[aguahombre]

mycroft, on 2011-November-10, 13:33, said:

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...

Presumably, you are talking about post #56. Stephanie answered that in the post, but I don't buy it either. It seems the LOL wasn't trying to make any call yet, rather to alert partner's bid. There is nothing else in that part of the box which could be used at all, unless she was passing by accident (and probably out of turn) or announcing a skip bid. She intended an alert. If she was reaching for a green card instead of a blue one, then there might be a non 25A determination.

[barmar]

In the real world, ethics and morality are too complicated to expect everything to be codified in explicit laws. Laws are mainly concerned with those aspects of society and relationships that require intervention of the state (and what fits into that category is quite debatable as well -- libertarians think it's very narrow, and anarchists think it's the empty set). We don't have laws defining polite versus rude behavior, everyone just knows them.

A game, on the other hand, is generally considered a microcosm whose rules CAN be summed up concisely. So we write Laws with the intent that they cover all the bases. However, while they obviously come closer than the laws of regular society, it's not clear that they succeed 100%. Consider that every 2-3 months the editorial in The Bridge World is about dumping and whether it's legal/ethical. The conclusion is usually that it's legal, and that makes it ethical because the Laws define the ethics of the game, but it still "smells" wrong.

And then there's Law 74, which makes reference to courtesy, annoyance, and embarrassment, which are quite subjective.

And while we'd like to think that when we're in this microcosm we can divorce ourselves from ordinary social conventions, we're not automatons. Many people feel guilty taking advantage of quirks and loopholes in the laws. World champions have admitted to letting opponents take back an inadvertent card, rather than calling the TD and taking advantage of the penalty card laws; they want to win through normal cardplay, not through the legal system. Their personal ethics trump their need to play by the letter of the law. However, this is entirely personal for them, they don't consider anyone else wrong for playing strictly by the rules.

[campboy]

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

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

This is where I was hoping to cover myself with "suitable" without being too wordy. Of course the higher authority you appeal to needs to be accepted as such by the other person

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on 2011-November-10, 11:21, said:

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?

"was forced"? Why? I would not rule it was anything but an alert.

When people alert with pass cards, stop cards, or doubles or redoubles, in my experience all that happens is a little laughter. I think calling the TD shows a lack of humour, a lack of commonsense, but it is not unethical. There has been an infraction.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2011-November-10, 19:13, said:

"was forced"? Why? I would not rule it was anything but an alert.

I don't know; I wasn't there. All I know is that that is how the director ruled.