[campboy]

Appeal #2 in this write-up may be of interest. A ruling was sought because a player who was told that a 5♥ response to RCKB showed 2 of 5 key cards then said "without the queen?" and declarer played on the assumption that that player didn't have it. There was no adjustment on the grounds that declarer was not "an innocent player" because the original explanation was incomplete.

[WellSpyder]

campboy, on 2011-November-08, 09:44, said:

Appeal #2 in this write-up may be of interest. A ruling was sought because a player who was told that a 5♥ response to RCKB showed 2 of 5 key cards then said "without the queen?" and declarer played on the assumption that that player didn't have it. There was no adjustment on the grounds that declarer was not "an innocent player" because the original explanation was incomplete.

Certainly looks like the right ruling - declarer was clearly at fault for an inadequate explanation. But it seems to me that he drew the wrong inference, anyway. Obviously a player holding the trump Q knows dummy will not have this card, but why shouldn't they still feel they need to know whether declarer knew dummy would not have this card? Surely that can affect what inferences the defender thinks they can draw about the declarer's hand....

[aguahombre]

Wellspyder is correct, IMO.

Also, the defender in Appeal #2 claimed he was correcting the incomplete explanation, not asking a question (Declarer claims he thought it was a question.)

Just maybe two without is not their agreement, Defenders might want to know that, as well...in addition to whether dummy might have an extra trump and would have "shown" the queen. I might want the answer to know how dangerous a trump lead would be.

One of the commentators on the appeal addressed the remote possibility Declarer might deliberately leave out information about the trump queen to gain a reaction.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2011-November-05, 00:40, said:

We had this auction:

(1♥) 1♠ (Pass) Pass
(Dbl) Pass (Pass) 2♦
(Pass) Pass (3NT) All Pass

The 3NT bidder had passed with a 16 count with five spades.

At the end of the hand he said opener had to reopen (so there was no danger of missing game). He claimed this is "just bridge".

However it seems to me that you can't successfully use this tactic unless you don't disclose the forcing nature of the pass to the opponents.

If you disclose then fourth hand with a good hand and can pass trapping opener into doubling (or taking some other action) and there is a chance of a penalty.

Is forcing pass in this situation really "just bridge"?

A forcing pass is alertable in England/Wales.

My understanding is that a lot of players consider re-opening with a shortage automatic even with a minimum. These days that might be considered "general bridge knowledge". But that does not make the pass forcing: they will pass with length in the opponent’s suit.

On RGB the best player who used to post - sadly I have not seen him there recently - Kieran Dyke once explained that with a singleton or void in their suit you always re-open, with a doubleton you often re-open and with three or more you usually pass. I think that is normal.

Of course if playing that way you can pass a sixteen count with long spades because the odds favour you: partner is very likely to be short.

gartinmale, on 2011-November-05, 13:09, said:

Here's a related question. Suppose you have this agreement and open 1C. Suppose lefty overcalls 1S, partner passes, and righty fidgets for a long time and then asks "The pass is forcing, so you have to bid again, right?" If righty passes and you decide that based on the fidgeting and the question that maybe you would do best defending 1S, do you think you will get any redress when righty calls the director?

None whatever. Opponents' mannerisms are AI, and agreements are not binding.

gartinmale, on 2011-November-05, 13:43, said:

I understand the "at your own risk" part of the rule, but have had a result adjusted against me previously when I passed partner's forcing notrump after righty made it clear that she had a big hand. The director rolled the auction back because I had informed righty that the forcing notrump was forcing, and then passed it (at my own risk - but it would have been a good board had it stood). This seems like it could be an analogous situation.

If there was nothing more to it than that I think you were very unlucky in your ruling.

gartinmale, on 2011-November-05, 14:05, said:

But where's the line drawn in (a) through ©? At what point does it stop being "inferences...drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk" and start being a, well, baby psyche? And when are or are not (maybe the answer is never?) your opponents entitled to redress if you pass the bid?

Never. Psyches are legal.

Ok, never subject to UI considerations, ie so long as you have no UI from partner suggesting passing, and also if you have passed enough times in similar positions for it to become an agreement then it is time you told the opponents "nearly never".

But if there is no UI and this is the first time then you may pass freely.

EricK, on 2011-November-06, 03:38, said:

But I think passing a forcing bid solely because RHO asks questions to try to ascertain your system is against the spirit of bridge. In an ideal world, RHO would have known without asking whether the 1NT is absolutely forcing and would have been able to pass in tempo, and there is almost zero chance that opener would then pass. I don't think it is fair to take advantage of your opponents' not knowing your conventional agreements. It is even worse because the laws do not look kindly on RHO asking questions for no apparent reason. If one of the possible hand types for responder is a very strong balanced hand, and 4th hand has nothing much but asks loads of questions about whether 1NT is absolutely forcing and as a result persuades opener to pass, then the director will probably not look kindly at 4th hand's actions. But if that's the case you shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

Taking advantage of AI is in the correct spirit of the game. The fact that things might be different in different circumstances is not relevant. If you wish to take advantage of your opponents' mannerisms that is legal, and you are doing your best to win fairly.

EricK, on 2011-November-06, 08:10, said:

Some people play 1NT as forcing (which means absolutely forcing); some only play it as semi-forcing. Is there anybody who plays it as forcing who would pass if it weren't for the questions trying to determine which it was? I can't see how you can ethically justify passing a bid which would you otherwise wouldn't just because RHO asks questions. It's not like you would have taken that option if they knew your actual agreements (or if it were played behind screens, or online, so you didn't know that partner was answering these questions).

The Laws & Ethics of the game say you can, so your view that you should not is not binding on other people.

EricK, on 2011-November-07, 12:29, said:

Consider the simplest scenario:
You open 1♠, partner responds 1NT which you alert, and RHO simply asks what that is, and you reply "forcing 1NT". RHO now passes. Is it really legal for you to pass (assuming you genuinely play the 1NT as forcing rather than semi-forcing, and you haven't psyched)? Suppose you do pass and it turns out that RHO has nothing much - i.e. no particular reason to ask the question (other than idle curiosity) - and 1NT is a worse contract than you would have reached had you made your systemic bid, would you feel RHO had damaged you by the question, or would you feel that you had "taken an inference from opponents' mannerisms, at your own risk" and let it go?

You are allowed by the Laws & Ethics of the game to pass. It is at your own risk, and if you misjudged why he asked, that is tough luck.

EricK, on 2011-November-07, 12:29, said:

If you would just let it go, then at least that is a consistent position. But it does mean that opps must continually ask the meaning of your bids whether or not it affects them this round, or be at a constant disadvantage. And as far as I am aware, many regulating authorities act as if asking when you having nothing to think about is equivalent to hesitating with a singleton, or other sharp practices.

No, of course they do not have to, because this does not happen.

[barmar]

The definition of this sense of "spirit" is: the real meaning or the intention behind something as opposed to its strict verbal interpretation.

So by definition, you can't expect to find the spirit explicitly in the law book. It's inferred from intrepretation and experience.

[EricK]

bluejak, on 2011-November-08, 12:17, said:

No, of course they do not have to, because this does not happen.

What does this extract from the Tangerine Book mean then?

Quote

It is also improper to ask questions which may mislead your
opponents. The TD might adjust the result in either case.

If people are allowed to draw conclusions "at their own risk" this implies that sometimes they will have been misled. So sometimes it is OK to ask questions which may mislead your opponents.

When is it OK and when isn't it?

[barmar]

I believe the Laws say that you may not intentionally try to mislead the opponent. But if you do something innocently with no such intent, they take inference at their own risk.

But there's also a law that says you must be extra careful in sensitive situations. Since there's a fine line you have to walk.

[campboy]

EricK, on 2011-November-09, 03:38, said:

When is it OK and when isn't it?

It becomes a problem if the question is phrased in such a way as to suggest something specific about your reason for asking, or if the auction is such that it would be unusual to ask at all (or, as barmar says, if you were trying to mislead!).

I don't know how much is in the Tangerine Book, but you would probably be better off looking in the Orange Book, of which the Tangerine is a summary, for a fuller picture.

[bluejak]

EricK, on 2011-November-09, 03:38, said:

What does this extract from the Tangerine Book mean then?

If people are allowed to draw conclusions "at their own risk" this implies that sometimes they will have been misled. So sometimes it is OK to ask questions which may mislead your opponents.

When is it OK and when isn't it?

It is ok to ask reasonable questions because you need to know the answers, whether an opponent is misled or not.

It is not ok to ask questions when you do not need to know the answers and the questions might mislead.

It is not ok to ask a question in a way that might mislead the opponent when the obvious way of asking will not.

An example of the last one: suppose you hold the ♥Q and the ♥K is led:

An ‘OK’ question: “What are your leads?”
A not ‘OK’ question: “Does the king promise the queen?”

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-07, 09:33, said:

I'm not at all sure that it's unethical or illegal, though. (The ethics of the game are defined by its rules, so it is only unethical if it's illegal and done knowingly).

This should not pass unchallenged. There are plenty of legal situations which are unethical, not unlike real life. My go to example is the use of the Colour Coup against the partially sighted, but there are others.

[blackshoe]

If it's not illegal, what makes it unethical?

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-09, 20:48, said:

If it's not illegal, what makes it unethical?

Laws are the attempt to turn ethics into procedures. However, ethics precede laws and are more fundamental. The correct question therefore is: If it is unethical, why is it not illegal?

[campboy]

The fact that you or I think something is unethical does not give us the right to expect anyone else to share that opinion, unless there is some suitable higher authority we can appeal to.

[blackshoe]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-10, 04:57, said:

Laws are the attempt to turn ethics into procedures.

Perhaps this illustrates an error in calling the rules of a game "laws". Or pehaps not; in my dictionary app, one of the definitions of 'law' is 'a rule defining correct procedure or behavior in a sport: the laws of the game'. This definition agrees with my earlier assertion that the ethics of a game are defined by its laws. Therefore, your assertion that "ethics precede laws and are more fundamental" is incorrect. Perhaps the problem is that my use of "ethics" refers only to the ethics of the game of bridge, while yours refers to "moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior" where "moral" means "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character", which is a totally different thing.

[blackshoe]

campboy, on 2011-November-10, 05:59, said:

The fact that you or I think something is unethical does not give us the right to expect anyone else to share that opinion, unless there is some suitable higher authority we can appeal to.

Was Rand wrong then when she said "Judge, and prepare to be judged"?

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-10, 11:11, said:

Was Rand wrong then when she said "Judge, and prepare to be judged"?

Maybe yes and maybe no, but this is more properly a discussion for the Water Cooler.

Anyway, a friend of mine once had a fairly regular partner. On the last occasion they played, their elderly opponent pulled out a recouble card when she had intended to take out the alert card. I wasn't there but I assume that the action did not fit the definition of unintended - ie she did reach for the blue card that she ended up removing from the box.

So, this partner called the director, who was forced to penalise the opponent for an illegal redouble out of turn. The partner's action was legal. Was it ethical?

[blackshoe]

Was it ethical? I said upthread that in this discussion "ethical" has two meanings: "ethical according to the laws of bridge" and "ethical according to society's general moral code". So my answer is "yes (meaning one) and no (meaning two)". I think also that breaches of ethics (meaning two) which are not breaches of ethics (meaning one) are outside the scope of the TD's powers and duties. An extreme example: a player shoots another player for some breach of bridge rules or partnership agreement or whatever. The TD can apply the laws and regulations to deal with the disruption to the game; he cannot hang the shooter.

[EricK]

blackshoe, on 2011-November-10, 11:10, said:

Perhaps this illustrates an error in calling the rules of a game "laws". Or pehaps not; in my dictionary app, one of the definitions of 'law' is 'a rule defining correct procedure or behavior in a sport: the laws of the game'. This definition agrees with my earlier assertion that the ethics of a game are defined by its laws. Therefore, your assertion that "ethics precede laws and are more fundamental" is incorrect. Perhaps the problem is that my use of "ethics" refers only to the ethics of the game of bridge, while yours refers to "moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior" where "moral" means "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character", which is a totally different thing.

Surely the laws are not purely arbitrary but are an attempt to codify a certain view of what sorts of things are right and wrong (from a purely bridge perspective). It is notoriously difficult to capture everything you might want to in a codified set of laws, which is why some also refer to the "spirit of the game" - i.e. whatever it is that the laws are an attempt to codify.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so, but where the laws (and regulations) fail to capture something, the "spirit of the game" is a matter of opinion, and no ruling should be made on the basis of a player's opinion. As to the TD's opinion, that's a little grayer, as in many cases the TD is required to use his judgement to arrive at a ruling, but I think that at least in cases where the TD's judgement is not required by law, his opinion is not relevant. In cases where the TD is required to use his judgement, there is usually some guidance as to what he's supposed to be judging about, so again his opinion as to "spirit" is irrelevant.

I think it very dangerous for TDs to make rulings on the basis of their opinion as to an unstated "spirit of the laws" rather than according to the actual laws in place. Bottom line: if a player wishes to act according to some ethical standard defined outside the rules of the game, that's up to him so long as he does not violate the rules of the game in doing so. However, such player cannot legally expect other players to adhere to the same standard. A TD who imposes some outside ethical standard in his rulings is wrong if there is no basis in the rules of the game for that ruling.

[mycroft]

I'm just going to put into this the fact that "the laws of a game determine the ethics of a game" is not universally true - and in many games, explicitly *not* true - even though, for the purposes of Duplicate Bridge, it is true, by the very nature of giving the guide to good ethics Laws numbers.

Having said that, why was (as it was in my case) the "illegal redouble out of turn" not ruled L25A? It's an inadvertent call...