[Al_U_Card]

Sorry Frances, as much as I agree with you in most things, this is way too personal and important to go the bean-counter route. Even were they to start inflicting penalties...I wouldn't change my approach (just perhaps the venue )

[Flame]

Echognome, on Feb 26 2007, 06:18 AM, said:

Flame, on Feb 26 2007, 02:20 AM, said:

About revokes made by myself i will tell them, but if made by my partner i'll usually shut up.

Since you share the result either way, what difference does it make who revoked?

I cant really explain it, i guess even though we are partners we still have our individuality, when i make a nice endplay i get the complement and when i make a stupid revoke i get the blame, so i will take the blame when i made the revoke, but i will not tell that my partner revoked, if he want he can do that imself, its just feel wrong to do it for him. If ill think his moral arent good enough for me then i will not play with him again, but i wont call the director on him.
I would feel more or less the same with a friend who do something questinable that i wouldnt do, i wouldnt tell anyone but if i think its bad enough i might decide not to be his friend anymore.

[inquiry]

There was an editorial on this in Bridge World in the 1980's, or maybe it was a long reply to a letter to the editor. It had to do with a revoke by declarer, which had not been noticed. And the declarer noticed it a trick or two later.

My memory of the BW position follows with respect to several issues.

Was he required ethically to tell the opponents that he revoked? Answer No

Could he choose a line from that point forward to make it harder to realize he revoked? I think the answer was yes

Could he revoke again to hide the first revoke? The answer was no

Could he concede the remaining tricks to hide the revoke? The answer was no, but he could concede the remaining tricks by placing his cards face up on the table to give the opponents another opporutnity to catch the revoke (face down or placing them in the board was a definite no-no.

The issue also dealt with "fogiving" penalties against you. The issuee was that if you did not extract the appropriate penalty you were CHEATING the remainder of the field sitting the same direction as the violators at your table. So Frances position seems 100% in agreement with BW position.

I have not relooked these up...

[jtfanclub]

mink, on Feb 26 2007, 07:40 AM, said:

Bid out of turn: This is so obvious that I never experienced that opps did not notice it.

Play out of turn: The dummy should say nothing, even though he is allowed to. if it happens to me when I am declarer, calling attention to it would most time be in my own interest.

I cannot imagine saying anything about an insufficient bid by partner during the tournament.

Let's say that LHO opens 1♠ and partner 'overcalls' 1♥. RHO now bids 1NT, intended as 6-9 nonforcing.

1) Nobody at the table knows if partner pulled the wrong card or missed the opening.

2) Nobody knows if my partner will interpret the 1NT as a response to 1♠ (6-9 hcp) or as an overcall (15-18 balanced).

If I draw attention to my partner's error, I am effectively 'waking him up'. I am helping my partner more than my opponents, who likely realize the problem but have decided to allow him to 'sleep'.

The same goes for any play where, if the opponent follows, the play is valid. If partner calls for a card from dummy when he's in his hand, I'll say something, and if he looks like he's about to play a card from his hand when it's dummy's play, I'll say something, but if he plays a card out of his hand when it's dummy's turn to play before I can say something, I'm not going to correct him. If my partner leads out of turn, and the next player lays down his cards, I'm not going to say anything. Even on an opening bid out of turn, I'm not going to say anything. To do so may help us more than it helps our opponents.

Revokes are an exception, or rather, they're not an exception because the opponents playing to it doesn't cause the problem to go away. I point out both my and partner's revokes at the end of a hand, because otherwise we may accept a claim, put our cards away, and then hear dummy say 'wait a minute...' and we have to rebuild our hands. Gross.

[cherdano]

I can go either way on many of those, but to make a revoke and then put your cards away on declarer's claim before he had a chance to discover it would clearly cross the line for me. I.e. I would never like to see anyone winning due to this.

[mikeh]

My own view is like some already expressed: at the club level or in a social game, I usually waive penalties.

This is theoretically difficult to reconcile with my approach in tournaments, during which I call the director.

I call because, from my perspective, mechanical or loss-of-focus mistakes are part of the game, just as much as micounting one's tricks in cold 3N, and going down because we thought we needed to take a (losing) finesse to make.

Pardoning such errors is simply wrong in a matchpoint event: you are penalizing those pairs sitting the same direction as your opps. Your opps played badly (lost focus, etc) and thus, when their error costs, they should get a poor score as a consequence. By waiving the penalty, you are denying the other players, sitting their way, from the fruits of THEIR lack of a similar mistake: you are giving the offended pair undeserved matchpoints.

Justin's statement that forgiving errors penalizes him is true: and it does benefit everyone else sitting his way, but he seems to have overlooked its effect on the rest of the field.

In a team game, if you are playing the last match and if the outcome of your match is irrelevant to every other team that entered (the finals of a KO for instance) then the only people adversely affected are your teammates. IF they are unanimous in your approach, of waiving penalties, then to do so is okay, I suppose... altho it is contrary to the competitive nature of the game. Imagine Tiger Woods telling his playing partner that he could hit the ball into a water hazard, retrieve it, and take no penalty stroke!

However, if any of your teammates believes that the object of the match is to maximize the chances of the better team (on the day, not globally) winning, then it is wrong to waive a penalty. There are almost NO accidents, in the sense that the player making the error truly was not the least responsible. Revokes, leads out of turn etc are due to lapses in concentration. And concentration is the name of the game. If I know how to pull off a criss-cross squeeze, and the opp with my cards doesn't... and fails in a contract I make.. then I am NOT going to waive my score because he misplayed the hand. Why should I waive my score when an opp lets an ummakeable contract through by losing focus?

And in a wider setting, such as a Swiss or round-robin or earlier stages of a KO, waiving a penalty is as unfair to a portion of the field as it is in mps.

I don't expect any different from my opps. In fact, at the club against weak opps (who are sometimes too intimidated to call the director) I call on myself whenever I screw up... except for revokes.

Revokes are a special case. My rule (for whenever I revoke) in tournaments or against players I consider my peers (I often play at the club as do most of the local experts) is that I will play the unplayed card at my first legal opportunity and I will play it in a noticeable fashion: ensuring that declarer sees it. If the hand is claimed by declarer before I do that, then I show my hand... with the unplayed card conspicuously visible. If partner claims, I announce the revoke, since declarer is usually giving up on the hand and pays no attention to my cards.

If declarer fails to notice the revoke in these circumstances (I don't recall that ever happening) then I would consider my duty done.

At the club, against a non-expert, I will announce my revoke if declarer doesn't notice it.


Bids out of turn or insufficient bids: I don't say anything about this: if RHO wants to accept the bid (consciously or otherwise) that's his option or his mistake.

I did once play with a partner who psyched out of turn. While he did not admit that he knew he was out of turn, I never played with him again. The good news is that the opps accepted the bid, made an overcall, I cue bid and drove to game and got a zero... my favourite zero of all time

[Al_U_Card]

Albeit only a club game, last week, I was 4th seat and I pulled out the pass card, put it carefully on the table and then reached into the bidbox to extract the 4H pile......As I layed the brick down, I see the pass card which (as I was debating the value of my 4H bid in 4th) I mistook for the stop! card.

This was against the strongest pair in the room (Martin Caley and Peter Schwartz) and they both said in unison....take it back... we could see what you were doing.

The board was averageish but would have been a top for them had they accepted the pass-out and these guys are good enuf to know it.

Just makes the game a bit better, IMHO.

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 26 2007, 03:24 PM, said:

Albeit only a club game, last week, I was 4th seat and I pulled out the pass card, put it carefully on the table and then reached into the bidbox to extract the 4H pile......As I layed the brick down, I see the pass card which (as I was debating the value of my 4H bid in 4th) I mistook for the stop! card.

This was against the strongest pair in the room (Martin Caley and Peter Schwartz) and they both said in unison....take it back... we could see what you were doing.

The board was averageish but would have been a top for them had they accepted the pass-out and these guys are good enuf to know it.

Just makes the game a bit better, IMHO.

This is one I think you would be permitted in a tournament: Assuming that you were physically acting in tempo... you are, I beleive, permitted to change a bid, if made via a bidding box, if you have mistakenly pulled out, for example, 1N rather than 1♠, provided you notice it quickly.... certainly if you do so before next hand bids.

[kenrexford]

Just a humorous anecdote on point.

Years ago, my father was declaring. My mother, known for a short fuse, was twitching to the point of cramping up watching the bizarre line Dad was taking. Strange deep finesses, overtaking honors unnecessarily and relying upon a 3-3 split to make up the difference, stuff like that. A very bizarre line.

In the hall, over smokes, Mom asked Dad if he had lost his mind.

However, the very intricate line was beautiful as a means of making dummy up, to conceal his revoke at trick one by never playing that suit again until dummy was up to all good tricks.

I think he got his deserved average board. Sure, he revoked, but the play after that was apparently sublime.

[ArcLight]

>Justin's statement that forgiving errors penalizes him is true: and it does benefit everyone else sitting his way, but he seems to have overlooked its effect on the rest of the field.


I also think there is an element of pride. The top players want you to know they BEAT you, and were not handed a victory by a lucky non-play related mistake.

Alan Sontag mentions this is his book - the Bridge Bum.
He was playing against the Blue team for sports cars back in the early 70's.
Pietro Forquet (I think) lead out of turn. Sontag let him take it back. He was called a sportsman. But he said he wanted to show everyone that he was the best by skill, and not have any lingering doubts.

[barmar]

Can you imagine a tennis player not accepting a point because his opponent double faulted, because he prefers to win by hitting the ball skillfully?

In both games, you demonstrate your superior skill both by making skillful plays AND by making fewer mistakes. If an opponent leads out of turn, that's one more mistake on their side, and it should potentially impact their result just as well as losing count of a suit.

If declarer goes down because he didn't draw enough rounds of trumps, did the defenders demonstrate any "skill"? Do you think Sontag would have allowed Forquet to go back and draw another round of trump, so he could win by his own skill rather than taking advantage of Forquet's loss of concentration?

It's often stated that excellence at bridge is mostly a matter of minimizing mistakes. Hands that require masterful plays (squeezes, endplays, avoidance, etc.) are relatively rare, but hands where you can blow it by losing concentration and slipping up occur all the time.

[the hog]

ArcLight, on Feb 27 2007, 07:26 AM, said:

>Justin's statement that forgiving errors penalizes him is true: and it does benefit everyone else sitting his way, but he seems to have overlooked its effect on the rest of the field.


I also think there is an element of pride. The top players want you to know they BEAT you, and were not handed a victory by a lucky non-play related mistake.

Alan Sontag mentions this is his book - the Bridge Bum.
He was playing against the Blue team for sports cars back in the early 70's.
Pietro Forquet (I think) lead out of turn. Sontag let him take it back. He was called a sportsman. But he said he wanted to show everyone that he was the best by skill, and not have any lingering doubts.

Hmm I seem to recall an incident a couple of years ago in an Italy-US match....Cost Italy the title.

[mycroft]

I would say "foot-fault" rather than double-fault, but can you imaging a tennis player saying "take it back" on a foot-fault, either?

The Laws say: (Law 72B3,4):
There is no obligation to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction of Law committed by one's own side (but see footnote to Law 75 for a mistaken explanation).

A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke, or mixing the cards prematurely.

So, that's what people have been saying. If you do something, you can, but do not have to, point it out; I tend to (unless I have reason to not be nice to these opponents, like they abused my liberality before), but sometimes I don't. I'm usually a stickler for the Laws, so I figure it's right to be a hard-*** when I'm the one that blew it, too.

But claiming/conceding without showing the cards directly, that's a no-no. Trying the second revoke deliberately, nope. Hmm. So, following the Laws is Ethical. Who'd have thought?

Michael.

[han]

First time I played against someone whose name I had heard was against Zeke Jabbour. Of course, I was a bit nervous so I quickly revoked. Zeke sighed, and called the director, who gave us a penalty trick. Zeke complained that he didn't like this rule.

But the next hand.. my partner revoked! Zeke told him to take back his card, mumbling that he really didn't like that rule. This made quite a positive impression on Han-the-novice, and Justin's post made me think of it again.

Having said that, I call the director when my opponents revoke, and I assume (hope) Zeke would do the same thing against me these days. (I don't think I ever revoked again, but I have made leads out of turn)

[han]

I realise now that my above post could be read as saying that I would be offended if someone would allow me to take back my revoke. That's not what I intended, I just meant that I think Zeke let us take it back because we were such novices, and I hope he wouldn't think that anymore.

[zasanya]

ArcLight, on Feb 26 2007, 04:26 PM, said:

Alan Sontag mentions this is his book - the Bridge Bum.
He was playing against the Blue team for sports cars back in the early  70's.
Pietro Forquet (I think) lead out of turn.  Sontag let him take it back.  He was called a sportsman.  But he said he wanted to show everyone that he was the best by skill, and not have any lingering doubts.

It was the first deal of the match and it was a straight match. Nobody else could have 'got hurt'.So rather than getting into a technicality Sontag suggested a redeal.
The suggestion was accpted.
BTW it was Giorgio Belladonna who made the bid out of turn (I think).

[pclayton]

I think there's a subtle difference between an insufficient bid and "hitting a golf ball in a hazard" or "double faulting in tennis". A revoke comes closer, but its still procedural in nature.

A better comparison is the "14 club rule". A golfer is penalized 2 strokes per hole for the 15th club (maximum 4 per round). Sticking an extra wedge in your bag, while careless, has nothing to do with skill. The advantage of having a 15th club is present, but not to the tune of 2 strokes per hole.

If Tiger played a Ryder Cup match and won the 1st 2 holes because his opponent miscounted his clubs, I would understand him waiving a penalty of this nature. I can't ever imagine him allowing his opponents to replay a shot.