[Ant590]

In our regulations (EBU) it is interesting as one is meant to alert as to the partnership's agreements, even if that conflicts with one's own frame of reference... whilst bidding in one's own frame naturally.

In these two problems I was ok because my frame of reference was our agreements!

[pclayton]

1. c
2. c
3. b (was a initially)
4. a
5. a

6. Usually no, but if its about impossible for pard to show out in a suit (dummy has 1, we have 1, and pard shows out on the 1st trick when we have 3) I can't see any UI problem by asking. The rules allow it.

7. b - unless the presence of the card gives some sort of advantage to offender's partner. Even then, if I strongly feel the partner of the offender will not take advantage of, I'll allow him to put it back.

8. a (changed from - time pressure just means people need to stay poised. A time penalty isn't the end of the world, but blowing a full board on doing something stupid, like not calling the director can be very costly.

9. a

10. No

[P_Marlowe]

#1 c, I try to stop partner, but if he did it,
declarer is a gown up
#2 a
#3 a if I recognise it
#4 a if I recognise it
#5 a
#6 never, my partner is grown up
#7 depends on the opponents, the state / history
of the current match, how important it is
#8 b
#9 a If I think about it, but since I play on BBO for
training purposes, what do i gain from a bidding
accident of my opponents
#10 no, but only if I recognise it, which would mean, I look closer,
and I will do this only, if it is make or break

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

Ethically, it is entirely correct to not point out any irregularity you see (your side's MI excepted). Nobody can question your ethics should you choose to play that way (well, they can, but they're wrong, and the Laws are very clear about it. I've had to go through Law 71A1, 4, B3 (and usually Law 40A, these explanations are usually after "odd" bids) to show the "hard done by" what Bridge Ethics actually are).

Whether I do so depends on the class of the game and the identity of my opponents. I like playing to the letter of the law, and expect my opponents to hold me to them as well - and if I believe my opponents don't know the laws well enough to do that, I will do what is necessary (unless the opponents really annoy me, then they're on their own. Yeah, that's petty, but it's the way it works). That means that if I think I have done the right L73C thing, but I'm not 100% sure, I'll call the TD to protect my opponents, unless they're good enough to know their rights (or obnoxious enough for me to not care). I find, even (especially?) with opponents who know about use of UI, it's a calmer TD experience if I call than if they are allowed to express their indignance that a TD would even consider bidding after (whatever)...

So, that's my answer to 1-4, and provided the game itself is polite, I have no problems with "letter of the law" players. I have no problem with "ah, let's be a little casual" players, too, provided it's not the GNT Zone final or something. What really annoys me is people who expect a little casual when they make a mistake, but are letter of the law when I do. They get the full benefit of my TD knowledge as to letter of the law after that :-)

5: I try to stop LOOT as dummy. I'm allowed to, and it's always a hassle when it happens. Of course, it could be RHO that objects, and depending on how it works, they may get legal information as to how best to defend!

6. This I don't do - as dummy or (as I'm in a zone that allows it) as defender. It just annoys me. Yeah, I pay off to one or two revokes a year, but it's just not worth it. Plus, those who "sometimes ask" - and almost everybody "sometimes asks" - pass the exact information as defender that means that you're not allowed to do that outside the ACBL, and that really annoys me.

If someone asks me to ask, I will. But I'd rather not play with them.

7. I call the TD. If it's a small card, they need to know the mPC restrictions (or lack of them), or they might play it wrong. If it's an honour, and I believe that the player has a problem with their hands, I'll request a waiver of the penalty L81C8 - I may not get it, but I'm not allowed to waive it on my own authority (L72A3), so I don't. Of course, see above about how my willingness to be nice evaporates under certain conditions.

8. I may know the options, but do the opponents? They have the right to know my options and defend with the knowledge that I believe that the option I take is the best for me; if they don't know that, then they're damaged. Plus, making your own rulings at the table is Wrong. And what happens if I decide to let them lead whatever they want, and then after the SA cashes, I then decide to exercise my MPC rights? Defenders almost certainly won't believe me, and that causes a lot of animosity.

I know this is a bugger, because this TD call takes almost a minute just to recite the options. But it's important to do.

9,10: Again, if I'm playing in a tournament, I expect people to be prepared for everything reasonable. No, you don't get to discuss how to defend over an EHAA 2C opener, or a Precision 2D, or a 10-12 NT. We told you what we were playing off the top, if you wanted to discuss, you could have then.

In a pickup game, especially against pickup opponents, I want them warned and prepared; otherwise they'll just grumble and leave. It's no fun playing a practiced partnership playing an odd system against randoms unless they are given a fighting chance - go ahead and discuss stuff. Feel free to discuss which KC you're playing, too - just remember it later.

BBO has a nasty little habit on claiming, if you claim mid-trick (which I like to do - lead the trump to make it clear I'm pulling the last one, and claim, for instance). If the trick ends, you'll end up claiming one more or one fewer than you wanted. When that happens, I'd expect that the opponents would cancel, and I would as well, if it was made immediately clear that that's what I'm doing. I feel really uncomfortable when I misclaim and they let me have more tricks than I would take, for instance.

Anyone who accepts a clear misclaim, violating Law 71, and doesn't immediately apologize for a misread or the like - and it happens on BBO, if you're not careful - becomes persona non grata to me. I'm on the hook if I make a claim that misses a line. I am not - legally - if I claim zero tricks when in fact I can't take less than 3. Again, in a tournament, I'll call the TD and ask for a L79C rectification - whether I am claimer or accepter.

Michael.

[barmar]

I agree with most of the other responses here.

Regarding 6, I never ask. It's simply not a habit I ever acquired, and I know it's important to be consistent. My regular partner always asks, and he's very consistent about it. I find it a bit annoying, but I don't complain, and I DO check my cards every time he does it just in case.

He once revoked as declarer and asked me to start asking, but I wasn't able to get into the habit.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Jan 14 2008, 03:19 PM, said:

Anyone who answered 'accept the claim' to 10 should be ashamed of themselves. I assume the situation is that 5 tricks are automatic and the opponent would always get them by playing it out?

If it's obvious and automatic then I'd cancel and claim 0. Most of the time, if an opponent claims 4 out of 5 and I don't see how we're going to take even one trick, I'm not going to spend any time trying to find the trick they think they're going to lose.

[Cascade]

Echognome, on Jan 12 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

There are a few gray areas in bridge that I wrestle with from time to time. Just wondered what people thought about these. I don't believe there are right answers to these, just people's opinions on how they want the game played. What do you think?

1. You are defending a contract at say trick 4 and it is your turn to lead. Your partner accidentally leads out of turn. You have a few seconds before declarer eventually plays to the trick. Do you?

a. Immediately inform declarer that there has been an irregularity and your partner has lead out of turn.
b. Let declarer play to the trick, thus accepting the lead out of turn and then point out the irregularity.
c. Let declarer play to the trick and not say anything as the declarer has accepted the lead out of turn.

c/

I have no obligation to draw attention to my own side's irregularity. b/ would be gamesmanship in pointing out the error of the opponents.

Quote

2. You arrive at a table running a little late from the previous table, sit down and pick up your cards.  Your partner, not paying attention opens the bidding out of turn.  Similar to above, do you?

a. Immediately inform opponents that there has been an irregularity and your partner has bid out of turn.
b. Let RHO bid, thus accepting the bid out of turn and then point out the irregularity.
c. Let RHO bid and not say anything as the opponents have now accepted the lead out of turn.

c/ as above

Quote

3. You are defending a contract and your partner, that joker, has unintentionally revoked.  As it turns out, your side has not won any more tricks, so there is no equity issue on the board.  Do you?

a. Point out the revoke to opponents.
b. Carry on to the next board without saying anything.

b/ as above

Quote

4. You are defending a contract and your partner, that joker, has unintentionally revoked.  As it turns out, your side has won a subsequent trick, but other than that, there was no equity issue on the board and it didn't seem to cause declarer to misplay the hand.  Do you?

a. Point out the revoke to opponents.
b. Carry on to the next board without saying anything.

b/ as above

Quote

5. You are dummy and your partner is declaring a tricky contract.  The lead is in her hand, but she looks like she is about to lead from dummy.  Do you?

a. Try to prevent partner from leading from dummy.
b. Let partner call for the card and play it and see if LHO follows thus accepting the lead.

a/ Dummy may prevent an irregularity.

Quote

6. Do you ask partner "having none?" when he fails to follow to the current trick?  Why or why not?

Sometimes because I am allowed to.

Quote

7. You are declaring a contract and at about trick 7, RHO is about to play to the trick in turn and fumbles his cards and drops one accidentally.  Do you?

a. Call the TD.
b. Let him pick it up and say to play on.

Call the director.

Quote

8. You are under time pressure to finish the last board of the round before time is called.  The bidding goes without issue and your partner is about to declare.  Unfortunately, RHO leads out of turn.  You know all of the options you are allowed by law.  Do you?

a. Call the TD.
b. Just choose the appropriate option and let play finish.

Call the director.

Quote

9. You are playing on BBO with your regular partner.  You open an exotic preempt (such as a multi 2♦ or a Frelling 2♥).  Your opponents are a new partnership and LHO pauses for thought.  Do you?

a. Suggest that the opponents discuss their agreements.
b. Wait and see what happens?

Depends if this is a casual game in the main room i will let the opponents discuss a defense.

Quote

10. You are playing on BBO and declarer claims 4 out of the last 5 tricks.  Declarer doesn't realize that he has all 5 tricks if he plays them in the normal order.  Do you accept the claim?

Depends how normal normal is and how abnormal it would be for declarer to play in such an order to give up a trick.

The law speaks of "any normal" not "the normal".

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Jan 14 2008, 07:11 PM, said:

a/ Dummy may prevent an irregularity.

Small nit: Dummy may attempt to prevent an irregularity. Once the irregularity has happened, dummy must keep mum.

[TimG]

I admit that my answer to a number of these questions would depend upon the opponents.

[Echognome]

So here are your bridge ethics and a few comments. Thank you for all those that responded.

1. You are defending a contract at say trick 4 and it is your turn to lead. Your partner accidentally leads out of turn. You have a few seconds before declarer eventually plays to the trick. Do you?

a. Immediately inform declarer that there has been an irregularity and your partner has lead out of turn. 33%
b. Let declarer play to the trick, thus accepting the lead out of turn and then point out the irregularity. 0%
c. Let declarer play to the trick and not say anything as the declarer has accepted the lead out of turn. 67%

2. You arrive at a table running a little late from the previous table, sit down and pick up your cards. Your partner, not paying attention opens the bidding out of turn. Similar to above, do you?

a. Immediately inform opponents that there has been an irregularity and your partner has bid out of turn. 39%
b. Let RHO bid, thus accepting the bid out of turn and then point out the irregularity. 0%
c. Let RHO bid and not say anything as the opponents have now accepted the lead out of turn. 61%

So the vast majority of the people felt that leading out of turn or bidding out of turn is pretty much the same in terms of ethics. Only one person had different answers for 1 and 2.

3. You are defending a contract and your partner, that joker, has unintentionally revoked. As it turns out, your side has not won any more tricks, so there is no equity issue on the board. Do you?

a. Point out the revoke to opponents. 11%
b. Carry on to the next board without saying anything. 89%

4. You are defending a contract and your partner, that joker, has unintentionally revoked. As it turns out, your side has won a subsequent trick, but other than that, there was no equity issue on the board and it didn't seem to cause declarer to misplay the hand. Do you?

a. Point out the revoke to opponents. 37%
b. Carry on to the next board without saying anything. 63%

Here 79% had the same answer for questions 3 and 4. Several that answered that they wouldn't point out the irregularity if it were a bid or lead out of turn said they would point out a revoke.

5. You are dummy and your partner is declaring a tricky contract. The lead is in her hand, but she looks like she is about to lead from dummy. Do you?

a. Try to prevent partner from leading from dummy. 89%
b. Let partner call for the card and play it and see if LHO follows thus accepting the lead. 11%

You are within your rights to try to prevent the irregularity from happening (unless for some reason you had peeked at partner's hand) and the vast majority of people try to do so.

6. Do you ask partner "having none?" when he fails to follow to the current trick? Why or why not?

No one claims to always do this, although I've certainly seen asked plenty. 74% say they never do it (worried about UI or find it a distraction) and 26% say they will do it under certain circumstances (they are surprised).

7. You are declaring a contract and at about trick 7, RHO is about to play to the trick in turn and fumbles his cards and drops one accidentally. Do you?

a. Call the TD. 24%
b. Let him pick it up and say to play on. 38%
c. Answer differs in pairs vs teams 10%
d. Depends on the event 19%
e. Depends on the opponents 10%

Had more write-in answers to this question than any other. Seems it's a question where there is a large variance of opinion.

8. You are under time pressure to finish the last board of the round before time is called. The bidding goes without issue and your partner is about to declare. Unfortunately, RHO leads out of turn. You know all of the options you are allowed by law. Do you?

a. Call the TD. 74%
b. Just choose the appropriate option and let play finish. 16%
c. Depends 11%

This is something I would certainly do under some special circumstances, like if I knew what option I was going to take. It is certainly the rare exception that I wouldn't call the TD.

9. You are playing on BBO with your regular partner. You open an exotic preempt (such as a multi 2♦ or a Frelling 2♥). Your opponents are a new partnership and LHO pauses for thought. Do you?

a. Suggest that the opponents discuss their agreements. 76%
b. Wait and see what happens? 24%

This is something we do all the time when we are playing. I just didn't know if it was standard. 76% of the people happen to agree.

10. You are playing on BBO and declarer claims 4 out of the last 5 tricks. Declarer doesn't realize that he has all 5 tricks if he plays them in the normal order. Do you accept the claim?

Yes. 26%
No. 74%

I could have worded it better, but I believe most people understood what I was trying to ask. I wouldn't accept the claim personally, but I have seen so many people accept such claims. (Maybe about 24% of them?)

[barmar]

I think many people when playing online don't read the claims carefully. If they think declarer probably has the rest of the tricks, and then see a claim pop up, they probably assume that it claims the rest and accept it quickly. So if declarer actually claimed only 4 of 5, they're likely to accept it by mistake, not because they're trying to get a trocl they don't deserve.

It doesn't help that online players hardly ever include a line of play in their claims. Offline, we usually say things like "give up a diamond and cross-ruff the rest", so if neither opponent has a winning diamond (declarer didn't realize his spot card had become high) it's obvious for them to refuse that trick.