[Vampyr]

 mrdct, on 2011-September-06, 00:11, said:

All suits break in my experience. Some break poorly, some break well, some break evenly, some break unevenly and some break miraculously.

A favourable break in a suit in which a side holds five cards would indeed be a miracle.

[phil_20686]

 Vampyr, on 2011-September-06, 00:17, said:

A favourable break in a suit in which a side holds five cards would indeed be a miracle.

Really? AKQJx - V might need a favourable break?

[blackshoe]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-05, 17:54, said:

Its unsportsmanlike like because it is an attempt to exploit the rules for personal gain.

Sorry, I misread your original post. You said "East's claim", and I read it as "the claim of the player who claimed".

It appears that by your lights, every director call is "an attempt to exploit the rules for personal gain". Even a Secretary Bird is entitled to ask the TD for a ruling. While I don't agree with the TD's ruling in this case, that's based on what was reported here — I wasn't at the table, so I don't know what the TD knew (or thought he knew). It's a judgement call, and perhaps my judgement would have been different had I been there.

As for letting club players slide on infractions, that too is a judgement call. Don't forget though that it's not just your score that's affected — it's your partner's score, and that of every pair in the game. One such instance may not matter much, but there are probably a dozen such instances in many club games (such as the ones where I play). Not a good thing.

[blackshoe]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-05, 19:33, said:

(1) I am not sure you really know what a colour coup is.
(2) Perhaps I am suggesting that their is a wide gulf between legal behaviour and acceptable behaviour.

(1) I didn't. The ploy you describe is distasteful to me, but it is not unethical according to the laws of the game.
(2) The ethics of bridge are defined by its laws. There is no such gulf (within the laws). You are holding bridge players to an ethical standard defined outside the game.

[blackshoe]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-05, 17:54, said:

If, in a local club game, my partner had attempted to dispute a claim like this, I would certainly have had a few choice words for him. All of which would have violated BB@B.

And probably also violated the laws of bridge.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-05, 16:30, said:

Where in the laws does it say we are to assume that a player who makes a flawed claim is blind, dumb, and stupid?

The laws do say that any play that the flawed claimer will benefit from will be lumped in with plays that are careless and inferior. How far is "stupid" from "careless and inferior"?

[phil_20686]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-06, 06:22, said:

(2) The ethics of bridge are defined by its laws. There is no such gulf (within the laws). You are holding bridge players to an ethical standard defined outside the game.

I really do not believe this. This is like saying it is "ethical" to be rude to everyone that you meet, just because free speech protects ones right to do so. (Edit, you are basically advocating legalism, which is to say that obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue, but there are plenty of obvious examples where that is not so.)

In any legal system there are are unethical actions which do not have a proscribed punishment, sometimes because the law would be unenforceable (e.g., reverse UI), sometimes because such a law would only make a bad situation worse etc. An obvious situation in RL is adultery - making it illegal generally does not lead to better outcomes for anyone, nevertheless, cheating on ones partner remains unethical.

There is always difficulties in human society because the rules can never be sufficient for dealing with all the situations that might arise. That is why legal systems should always leave room for judgement in the application of the law. In the west if comes in three times. Once when the Police decide whether or not to press charges, twice when the jury decide whether or not one is guilty, and thrice when the judge decides the appropriate sentence. Law applied without regard for context is basically mandatory sentencing, and is unjust for all of the same reasons.

[phil_20686]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-06, 06:18, said:

It appears that by your lights, every director call is "an attempt to exploit the rules for personal gain". Even a Secretary Bird is entitled to ask the TD for a ruling. While I don't agree with the TD's ruling in this case, that's based on what was reported here — I wasn't at the table, so I don't know what the TD knew (or thought he knew). It's a judgement call, and perhaps my judgement would have been different had I been there.

As for letting club players slide on infractions, that too is a judgement call. Don't forget though that it's not just your score that's affected — it's your partner's score, and that of every pair in the game. One such instance may not matter much, but there are probably a dozen such instances in many club games (such as the ones where I play). Not a good thing.

No,a director's call should be a request for restitution, which is not gain, but the restoration of equity.

That others scores are affected is a double edged sword. In a flat 3NT do I really deserve a top/give everyone else below average, because my opposition revoked? Such a score randomly takes points from half the pairs and gives it to the other half purely because of the direction they happened to be sitting.

[BunnyGo]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-06, 07:41, said:

No,a director's call should be a request for restitution, which is not gain, but the restoration of equity.

That others scores are affected is a double edged sword. In a flat 3NT do I really deserve a top/give everyone else below average, because my opposition played badly? Such a score randomly takes points from half the pairs and gives it to the other half purely because of the direction they happened to be sitting.

FYP.

Yes, if a pair plays particularly badly, the rest of the field loses some protection, and I gain. If they play badly and get really lucky, I get hosed. Such is matchpoints and bridge in general. Revoking is no different.

[phil_20686]

 BunnyGo, on 2011-September-06, 08:00, said:

FYP.

Yes, if a pair plays particularly badly, the rest of the field loses some protection, and I gain. If they play badly and get really lucky, I get hosed. Such is matchpoints and bridge in general. Revoking is no different.

I suspect you do not really believe this: Suppose said revoker had parkinson's, or had lost a hand? Are you really saying that one should not give an allowance for the fact that they revoke more often than normal, and should instead tell them that "dexterity is part of the game"? That it would be unfair if I allowed you to play the card that you meant to, since I should have the chance to benefit from your disability?

[BunnyGo]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-06, 08:17, said:

I suspect you do not really believe this: Suppose said revoker had parkinson's, or had lost a hand? Are you really saying that one should not give an allowance for the fact that they revoke more often than normal, and should instead tell them that "dexterity is part of the game"? That it would be unfair if I allowed you to play the card that you meant to, since I should have the chance to benefit from your disability?

Really, your argument now has devolved to "pity the disabled...help them at bridge"? I'm happy helping the disabled, hold a door, carry a chair down the stairs, social services, etc. But quite frankly, I won't patronize them...that's just insulting.

My grandfather was half blind the last time I played with him. So he followed a spade lead with a club, and when I asked "no spades" he said "of course I.." Needless to say, the declarer took *very* full advantage of his penalty card to force a lead out of me and find an entry to dummy that I was sure to prevent otherwise.

Is this wrong of him? No. He is playing by the rules. Anyone who sits down to play should play by the rules and expect to be judged by them. Anything else is pandering, and quite frankly, not bridge.

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2011-September-06, 06:36, said:

The laws do say that any play that the flawed claimer will benefit from will be lumped in with plays that are careless and inferior. How far is "stupid" from "careless and inferior"?

Quite a ways, IMO.

[blackshoe]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-06, 07:34, said:

I really do not believe this. This is like saying it is "ethical" to be rude to everyone that you meet, just because free speech protects ones right to do so. (Edit, you are basically advocating legalism, which is to say that obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue, but there are plenty of obvious examples where that is not so.)

Do not try to tell me what I advocate, or try to put words in my mouth.

I did not say anything like "it is 'ethical' to be rude to everyone you meet". I did not say (nor do I believe) that "obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue".

I don't agree with the rest of your post, either, but this is not the place to debate it.

[blackshoe]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-06, 07:41, said:

No,a director's call should be a request for restitution, which is not gain, but the restoration of equity.

That others scores are affected is a double edged sword. In a flat 3NT do I really deserve a top/give everyone else below average, because my opposition revoked? Such a score randomly takes points from half the pairs and gives it to the other half purely because of the direction they happened to be sitting.

If your opponent revokes, yes, you deserve to have the legal penalty for that revoke applied. You also deserve to have the penalty applied if you revoke.

[billw55]

Aha, this could give me a new technique as declarer! If I have two possible lines to make my contract, I need no longer choose between them. Instead, I will claim based on one line. If that line fails, I will say "oops what I meant to say was ... " and try the other line. I will call this "combining my chances", so that my opponents and the director will be impressed with my knowledge.

[campboy]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-06, 08:17, said:

I suspect you do not really believe this: Suppose said revoker had parkinson's, or had lost a hand? Are you really saying that one should not give an allowance for the fact that they revoke more often than normal, and should instead tell them that "dexterity is part of the game"? That it would be unfair if I allowed you to play the card that you meant to, since I should have the chance to benefit from your disability?

There is a difference between the two situations. The laws do not permit you to waive rectification (such as for a revoke) yourself, but they do permit you to request the TD waive rectification. However, the TD is only permitted to do this "for cause" ie if there is a good reason in his opinion. If the player has an illness or disability which caused the infraction, that is cause. (Laws 10A, 81C5)

[Vampyr]

 phil_20686, on 2011-September-06, 07:34, said:

I really do not believe this. This is like saying it is "ethical" to be rude to everyone that you meet, just because free speech protects ones right to do so. (Edit, you are basically advocating legalism, which is to say that obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue, but there are plenty of obvious examples where that is not so.)

In any legal system there are are unethical actions which do not have a proscribed punishment, sometimes because the law would be unenforceable (e.g., reverse UI), sometimes because such a law would only make a bad situation worse etc. An obvious situation in RL is adultery - making it illegal generally does not lead to better outcomes for anyone, nevertheless, cheating on ones partner remains unethical.

There is always difficulties in human society because the rules can never be sufficient for dealing with all the situations that might arise. That is why legal systems should always leave room for judgement in the application of the law. In the west if comes in three times. Once when the Police decide whether or not to press charges, twice when the jury decide whether or not one is guilty, and thrice when the judge decides the appropriate sentence. Law applied without regard for context is basically mandatory sentencing, and is unjust for all of the same reasons.

What are you talking about? Bridge is a game. A game is played by following its rules. That is all there is.

[aguahombre]

Is it possible that we have lost focus, here? The OP refers to the person who objected to the claim as a Secretary Bird. His ruling will encourage more Secretary Birds.

I can imagine a player at an extremely high level of competition tangling his tongue when talking about two different suits and what he would do. I can also imagine him using "break" when referring to that suit, and meaning if it runs for 4 tricks.

What I can't imagine is, at an extremely high level --or any level where reasonable bridge is being play -- someone objecting to the claim or disallowing it.

Next hand would have begun without ado.

[iviehoff]

 billw55, on 2011-September-06, 09:38, said:

Aha, this could give me a new technique as declarer! If I have two possible lines to make my contract, I need no longer choose between them. Instead, I will claim based on one line. If that line fails, I will say "oops what I meant to say was ... " and try the other line. I will call this "combining my chances", so that my opponents and the director will be impressed with my knowledge.

No, in general changing your statement won't work. In the present case, the player obviously made a slip of the tongue; he said something quite incoherent that was obviously rectified by swapping two words; thus we see it as an obvious slip of the tongue, and most people here seem happy to allow a correction to what he obviously meant, although this is a bit off the script as far as the law is concerned. In your case, you would have no chance at being able to make a correction, because what you said first time would be plausibly what you meant.

[phil_20686]

 blackshoe, on 2011-September-06, 08:56, said:

Do not try to tell me what I advocate, or try to put words in my mouth.

I did not say anything like "it is 'ethical' to be rude to everyone you meet". I did not say (nor do I believe) that "obeying the laws is synonymous with virtue".

I don't agree with the rest of your post, either, but this is not the place to debate it.

I am sorry if I have offended you, but with all due respect, all I did was change the situation for your argument: you said "The ethics of bridge are defined by its laws." I pointed out that it would be absurd to say that "The ethics of life are defined by its laws", and it seems absurd to take a different approach to ethics within a game than one would in every day life. Particularly in a game that involves real people.

@Bunnygo, yes I think what happened to your grandad was unethical, although I do not claim it is illegal.

@Vampyr, is that not exactly the point? In this example the behaviour of east will certainly have detracted from south's enjoyment, is that not enough reason to chastise him?

@Aguahombre: Agree 100%.

The laws are designed the way they are to stop people from taking advantage. If there was no penalty for a non established revoke or a mis-claim people could take advantage, but it seems like any time one is certain that the transgression is an innocent mistake, one should ignore it. Obviously there are cases where it cannot be ignored, and cases where it may not be clear, in which case one should apply the laws. The example in this case is not one of those cases. It is 100% clear what south meant to say, I am sure that even east knows that.

I do not believe waiving rectification in the case of an innocent mistake is ever patronising; rather it is charitable and gracious.