[fuburules3]

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but my attempts to find it with search failed, but is it considered unethical to not take advantage of a major/minor penalty card?

I told my friend I would be hesitant to take advantage of a major penalty card if it allowed me to make an otherwise impossible contract because it did not feel in spirit of game. He believes that not only should I take advantage of it, but it is unethical of me not to do so (and that if I made an impossible contract by doing so the director would adjust the score).

In any event, curious what people think. I can't say for sure what I'd do if this came up in important event, but at least at (say) a club game I'd be unlikely to give it a second thought.

[gwnn]

TD is never going to adjust if you make an unmakeable contract by enforcing a penalty card. I am in agreement with you that it is not really in the spirit of the game but I am drawn to enforce rules sometimes for the intellectual challenge since the strange new rules for this board adds a new dimension to the game that will be gone in 5 minutes. That said I am not really good at enforcing and profiting from these rules. On Monday I let an opp change his card after about 10 seconds and dummy's already won his card.

I don't really revoke but when I do and opp profits from it I never feel upset by that. Instead I hate myself for braking the rules.

You may find it odd that this post is only about me me me when in reality you did not ask about me at all. This is because I am uncomfortable in stating what the 'ethics of the game' and the 'spirit of the game' are beyond the letter of the law. Often I feel that people use the following working definition for 'ethical': anything that I do and obeys the law is necessarily also ethical, but anything that hurts me is either illegal or, failing that, unethical and/or should be illegal.

[Free]

I think it's just stupid not to use penalty cards to your advantage. It's a game of luck and skill. Your skill is pretty much the same on every deal, but your luck changes. If your opponents bid a grand slam while the rest of the field stays in game, then it's just not your lucky day. If they happen to revoke, it is.

I have mixed feelings about it being unethical not to use the penalty cards to your advantage. On the one hand, nobody obligates you to do anything. On the other hand it's like dumping: you give your opps a better score than if you'd do everything to achieve the best result on that board.

[blackshoe]

I do not see how taking advantage of a situation within the rules can be considered "not in the spirit of the game".

"Unethical" is a slippery word, as most people (mis) use it.It has been said, and I agree, that the rules of the game define what is ethical and what is not. If the rules didn't want players to "take advantage" of penalty cards, they would say so. They don't say so. And "do your best to win" is certainly in the spirit of the game. So if the opponents give you the contract on a silver platter, say "thank you" and go on to the next board.

Hm. Is it unethical to accept your overtricks if the opponents make a defensive error? Why is this situation any different than the penalty card one?

[gwnn]

I think you misread the opening post The question was whether it was unethical not to take advantage of a penalty card. Well, the OP had both the poster's and his partner's view, his partner thought that not taking advantage was unethical and he thought taking advantage was against the spirit of the game.

[jjbrr]

When the LOL at the club plays a card out of turn or an honor falls from her hand or something, I tell her to pick it up and we'll all forget it happened (unless the extra info to her partner is really bad for me).

In a serious event, taking advantage of penalty cards is standard.

[Phil]

We've had discussions like this before.

In club games, I'm pretty forgiving, although Monday night's swiss is semi-serious, and I didn't stop my RHO from leading out of turn the second time.

In tournaments, I will vacuum up every spare crumb of advantage that my opponents wish to drop on the ground, within reason of course. For instance with the senior citizen with palsy who is dropping cards every third trick, I will look away, unlike the inattentive person who is thinking about lunch and can't follow suit.

In the end, this is a personal issue and I would not condemn a teammate for (not) taking of the rules.

[YesHoney]

What is the purpose of a law that creates a penalty card if then a player sees it as unethical to play accordingly?

[fuburules3]

As was mentioned, I think some people misread original post and question was whether it is unethical NOT to take advantage of penalty card (that is, whether this is akin to deliberately playing bad/dumping).

My reason for thinking it is not in spirit of the game is that (as I see it) the reason for having a penalty card is that so the opponents do not gain an advantage for their clumsiness etc. If you were in (say) a contract of 7♠ and the opponent accidentally drops the K of trump offside and you can now make your contract by "dropping" the K, it doesn't feel like the intention or reason for the penalty card rule is so that you can now make your contract. I understand that it's hard to determine when opponents have benefited from an exposed card/when they haven't, hence the rule, but I don't see any reason why if I judge they have not gained from the exposure of card I can decide to not take advantage (and not be an "unethical" player).

[blackshoe]

gwnn, on May 27 2010, 10:14 AM, said:

I think you misread the opening post The question was whether it was unethical not to take advantage of a penalty card. Well, the OP had both the poster's and his partner's view, his partner thought that not taking advantage was unethical and he thought taking advantage was against the spirit of the game.

Fair enough.

No, not unethical. Stupid, probably.

[barmar]

Law 72A says, "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." Not doing everything legal to achieve this objective could be considered unethical.

[blackshoe]

That seems like a helluva stretch to me.

[gnasher]

barmar, on May 28 2010, 02:53 AM, said:

Law 72A says, "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."

So what? It doesn't say that's the sole objective.