to us" or "I do not know from the information I have whether this is a sufficiently generous concession, and I am contesting it to reveal the information". L70 is not a process for returning conceded tricks to the opposition. The only way he can retrieve those tricks is to cancel the concession under L71. The criterion for cancelling a concession means that the cancellation will very likely not be successful in the first case, but likely will be successful in the second case (L71(2)).

 

Edited to tighten the wording.

Edited November 21, 2011 by iviehoff

[mikeh]

I assume that declarer hasn't stated his line.

 

if he has, and, for example, he says : conceding a heart, and his hearts are all good, then I point that out. But if his hearts were say 875 and he's obviously forgotten that all the higher ones have been played, and I have the stiff 6, then I accept the claim....if he thinks that the only heart outstanding is higher than the 8, he could as well lead the 5 as the 8, and my 6 would win.

 

If he hasn't stated a line, then I think that in a real tournament, I'd call the director and at a less serious event, I'd ask him to state his line and then decide as per above.

 

In the second scenario, I'd always tell him that he has the rest, show him my hand, and have a chuckle with him.

[aguahombre]

Yes, despite the procedural arguement of iviehoff, I would have trouble with knowing an opponent cannot concede a trick which he cannot lose and allowing that irregularity to slide.

[kenberg]

I think that if my opponent was locked on the board with AKJ alone and said "I cash the AK, conceding the Q, and I held the doubleton Q, I would say "The Q falls" and score it up as three tricks at the end. Now suppose he just says "I take two tricks, conceding the Queen". I think that's the same, even if the phrasing is a bit different. Suppose now he has four cards in the dummy, AKT and a loser in another suit. The J has fallen previously and my Queen is still a doubleton. This is different. If he plays the AK, my Queen falls, he may or may not remember that the Jack has fallen previously and he may or may not know his spot card in the other suit is a loser. So we assume he plays AK and then the spot from the other suit. Could be.

 

There are in between cases I suppose.

[mycroft]

For 2), the Law (79A2) is clear:

 

A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

 

For 1), the Law quote is "normal* line of play". If it's a borderline case, it's probably normal*. If it's a borderline borderline case, I'd probably accept the concession, and ensure somehow that they know to try to cancel the concession (once the onus is shifted as it is in L71). But I don't think that second half is legally necessary; it's just my personal ethics (I know the Law better than most players; I don't feel that that should gain me an advantage through their ignorance, as opposed to an advantage through my knowledge, which I think is perfectly appropriate).

 

Of course that would also depend on the event. The Flt. A Swiss, you're on your own lookout. The club game, with newer players? I'm probably short-circuiting this whole discussion: "you'd never get this wrong. Make 'em all."

[nigel_k]

79A2 does appear to cover this, though it's a pity it is tucked away at the end where a director or player who wants to know the rules about claiming will not look for it.

 

But if there is any way for declarer to lose a trick, I think it's fine to accept the concession. After all, it's a bridge error (not a mechanical error or other accident unrelated to bridge skill) to not know how many tricks you might take and how to take them.

[ggwhiz]

What is being discussed here is your minimum obligations under the law. Is that minimum what the post is about?

 

You may set the bar higher to satisfy your personal standards which I have seen done many times by players I like and respect.

 

I guess it should be done with the knowledge and consent of the Director in a pairs competition to avoid unintended consequences to others in the field.

[MrAce]

1- I would accept the claim. He is obviously sleeping and i dont have the obligation to tell him he is making a mistake and that he shd correct it. People make mistakes at bridge and forgiving it is unfair to our side. (assuming he has a way to go down by a bad play)

 

2- I would say it is wrong claim and we can not take any tricks, and concede.

[JLOGIC]

Suppose declarer claims conceding one of the tricks. What are my obligations in the following 2 scenarios:

 

1) Looking at my hand, I know there is no reasonable line where he can lose the trick, but it is technically possible for him to give it to us if he plays badly.

 

2) There is absolutely no order of cardplay where we can take any tricks. Even if he collides every honor and plays bottom up.

 

I was under the assumption that you cannot knowingly accept a trick that you cannot take. I see mycroft quoted the law. This is completely fair to me, definitely tell them in situation #2.

 

If they can lose a trick, it's fine to take it, they conceded it and it's possible for them to lose it. Totally agree with mikeh that if they have 875 of hearts and concede a heart when I have the 6 it is fine to take it, afterall had they played it out, and they thought the ace was out instead of the 6, they might well have played the 5 since it does not matter. I am not going to eliminate the possibility of that because they conceded, the error is theirs.

 

There was a similar situation that generated a long thread in the laws forum (I think they claim all the tricks, not aware that a trump is out), and I think many who have played against me wee surprised I would call the director and claim that I got a trump trick if that happened... but the principle is the same, they do not know the 6 is out because they think all of the trumps are gone, so they might have played the 5 had they played it out, and I should not be robbed of that opportunity becuase they miscounted and erroneously claimed. This is fundamentally different than when they know a trump is out and claim without saying anything, then you are just being an idiot who is trying to win on a technicality becuase they did not say anything when they claimed. Luckily these situations are obvious, for instance if a declarer has AKQJ9xx opp void in trumps, cashes the AK and everyone follows, and then claims without saying anything, obv he didn't think he had pulled all the trumps, since he was just testing if they were 5-1. However, if a declarer cashes the AKQ, someone shows out, then he cashes his remaining winners without pulling trumps, and then claims, I would say he clearly thought all the trumps were gone (else he would not have risked his remaining winners getting ruffed), and then he should lose a trump trick.

 

Sorry for the tangent but these situations are fundamentally the same to me, the opponent should not be allowed to profit from his error of miscounting something, so if declarer thinks something about the hand that he has a loser when he doesn't, he might well misplay, and not taking the trick would be allowing him to profit from the claim, but you are not allowed to take a trick that you cannot take, and then you are just stealing a trick by accepting the claim, it's not like he AUTOMATICALLY has to be punished for miscounting something...if he could play it out in any order and not lose a trick, then he got lucky, oh well!

 

I find the suggestion that one would accept a trick that they could not knowingly take when the opp concedes dispicable, equivalent to revoking on purpose and then not telling anyone and benefiting... sure no one knows that you did it on purpose, but you're still a scumbag.

[jvage]

When I was playing at the International Festival in Croatia earlier this year I was in this situation. A supposedly good declarer claimed by saying I got one trick. Me and partner looked at eachother, silently agreed (with eachother, not with the concession...), and showed declarer our hands. He could definetely get the rest, and at the moment I believed it was OP's case 2.

 

I then realised that with his mistaken count he could possibly lose a trick (I still had the second-highest trump), if it would be "normal" or not I was not sure. Declarer did not say anything, but since it was a relatively serious tournament I called a TD. It seemed like the TD didn't understand why he was called and believed we had questioned declarers claim for the rest without mentioning the last trump (unlike most of the TD's there he was not very good at English), and ruled that declarer would get the rest (which was an obvious ruling if declarer had claimed all the tricks). We accepted after what seemed like one failing attempt of explaining to the TD why he was called (it was only an overtrick at IMP's)...

 

The position was something like this (maybe this belongs in the ruling forum): Declarer had QT in trumps and believed I had a trump-trick with a now-singelton J behind him (partner did not follow to the last trick, a trump). Declarer had a sidesuit with the equivalent of Ax in hand to Kxx in dummy (which now broke 2-2) and an outside loser in dummy. Would it be "normal" to lose a trick here for a declarer thinking there are 2 trumps out?

[JLOGIC]

Of course. No reason he wouldn't just play the ace and king and last card of the side suit. I would accept claim and not feel bad about it.

[billw55]

It's not directly on the topic of the post, but as long as we are discussing claims with outstanding trumps ..

 

As I have stated before, I strongly believe that there should a written rule which states: when a claim is made by declarer, the defense is automatically awarded a trick for every trump they hold (including trumps in separate hands), without regard to any other circumstance whatsoever. Perhaps excepting cases where loss of a trick is entirely impossible (i.e. declarer holds only top trumps in hand).

 

IMO this would save so much interpreting, lawyering, director calls, and forum threads, that it would be well worth the extra bit of time it takes declarer to remove any non-high trumps.

[JLOGIC]

 

IMO this would save so much interpreting, lawyering, director calls, and forum threads, that it would be well worth the extra bit of time it takes declarer to remove any non-high trumps.

 

Or declarer could just say "drawing trumps" while he claims if there are trumps out. Why do you want a rule that protects people who forget that there is a trump out?

[billw55]

Or declarer could just say "drawing trumps" while he claims if there are trumps out. Why do you want a rule that protects people who forget that there is a trump out?

er ... I was trying to penalize declarers who forget there is a trump out? Not sure how my rule would protect them.

 

As for "drawing trumps" as part of a claim, perhaps declarer can lay down enough trumps to do the job. This would also save the other op from tanking over his pitches. A verbal-only "drawing trumps" allows declarer who thinks there is one less trump out than there actually is, to make all the tricks when he might lose one in actual play. I know this doesn't happen at your level, but it does happen, otherwise we wouldn't have all these threads about it!

 

Perhaps we could allow "drawing 3 rounds of trumps", for example. Or even, "drawing all 4 remaining trumps". But IMO, not just "drawing trumps".

[blackshoe]

Me: <laying down hand> Drawing Trumps, playing ♥A, low heart to KQ, pitching the diamond loser on the ♥Q.

 

RHO, after two minutes thinking: What are you going to do with your diamond loser?

 

:blink: :lol:

[JLOGIC]

er ... I was trying to penalize declarers who forget there is a trump out? Not sure how my rule would protect them.

 

As for "drawing trumps" as part of a claim, perhaps declarer can lay down enough trumps to do the job. This would also save the other op from tanking over his pitches. A verbal-only "drawing trumps" allows declarer who thinks there is one less trump out than there actually is, to make all the tricks when he might lose one in actual play. I know this doesn't happen at your level, but it does happen, otherwise we wouldn't have all these threads about it!

 

Perhaps we could allow "drawing 3 rounds of trumps", for example. Or even, "drawing all 4 remaining trumps". But IMO, not just "drawing trumps".

 

Very sry almost 7 am I am not sure how but I read your comment as the opposite of what you said lol. I'll go to sleep.

[Free]

Agree 100% with Justin.

[barmar]

Perhaps we could allow "drawing 3 rounds of trumps", for example. Or even, "drawing all 4 remaining trumps". But IMO, not just "drawing trumps".

That's what I usually do. I say something like "I can afford to draw 3 rounds of trump if necessary".

[TimG]

1321893523[/url]' post='590688']

This is not true. Your obligation under the Laws of Bridge is the same as anyone's. Your inclination might be different from some.

 

Isn't "ethical obligation" something of an oxymoron? Ethics generally involve judgment and "accepted standards" rather than adherance to objective, codified rules.

Anyway, it seems perfectly reasonable that different people would feel different ethical obligations. These should not be confused with legal obligations.

[mycroft]

In many cases, Tim, you would be right. In bridge, there is a certain minimum ethical standard that has been given the strength of Law (mostly because, mind you, there were people who didn't mind being thought of as boors, as long as they were thought of as "boors that win") with the movement of the Proprieties into the Laws of Bridge. In addition one of the Proprieties makes the reverse connection - that someone that abides by the Laws is by definition ethical (without saying that someone who infracts the Laws is not ethical, unless they do it deliberately - yet another Propriety with the strength of Law).

 

Whether your personal ethics (or mine, or "different people") choose to expand from the minimum is, yes, a continuum. But in bridge, some of your legal obligations (including the fact that you are obliged by Law) *are* ethical obligations.

 

There are many games and sports (usually of the historical "played by gentlemen" variety) where it is believed best if the players *behave* like ladies and gentlemen, even if they no longer are (or even if they do not do so in Real Life). Those games and sports have by and large had to codify that "belief" as Law in order to get it to trigger, this century. Even so, games get played, and standards slip. I find that - disappointing.

[nigel_k]

Isn't "ethical obligation" something of an oxymoron? Ethics generally involve judgment and "accepted standards" rather than adherance to objective, codified rules.

Anyway, it seems perfectly reasonable that different people would feel different ethical obligations. These should not be confused with legal obligations.

The word 'ethical' is used in a very strange way in bridge. I don't really know why.

 

In real life, there is obviously a huge difference between legal vs illegal and ethical vs unethical. But in a game like bridge, they ought to coincide, i.e. ethical and legal duties are the same. Obviously you can accidentally infringe a law without being unethical but when making conscious decisions about how to act there should be no such thing as 'legal but unethical' or vice-versa.

 

Some people think it is 'ethical' to go beyond what the laws require when in possession of unauthorised information for example, but the legal obligation is quite strict so there isn't much room to exceed that without doing something ridiculous.