[mycroft]

There are different codes of ethics in Professional Football and in Bridge, and they are codified in the respective laws and regulations.

Bridge has L72A2 (old laws, because they applied in LV): "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." and also L72A4 "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous."

If you believe that that a trump lead is 100% automatic, and that that is a trick the opponents could not lose, then ethically, according to the spirit of the Proprieties, pointed to by L72A2, you state that. If, after that, the TDs disagree with you, L72A4 says take it.

I expect everyone at my table, even the novices, to follow the Laws, and if they transgress, to accept the TD call and the penalty, should there be one, with good grace, even if they did not then know that their act did transgress, or could have. That is my right under the Laws. I also believe that I should be held to the same standard, and if I believe that the opponents aren't sure that my act could have trangressed, I will call the TD myself and explain the situation, for their protection. I accept that TD call with good grace (clearly), and the ruling, should it not be in my favour, equally. That is my right under the Laws, but not a responsibility; it is a matter for my personal ethics.

I do not malign anyone who doesn't follow my personal standard of ethics, provided they follow the Laws. However, there are those who hold their opponents to the letter of the Law, but gripe when someone calls them on something they do; all the TDs know them, and they're Fun To Rule Against. They don't get wrong rulings, but they also don't get the benefit of any doubt, either.

Whatever allows one to sleep at night and eat dinner in peace, I guess. Don't care, as long as they follow the Laws.

[mycroft]

For instance, in Curling, you're supposed to call your own burned rocks and hogline violations. You're also supposed to agree on the score, only bringing in the officials - should there be any, and there isn't in anything but the top level of the game - if there is a major disagreement - and there never is.

In Basketball, the Deliberate Foul is a recognized, accepted, and required tactic. Try that in Bridge.

Different games have different ethics codes, and people play to them.

[ASkolnick]

I happen to agree with JLALL, not Mycroft. I do think that Mike Rosenberg was acting in the best interest of the game, but I do not think it is his/their decision to make the ruling (or even suggest it)

1) You have a director, that is what they do. I don't even see a problem reporting your own infraction if you choose to do so.

2) There is a difference between a point of law (Mycroft) and a judgement call. The law states you can't lose tricks impossible to lose or you can't win tricks that are impossible to win. This is because it is a point of fact. As for hesitation, this now goes down to judgement.

Now,
a) If it was pointed out to the director, let him rule. That's what they are paid for.
If it was not pointed out to the director, there should be no adjustment. Why? Because it is the director's job to make the adjustments, not the players? It is also states that one does not have to bring attention to an infraction.

[rigour6]

I would only add a note that this was in a team knockout. That gives you more room for this sort of action, "protecting the field" doesn't really enter the picture the way it would even in a swiss team event.