Fess up?

[nige1]

Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws.

1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.
2. There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).
3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.

On Bridgewinners there is a debate on whether you should own up to an established revoke .Perhaps the law should be changed:

As soon as you're aware that your side has committed an infraction, you must draw attention to it.

Then, for example, the revoke law could be less draconian. IMO, it is the revoker, who usually first becomes aware of his revoke. Opponents and partner sometimes fail to notice until he points it out. Hence a possible revoke law change might be:

If your side is the first to draw attention to your revoke, then the director attempts to restore equity (giving the benefit of doubt to your opponents): but after the revoke becomes established (i.e. your side plays to a subsequent trick) if your opponents are the first to draw attention to the possibility of your revoke, then the director awards the revoke trick and all subsequent tricks to your opponents on that board.

Such a law might encourage players to confess to their revokes; and to take care not to rescue impossible contracts by accidentally revoking :)

[CSGibson]

I don't think its practical.

 

1) you cannot prove that a player absent minded enough to revoke would also have the presence of mind to notice it later, so enforcement of this "noticing" provision would be inconsistent, and mostly judgments on people's character.

 

2) A broad general statement like this would require a greater burden on players to actually know what is and is not an infraction, something I don't think is practical

 

Legislating ethics seems to be a problematic solution in general. There are always going to be players who do the exact minimum needed to comply with their legal requirements, and other players who do more in the spirit of whatever ideals a player thinks has inspired the legislation in the first place.

[billw55]

Yes, definitely players should be obligated to draw attention to infractions by their side when they become aware of them (unless a different time is designated by law, such as misexplanations). Determining this for a ruling could be difficult, but the principle should be there explicitly.

 

Not sure about the mandatory loss of subsequent tricks, as this may distort equity too severely. Statutory punishments (if any) should be in the form of PPs, not adjustments.

[Phil]

Nigel, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions from the BW discussion.

 

Chris and I are among those that think that one should draw attention to their own irregularities, but thats just the way we choose to play the game. I would rather not do better by taking advantage of my own irregularity by not being upfront about it, but others feel differently.

 

Furthermore, it doesn't serve any purpose to mandate this behavior, especially with some ridiculous penalty like, "win the rest of the tricks".

[nige1]

I don't think its practical.

1) you cannot prove that a player absent minded enough to revoke would also have the presence of mind to notice it later, so enforcement of this "noticing" provision would be inconsistent, and mostly judgments on people's character.

2) A broad general statement like this would require a greater burden on players to actually know what is and is not an infraction, something I don't think is practical

Legislating ethics seems to be a problematic solution in general. There are always going to be players who do the exact minimum needed to comply with their legal requirements, and other players who do more in the spirit of whatever ideals a player thinks has inspired the legislation in the first place.

In practice, I agree the new rule would be difficult to enforce; but, with simpler rules, ignorance of the rules should be no excuse.

Yes, definitely players should be obligated to draw attention to infractions by their side when they become aware of them (unless a different time is designated by law, such as misexplanations). Determining this for a ruling could be difficult, but the principle should be there explicitly. Not sure about the mandatory loss of subsequent tricks, as this may distort equity too severely. Statutory punishments (if any) should be in the form of PPs, not adjustments.

Revoke penalties split opinions, but I like deterrence to be built into the normal rules. PPs are contentious and inconsistently enforced.

Nigel, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions from the BW discussion. Chris and I are among those that think that one should draw attention to their own irregularities, but thats just the way we choose to play the game. I would rather not do better by taking advantage of my own irregularity by not being upfront about it, but others feel differently. Furthermore, it doesn't serve any purpose to mandate this behavior, especially with some ridiculous penalty like, "win the rest of the tricks".

I draw no conclusions from the BW discussion other than Phil's point that many players already penalise themselves by fessing up, although not obliged to do so.

[aguahombre]

I draw conclusions about players on the other side of the issue from Phil or Chris. But until there is a change in the laws, I keep those opinions to myself...well almost. My spouse :rolleyes:

[Vampyr]

In practice, I agree the new rule would be difficult to enforce; but, with simpler rules, ignorance of the rules should be no excuse.

 

Your rule is much more complicated than what we have at present.

 

Revoke penalties split opinions, but I like deterrence to be built into the normal rules.

 

I agree. THe current revoke laws have no teeth. It would be good to go back to 19?? and have an automatic two-trick penalty. And if that is not enough to restore equity, then equity + one trick should be restored.

[bluejak]

I agree. THe current revoke laws have no teeth. It would be good to go back to 19?? and have an automatic two-trick penalty. And if that is not enough to restore equity, then equity + one trick should be restored.

Hear hear.

[Phil]

Yes, I'm also in the camp that a revoke should incur an automatic penalty, especially when L72 states that a player need not draw attention to their own irregularity!

 

In a recent tournament, a gentleman did not follow suit earlier in the hand, and ended up taking a trick in the suit he revoked in. So it canceled out. Had I not been paying attention however...

[nige1]

Your rule is much more complicated than what we have at present.

The poll is about a new law to oblige you to own up to breaking the law. A possible change to the revoke law was an example of how it might affect other laws. I tried to express the suggested new revoke law in one sentence. Apart from that, it seems simpler than current law. Unfortunately, however, I can envisage problems with it and there's likely to be an even simpler solution.

I agree. The current revoke laws have no teeth. It would be good to go back to 19?? and have an automatic two-trick penalty. And if that is not enough to restore equity, then equity + one trick should be restored.

Vampyr's suggestion would be an improvement on current law. Days after a recent Gold Cup match, a likely revoke was suspected. Whether of not the revoker notices what he has done at the time, when a revoke results in a critical contract being made or defeated, the victims suffer harshly. Hence I agree that the rules should more actively deter revokes. But I'm glad you don't agree with me too often; because I enjoy debate with you :)

[barmar]

I draw no conclusions from the BW discussion other than Phil's point that many players already penalise themselves by fessing up, although not obliged to do so.

That's my experience as well. I think most revokes are noticed and corrected (becoming penalty cards) before they become established. It could be because the automatic 1-trick penalty if the revoke is noticed later by the opponents is a deterrent, but I prefer to believe it's because most players are basically honest.

 

In a recent tournament, a gentleman did not follow suit earlier in the hand, and ended up taking a trick in the suit he revoked in. So it canceled out. Had I not been paying attention however...

Part of the justification, I think, for the not requiring players to draw attention to their own revokes is that a competent opponent should pay attention and notice the card being played later, or notice that everyone shows out of the suit too soon. However, if there's a claim or concession, they might never get that opportunity.

[lamford]

The poll is about a new law to oblige you to own up to breaking the law.

I think the vast majority of players would be unaware that they had broken the Law, so I cannot support your motion.

[aguahombre]

If the current law forbid a player from calling attention to his/her own revoke after it had been established and during the play period, I could just barely understand the rationale. It would be consistent with the issue of inspecting quitted tricks.

 

But, it doesn't. It only allows the person to remain mute, and I don't see any justification for such an exception to laws requiring us to draw attention to our own irregularities.

[Vampyr]

If the current law forbid

 

Try forbade.

 

But, it doesn't. It only allows the person to remain mute, and I don't see any justification for such an exception to laws requiring us to draw attention to our own irregularities.

 

I think that the justification is clear and based on simple fair play; I just think it would be impossible to enforce, and unfair to the clueless who have committed an irregularity and not noticed.

 

Why do you say "exception"? We are required to draw attention to other irregularites, such as MI.

[aguahombre]

I think the vast majority of players would be unaware that they had broken the Law, so I cannot support your motion.

Obviously, to me anyway, a person can't fess up to something they didn't know they did. If they didn't know revokes are against the rules, then :rolleyes: .

 

The changes regarding disclosure of one's own revoke are indeed merely statements of a person's ethical responsibilities...quite difficult to enforce.

[aguahombre]

Try forbade.

 

 

 

I think that the justification is clear and based on simple fair play; I just think it would be impossible to enforce, and unfair to the clueless who have committed an irregularity and not noticed.

 

Why do you say "exception"? We are required to draw attention to other irregularites, such as MI.

Duly noted about my sloppy tense usage. Not requiring us to fess up to our own revoke is an "exception" to the general requirement that we fess up to our own irregularities; so, I don't understand that question.

[mycroft]

what exception are you talking about?

 

The law is very clear:

There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by ones own side

The exception is not "you have to but not for revokes", the exception is "you don't have to, except for:

(but see Law 20F5 for correction of partners apparently mistaken explanation).

The rule is that the opponents are required to pay attention to your unintentional infraction of Law if they expect to get rectification from it; but since it's effectively impossible for the opponents to notice a mistaken explanation without completely knowing your system, an exception is made for that case.

 

The ACBL (and other places, I'm sure) have developed a code of Active Ethics which goes beyond the Lawful Requirements (and the code admits it); if you choose to be Actively Ethical, your reward is being known as such. It is not being able to require the same of your opponents (although you can gossip about them in the bar afterwards).

 

Oddly enough, in the BWinners poll, I went for "it depends". I almost always admit to my revoke, and take the penalty even if the revoke was irrelevant; but that's because I expect the opponents to pay the penalty for their mistakes as well, and I do call and get it enforced. But there are players, who are well known for trying to skirt the line of legality, who get Law9A4 as written from me.

[barmar]

Duly noted about my sloppy tense usage. Not requiring us to fess up to our own revoke is an "exception" to the general requirement that we fess up to our own irregularities; so, I don't understand that question.

The law quoted in the OP specifically says that players are NOT generally required to draw attention to irregularities by their own side, and revokes are consistent with this. The exception is when misinformation has been given.

 

Are you talking about the clause after it, which says they're not allowed to try to conceal the infraction? That relates to the point I made earlier, where a competent opponent should eventually notice the revoke, and you're not allowed to try to thwart that.

[jeffford76]

However, if there's a claim or concession, they might never get that opportunity.

 

I think that it would be an improvement in the law if after a claim or concession all players were required to face their hands before returning them to the board.

[barmar]

I think that it would be an improvement in the law if after a claim or concession all players were required to face their hands before returning them to the board.

Agreed. In the "little things" thread, someone mentioned people who claim by just folding their hand and putting it in the board, the polar opposite of this. Happily, I don't think I've encountered any of these.

[blackshoe]

Obviously, to me anyway, a person can't fess up to something they didn't know they did. If they didn't know revokes are against the rules, then :rolleyes: .

Not the point, but I think you know that. Just to be clear, the point is that the player may not know he revoked. Whether he knows revokes are against the rules is not at issue.

[blackshoe]

The ACBL (and other places, I'm sure) have developed a code of Active Ethics which goes beyond the Lawful Requirements (and the code admits it); if you choose to be Actively Ethical, your reward is being known as such. It is not being able to require the same of your opponents (although you can gossip about slander them in the bar afterwards).

FYP. B-)

 

As I've already said somewhere recently, the ACBL's Code of Active Ethics doesn't say a darn thing about 'fessing up to revokes, even by implication.

[blackshoe]

I think that it would be an improvement in the law if after a claim or concession all players were required to face their hands before returning them to the board.

 

 

Agreed. In the "little things" thread, someone mentioned people who claim by just folding their hand and putting it in the board, the polar opposite of this. Happily, I don't think I've encountered any of these.

I have. Usually they're experts or very good players who are just showing off. The ethical ones don't do it unless they're pretty sure the opponents are aware of what's going on, and they're apologetic when they get that wrong. That said, I agree with Jefford.

[Phil]

Directly related to this are IB's.

 

When partner makes an insufficient bid, do you go mum?

[mycroft]

FYP. B-)

 

As I've already said somewhere recently, the ACBL's Code of Active Ethics doesn't say a darn thing about 'fessing up to revokes, even by implication.

Heh - so I don't read something before posting, just once. That one goat, indeed. Having said that, as you and I are on the same page about this (not required by law or propriety, your own ethics is your own issue)...