Ethical?

[blackshoe]

But the letter of the law is often skipped over in favour of fairness.

Under the laws of the game, the players are not the arbiters of fairness, the director is. It is in fact unfair to allow an infraction of law to which attention has been drawn to go without a director call.

[Vampyr]

Why is this question I the Laws forum when it concerns a game that does not follow the laws? The players were engaging in a private pastime, as mentioned above by another poster, and these forums are about bridge.

 

As to the questions out "deliberately waiting", well, no observer can ever know whether the declarer was doing that or was taking stock and thinking about what to do next. So no one can be faulted for gamesmanship, and I think that people have to follow their own conscience. On the other hand, the purposeful varying of tempo is illegal, so if a person admitted to doing it he should probably be penalised.

[blackshoe]

The thread concerns a game where, at a particular table on a particular hand, the players did not follow the laws. That alone does not make the game "not bridge". Now if we tell these players "the law says you should do such-and-such" and they reply (in words or practice) "so what? We're gonna do whatever we want" then the game is "not bridge".

[Vampyr]

The thread concerns a game where, at a particular table on a particular hand, the players did not follow the laws. That alone does not make the game "not bridge". Now if we tell these players "the law says you should do such-and-such" and they reply (in words or practice) "so what? We're gonna do whatever we want" then the game is "not bridge".

 

You think maybe they didn't know the law? It would have to be the first time they ever saw a lead out of turn.

[blackshoe]

If I didn't think the question belonged here I would already have deleted the entire thread. I have not done that, nor am I going to do it. Draw your own conclusions.

[pran]

I am afraid that your honest opinion does not count. Please refer to a law. Laws count.

 

It is simple: for some, the game is defined by its laws. For others, there is more than that. For again others, like me, it depends on the kind of game.

 

To give you some peace of mind: I don't think that I would ever - at any kind of competition - would wait for an opponent's lead out of turn. But I definitely have a different set of ethics depending on whether I play with "the big boys", where only the laws count, or at a social tournament, where there are other things at stake than matchpoints.

 

Rik

Just read (and understand) Law 74!

 

We often nickname it "the most important Law in the book".

[Fluffy]

Note: in the case at hand, there is nothing wrong, and in a club game a lot right, with calling the director for a ruling, and then asking him to waive the rectification (see Law 81C5). Of course, some players and directors will look at you funny if you do this - something about "wasting the director's time", which IMO is BS, because making rulings is one of the reasons the director is there. I think I would wait until the ruling is made before asking for the waiver, though. The main reason for that is so the the offender knows what he did wrong, so that hopefully he'll pay more attention next time.

Would you do that also if you were dummy and partner wanted to waive it? :), I find it harder to involve myself on this things when I am dummy.

 

Regarding this kind of games, I sometimes feel like going once with a director as partner and call director for every irregularity, my best guess is that we would call an average 3 times per deal, the most common would be for would you show me that card again?

 

Director would hate us by the third round when we call him beause an old lady has put a 4th pass when the bidding was over already. And the old ladies would hate us as well.

 

Perhaps instead of destroying everyone's fun and slowing down the tournament dramatically, we could go there just with a paper with some rules numbered and start chalking down ticks as opponents start to break rules.

 

 

[cherdano]

You're stilling making assumptions about what people are thinking. Nobody can read minds.

 

Bridge players constantly gain advantage from reading their opponents' mind.

Why are we supposed to think they turn off that part of the brain whenever we are discussing laws and rulings?

 

I understand it is hard to legislate the ethical aspects of bridge. (Say I notice that my RHO is completely disinterested, so I correctly conclude that he has no tricks coming, and suspect that my LHO should have been able to come to the same conclusion, and that he gained advantage from using this UI. How is a TD supposed to determine the facts if I called him to the table - even if he trusts my table feel?)

But pretending that part of bridge does not exist at all is the most idiotic solution.

[Trinidad]

Just read (and understand) Law 74!

Please enlighten me.

 

Where in Law 74 does it say that taking advantage of your opponent's mistake is unethical?

Where in Law 74 does it say that anticipating an infraction by an opponent is unethical? Mind you, to me a mention of anticipating any infraction is fine with me since law 74 mentions a lot of examples.

Where in law 74 does it say that you are not allowed to let an opponent commit an irregularity by the opponents, if you could prevent him from doing that?

 

It doesn't say these things anywhere.

 

You are reading (and understanding) things that simply aren't there...

 

Rik

[gwnn]

You're stilling making assumptions about what people are thinking. Nobody can read minds.

There are many opponents who would never think about anything when they know that it's their partner's lead. Against these people you need no psychic abilities to know what's going on.

[Trinidad]

We often nickname it "the most important Law in the book".

I agree that it is one of the most important laws in the book. And it is important to understand this law.

 

Ethics are the same at all levels of bridge.

Indeed. But that doesn't mean that ethical behavior is the same at all levels of bridge.

 

One of the key things that this law does: It makes what constitutes ethical behavior depend on the other players. "Don't interfere with other player's enjoyment of the game." One of the consequences is that what is an infraction of Law 74 at a high level game may not be an infraction at the club, and vice versa.

 

To give a simple example:

Think of a high level team tournament, deciding on the national championship. A total of 12 boards to be played in the half. 6 have been played, 6 to go. Now an opponent takes out his wallet / her purse and starts showing pictures of the grandchildren. I would probably call the TD, tell him what happened and suggest to him that I consider it an infraction of 74A2 to do this in between boards, breaking my concentration and wasting time.

 

Now think of the same thing happening at the local club. If I would call the TD for something like that at the local club, I would be the one violating Law 74A2.

 

At a high level game, the players get their satisfaction and pleasure out of the fierce competition. They are concentrated and focused to make less mistakes than the opponents. A player cannot claim that an opponent who allowed him to make a mistake or commit a costly infraction interfered with his enjoyment of the game. The player made the mistake or committed the infraction himself, and he (and he alone!) is responsible for that. Top players know that.

 

Aunt Milly would be saddened and shaken up for committing the infraction. Not because it will cost her points (she rarely scores over 45% anyway), but because it disrupts the game and now John needs to come over and fix things, and she never knows what to do when she violated the laws, but probably apologizing to the opponents and partner would be a good start.

 

I think it is pretty clear that these are two completely different mindsets, meaning that entirely different things will "interfere with a player's enjoyment of the game". This means that actions that are fine (or even encouraged) at one game (showing pictures of grandchildren) may be clear violations of Law 74 somewhere else.

 

Rik

[EricK]

Ethics are the same at all levels of bridge.

 

Deliberately and silently waiting for an opponent to lead out of turn because you notice that he has pointed his last quitted card his way instead of your way is in my honest opinion disgusting and reveals a player lacking every sense of ethics.

Slightly off-topic, but tangential to this: If you notice an opponent has placed a trick the wrong way, do you point this out immediately, or do you leave him thinking his side has won one more/fewer tricks until the end of the hand?

[pran]

Please enlighten me.

 

Where in Law 74 does it say that taking advantage of your opponent's mistake is unethical?

Where in Law 74 does it say that anticipating an infraction by an opponent is unethical? Mind you, to me a mention of anticipating any infraction is fine with me since law 74 mentions a lot of examples.

Where in law 74 does it say that you are not allowed to let an opponent commit an irregularity by the opponents, if you could prevent him from doing that?

 

It doesn't say these things anywhere.

 

You are reading (and understanding) things that simply aren't there...

 

Rik

 

The way I understand Law 74 it is absolutely unacceptable to in any way influence an opponent to commit an irregularity, neither directly nor as a consequence of another irregularity.

 

Apparently you do not understand this.

[pran]

Slightly off-topic, but tangential to this: If you notice an opponent has placed a trick the wrong way, do you point this out immediately, or do you leave him thinking his side has won one more/fewer tricks until the end of the hand?

 

If I notice that he apparently is about to lead out of turn because of an incorrect comprehension that he won the last trick I certainly take steps to stop him. How he keeps track of tricks won and lost is none of my business.

[blackshoe]

Would you do that also if you were dummy and partner wanted to waive it? :), I find it harder to involve myself on this things when I am dummy.

 

Regarding this kind of games, I sometimes feel like going once with a director as partner and call director for every irregularity, my best guess is that we would call an average 3 times per deal, the most common would be for would you show me that card again?

 

Director would hate us by the third round when we call him beause an old lady has put a 4th pass when the bidding was over already. And the old ladies would hate us as well.

 

Perhaps instead of destroying everyone's fun and slowing down the tournament dramatically, we could go there just with a paper with some rules numbered and start chalking down ticks as opponents start to break rules.

I'm not sure I understand the question. If I were dummy, the director were called, and my partner asked him to waive the rectification (or penalty, or both) I'd just keep my mouth shut. If I thought a waiver should be requested, and my partner didn't do so, I would.

 

If someone asks me to show my quitted card (on the current trick) again, I would do so unless she has quitted her card on this trick, in which case I would say "sorry, that's not legal". If she wants to call the TD, that's up to her.

 

If you don't want to call the director for an irregularity, don't call attention to it. If someone else calls attention to it, call the director - and blame the other player for the call. B-)

 

I have, from time to time, tracked the infractions at my table in a club game, purely for my own interest. Other than that reason, it's a waste of time.

[gnasher]

Why is this question I the Laws forum when it concerns a game that does not follow the laws? The players were engaging in a private pastime, as mentioned above by another poster, and these forums are about bridge.

Because Fluffy wants to know would be permitted in a game that does follow the rules.

 

As to the questions out "deliberately waiting", well, no observer can ever know whether the declarer was doing that or was taking stock and thinking about what to do next.

The detectability of an act doesn't tell us anything about its legality.

[gnasher]

I think it's illegal under Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ... the haste or hesitancy of a call or play".

 

I think it's also illegal under Law 74C. 74C lists "examples" of things that are illegal. They're merely examples, so this is not a complete list. In a better world, the examples would be accompanied by a definition of what is illegal. As there is no such definition, the implication is that other things of a similar nature are also illegal.

[blackshoe]

Slightly off-topic, but tangential to this: If you notice an opponent has placed a trick the wrong way, do you point this out immediately, or do you leave him thinking his side has won one more/fewer tricks until the end of the hand?

 

If I notice that he apparently is about to lead out of turn because of an incorrect comprehension that he won the last trick I certainly take steps to stop him. How he keeps track of tricks won and lost is none of my business.

Depends where you're sitting.

Law 65B3: Declarer may require that a card pointed incorrectly be pointed as above. Dummy or either defender may draw attention to a card pointed incorrectly, but for these players the right expires when a lead is made to the following trick. If done later, Law 16B may apply.

Granted no one has to call attention to a trick turned wrong - when a player "may do" something, failure to do it is not wrong - but you're certainly within your rights to do so - and in most cases I would. Note also "require" in the first sentence of that law. Some of the "cooler" players here just toss their quitted cards in a pile, with no particular organization to it except the last trick quitted is on top. This infracts Law 65C and either Law 65B1 or Law 65B2, but I wouldn't bother with it - it's not worth the hassle. Players who do this, though, jeopardize their rights (see Law 65D) and I would expect a director to take that into account if a question arises.

[blackshoe]

Bridge players constantly gain advantage from reading their opponents' mind.

Why are we supposed to think they turn off that part of the brain whenever we are discussing laws and rulings?

 

I understand it is hard to legislate the ethical aspects of bridge. (Say I notice that my RHO is completely disinterested, so I correctly conclude that he has no tricks coming, and suspect that my LHO should have been able to come to the same conclusion, and that he gained advantage from using this UI. How is a TD supposed to determine the facts if I called him to the table - even if he trusts my table feel?)

But pretending that part of bridge does not exist at all is the most idiotic solution.

I'm not pretending anything. I said you can't read minds. I'm pretty close to 100% certain I'm right about that - so far, I've only met telepaths in books and movies. Reading an opponent's mannerisms ("table feel") is another thing. It's legal, it's done at your own risk unless your opponent is deliberately trying to mislead you, and yes, it's very difficult to determine the facts in these cases. So?

[Trinidad]

The way I understand Law 74 it is absolutely unacceptable to in any way influence an opponent to commit an irregularity, neither directly nor as a consequence of another irregularity.

 

Apparently you do not understand this.

A) Where in Law 74 does it say this? A? B? C?

 

Again, you're understanding things that aren't there.

I asked you to please refer to a Law that says that it is forbidden to allow an opponent from committing an irregularity. I even accommodated you by saying that any irregularity will do (not just "all irregularities" or the specific irregularity of leading out of turn). The only thing you do is refer to a law that doesn't say a word about any of this this, but you "understand" it that way, anyway.

 

B) Where do you get the idea that a player who waits (i.e. is doing nothing at all) influences an opponent to commit an irregularity?

 

Certainly, he is not preventing him from committing an irregularity. But not preventing someone to do something is very different from influencing him to do something.

 

This should be fairly clear.

 

Now Gnasher is making an honest attempt at trying to find such a law:

I think it's illegal under Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of ... the haste or hesitancy of a call or play".

The article doesn't apply since it deals with "misleading an opponent". But declarer didn't mislead any opponent: The opponent had misled himself. All declarer does is refrain from setting the opponent straight and wait.

 

I think it's also illegal under Law 74C. 74C lists "examples" of things that are illegal. They're merely examples, so this is not a complete list. In a better world, the examples would be accompanied by a definition of what is illegal. As there is no such definition, the implication is that other things of a similar nature are also illegal.

Other than your first sentence, I fully agree. That is why I accommodated Pran by accepting any example that was similar. The problem is that there is no example whatsoever in Law 74 that says, suggests or even implies that a player is supposed to prevent his opponents' irregularities, not about irregularities in general, not about leading out of turn, not about revoking, nor making an insufficient bid, nothing.

 

Rik

[pran]

Granted no one has to call attention to a trick turned wrong - when a player "may do" something, failure to do it is not wrong - but you're certainly within your rights to do so - and in most cases I would. Note also "require" in the first sentence of that law. Some of the "cooler" players here just toss their quitted cards in a pile, with no particular organization to it except the last trick quitted is on top. This infracts Law 65C and either Law 65B1 or Law 65B2, but I wouldn't bother with it - it's not worth the hassle. Players who do this, though, jeopardize their rights (see Law 65D) and I would expect a director to take that into account if a question arises.

 

Any competent director will do.

[pran]

The problem is that there is no example whatsoever in Law 74 that says, suggests or even implies that a player is supposed to prevent his opponents' irregularities, not about irregularities in general, not about leading out of turn, not about revoking, nor making an insufficient bid, nothing.

 

Rik

 

Not everything is spelled out in detail in the laws, and from my experience with this discussion so far I honestly consider it a waste of time trying any further to make you understand the ethics in the game of bridge. sorry.

[gnasher]

Other than your first sentence, I fully agree. That is why I accommodated Pran by accepting any example that was similar. The problem is that there is no example whatsoever in Law 74 that says, suggests or even implies that a player is supposed to prevent his opponents' irregularities, not about irregularities in general, not about leading out of turn, not about revoking, nor making an insufficient bid, nothing.

 

"Varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent" is similar to "Varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of encouraging an opponent to lead out of turn".

[lamford]

Clearly the game being played was still bridge. Technically, South, if wanting to waive the penalty for the lead out of turn, should call the director and ask him to utilise his Law 81C5 option. The director will normally exercise his discretion and do so. In practice, of course, a player often says "just pick it up", and I have seen that even in major events, after, say, a LOOT. I agree with gnasher that it is illegal for South to wait extra time for a lead out of turn. After he ruffs the diamond, there is little to think about, and declarer will normally draw trumps, keeping the six of spades as an entry if necessary, test for diamonds 4-4 and then concede a club if they are not. Any delay which the TD thinks is with the intent of getting East to lead out of turn should be punished. If East has led out of turn before declarer could play at normal tempo, then South can of course require the ace of clubs to be discarded on a trump and make 11.

[barmar]

I'm not pretending anything. I said you can't read minds. I'm pretty close to 100% certain I'm right about that - so far, I've only met telepaths in books and movies. Reading an opponent's mannerisms ("table feel") is another thing. It's legal, it's done at your own risk unless your opponent is deliberately trying to mislead you, and yes, it's very difficult to determine the facts in these cases. So?

Reading minds is not the same thing as telepathy. It just means inferring what someone is thinking, and this is quite possible without supernatural powers. People do it all the time.