[jdonn]

Peachy I don't disagree with a single thing you said in the last post.

[Lobowolf]

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

But personal values should not be instituted into the laws, IMO.

Right. They should be left as unwritten rules.


Perhaps the phrase "unwritten rule" is a colloquialism that doesn't extend beyond the USA, and is causing some confusion here.

If you violate a bridge law, there are remedies and sanctions specifically provided for in the rules.

The "unwritten rules" are, almost by definition, a bit hazier. The general consequences of habitually violating them is a lack of respect from your peers. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the director should impose a penalty for doing something that isn't proscribed the laws. The "penalty" is that if you typically do things like look at cards that get dropped on the floor, people will know ERRRRRR think you're a jackass.

Unwritten rules are those things that, although not codified in the laws, are not done by players with a modicum of class. An overwhelming majority of people in any given endeavor agree as to most of them, and no amount of sophistry will change that.

[peachy]

Lobowolf, on Jun 10 2009, 06:42 PM, said:

If you violate a bridge law, there are remedies and sanctions specifically provided for in the rules.

The "unwritten rules" are, almost by definition, a bit hazier. The general consequences of habitually violating them is a lack of respect from your peers.

But none of this has anything to do with bridge or the laws and rules of bridge.

And PS.
The dispespect for acting like a jackass comes not only from peers - afterall, the peers in that case would be jackasses...and they might not care one whit

[Lobowolf]

Quote

The dispespect for acting like a jackass comes not only from peers - afterall, the peers in that case would be jackasses...and they might not care one whit

lol Agreed. By mentioning peers, though, I mean to point out that there may have to be a certain parity of ability in order to fully understand the nature of an action. For instance, if I'm playing against novice players and I open 1♥, LHO overcalls, and partner bids 3♥, they may not know that 3♥ is preemptive, or that it doesn't require an alert. If they assume my partner has a limit raise, and sell out incorrectly, they may think that my partner did something wrong in bidding 3♥ with a bad hand, or I did something wrong in not alerting his bid.

Quote

But none of this has anything to do with bridge or the laws and rules of bridge.

I think it has SOMETHING to do with them in that not looking at a card on the floor is consistent with the spirit of the law prohibiting looking intently at an opponent's hand for the purpose of seeing his cards (74C5).

But the fact that the word "rule" appears in the phrase "unwritten rule" doesn't imply that it's the same as a rule in the sense that a law of bridge is a rule. It's just a word with multiple meanings, and "unwritten rule" is an expression that has its own distinct meaning. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that violating an "unwritten rule" is the same as violating a bridge law.

[the hog]

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 03:06 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 11 2009, 07:48 AM, said:

Also for an on-topic unwritten rule, check out the second post in this thread.

That is no rule unwritten or otherwise.

It is an attempt by a group of people to claim the moral high ground without any basis.

As I have pointed out it is at best patronizing.

I agree with Wayne here, and it is not just because he said so. Josh, you really are taking the high moral ground on this. Though I would never deliberately look at an opponent's cards, if they insist o holding their hand in such a way that I can see them despite repeated warnings, I will not deliberately avert my eyes.
In fact some opponents get annoyed when asked to hold their hand back. I remember one istance where after me asking someone for the third time I got abused and told I could not possibly see their cards and was using gamesmanship. He shut up when I proceeded to tell him every card he held in his hand.

[Cascade]

Lobowolf, on Jun 11 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

Quote

The dispespect for acting like a jackass comes not only from peers - afterall, the peers in that case would be jackasses...and they might not care one whit

lol Agreed. By mentioning peers, though, I mean to point out that there may have to be a certain parity of ability in order to fully understand the nature of an action. For instance, if I'm playing against novice players and I open 1♥, LHO overcalls, and partner bids 3♥, they may not know that 3♥ is preemptive, or that it doesn't require an alert. If they assume my partner has a limit raise, and sell out incorrectly, they may think that my partner did something wrong in bidding 3♥ with a bad hand, or I did something wrong in not alerting his bid.

Quote

But none of this has anything to do with bridge or the laws and rules of bridge.

I think it has SOMETHING to do with them in that not looking at a card on the floor is consistent with the spirit of the law prohibiting looking intently at an opponent's hand for the purpose of seeing his cards (74C5).

But the fact that the word "rule" appears in the phrase "unwritten rule" doesn't imply that it's the same as a rule in the sense that a law of bridge is a rule. It's just a word with multiple meanings, and "unwritten rule" is an expression that has its own distinct meaning. I don't think that anyone is suggesting that violating an "unwritten rule" is the same as violating a bridge law.

Maybe it is not the same but others here are suggesting:

1. That psyching against beginners is such an unwritten rule

2. Slurring the character of those that disagree with that unwritten rule or that it even is an unwritten rule

In my mind there is no such rule unwritten or otherwise and it is completely inappropriate to cast aspersions on others based on a differing opinion about such an unwritten rule.

[Oof Arted]

TimG, on Jun 10 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

I don't believe in unwritten rules.  Could you post one of them?

Someone has already posted one that applies to soccer.

For bridge, how about: when an opponent is regularly holding their cards such that you can see the faces, inform them.

If someone is showing their hand by not holding it up I tend to suggest they hold it so I cannoot see it as it only spoils the game if I can.

A little aside to the above whilst playing against an LOL she commented that she did not know what to bid with her hand ; so I quipped well if you show it me I will tell you! A big mistake as she did

[Benoit35]

You may not like it Wayne, but... if enough people agree with an unwritten rule, then it becomes the rule! Such is the way unwritten rules work.

I, for one, happen to agree with "Don't psych against beginners". Re-hashing the soccer analogy, I think psychs are the equivalent of tackling. Both are perfectly legal according to the Laws of their respective games, yet an "unwritten rule" saying they shouldn't be done by or against inexperienced players is IMO a good thing.

Then again, beginners should be told that tackling is perfectly legal and part of the more experienced player's arsenal. You can see tackles and bicycle kicks on TV and you'll be able to try them someday, but first you need to master the fundamentals of the game.

Read the above paragraph again, this time using the words "psychs", "squeeze plays", "the Grosvenor coup" and "VuGraph", and I think the analogy holds quite well. Also, there are no-tackling soccer leagues for very young players or for old farts like me, just like there are no-psych bridge clubs. Both carry this "legal, but handle with care" label.

Yes, it's an unwritten label. So what. Most people probably think players who tackle against beginners or in recreational leagues are jerks. Jerks who play legally and are perfectly within their rights, but jerks nonetheless. This is where the analogy breaks down because psychs carry a somewhat lower risk of physical injury, but still...

[fromageGB]

Cascade, on Jun 8 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

"A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always
provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation
than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit
understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must
be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of
system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has
damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural
penalty."

If I have on my convention card "is known to psyche", and partner is in a position that she knows someone has psyched, is she perfectly entitled to draw the conclusion that seeing as the opps have no such statement, then it is likely that I have psyched, and take action accordingly?

With therefore no liability for an adjusted score or penalty?

[jillybean]

I doubt that many experienced players playing soley against beginners would psyche.

Lets get back to looking at psyches in a normal game/tournament against an open field.

[Lobowolf]

jillybean2, on Jun 11 2009, 12:58 PM, said:

I doubt that many experienced players playing soley against beginners would psyche.

Lets get back to looking at psyches in a normal game/tournament against an open field.

I think the poll's overwhelming consensus choice is correct, then.

[Cascade]

fromageGB, on Jun 12 2009, 05:41 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 8 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

"A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always
provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation
than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit
understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must
be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of
system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has
damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural
penalty."

If I have on my convention card "is known to psyche", and partner is in a position that she knows someone has psyched, is she perfectly entitled to draw the conclusion that seeing as the opps have no such statement, then it is likely that I have psyched, and take action accordingly?

With therefore no liability for an adjusted score or penalty?

You could try asking the opponents "do you psyche often?" and when they reply "never" then it must be partner.

[Cascade]

Benoit35, on Jun 11 2009, 11:56 PM, said:

You may not like it Wayne, but... if enough people agree with an unwritten rule, then it becomes the rule! Such is the way unwritten rules work.

So what? It is unenforceable.

And further when it is nonsense like "don't psyche against beginners" then it will be ignored by enough people.

[jdonn]

It is enforceable, see your 2) a few posts back. You just consider the enforcement inappropriate.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jun 12 2009, 06:47 AM, said:

It is enforceable, see your 2) a few posts back. You just consider the enforcement inappropriate.

LOL

Ok it is enforceable in the land of bullies.

[Lobowolf]

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

So what?  It is unenforceable.

On the contrary, its enforcement is automatic.

Unwritten rules are descriptive, anyway. It's not like a lead out of turn penalty, where the director consults the laws and tells the players what the "enforcement" will be. That's not the nature of an unwritten rule.

Someone drops a card on the floor, and you deliberately sneak a look at it, you've violated an unwritten rule. Anyone who catches you now think you're a jerk, and has lost respect for you. That's the penalty; no director call is needed to enforce it. That's the nature of an unwritten rule. It's descriptive. The director doesn't have to tell the people at the table to lose respect for you. It just happens.

[matmat]

Lobowolf, on Jun 11 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

So what?  It is unenforceable.

On the contrary, its enforcement is automatic.

Unwritten rules are descriptive, anyway. It's not like a lead out of turn penalty, where the director consults the laws and tells the players what the "enforcement" will be. That's not the nature of an unwritten rule.

Someone drops a card on the floor, and you deliberately sneak a look at it, you've violated an unwritten rule. Anyone who catches you now think you're a jerk, and has lost respect for you. That's the penalty; no director call is needed to enforce it. That's the nature of an unwritten rule. It's descriptive. The director doesn't have to tell the people at the table to lose respect for you. It just happens.

this assumes that I care whether others think I am a jerk or that I somehow feel i need to have them respect me.

[Lobowolf]

matmat, on Jun 11 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 11 2009, 02:12 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 11 2009, 01:37 PM, said:

So what?  It is unenforceable.

On the contrary, its enforcement is automatic.

Unwritten rules are descriptive, anyway. It's not like a lead out of turn penalty, where the director consults the laws and tells the players what the "enforcement" will be. That's not the nature of an unwritten rule.

Someone drops a card on the floor, and you deliberately sneak a look at it, you've violated an unwritten rule. Anyone who catches you now think you're a jerk, and has lost respect for you. That's the penalty; no director call is needed to enforce it. That's the nature of an unwritten rule. It's descriptive. The director doesn't have to tell the people at the table to lose respect for you. It just happens.

this assumes that I care whether others think I am a jerk or that I somehow feel i need to have them respect me.

No, it doesn't.

[matmat]

Lobowolf, on Jun 11 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

matmat, on Jun 11 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

this assumes that I care whether others think I am a jerk or that I somehow feel  i need to have them respect me.

No, it doesn't.

if i don't give a crap about what others think of me, why would a change in their opinion be a penalty?

[Lobowolf]

matmat, on Jun 11 2009, 02:37 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jun 11 2009, 02:29 PM, said:

matmat, on Jun 11 2009, 02:24 PM, said:

this assumes that I care whether others think I am a jerk or that I somehow feel  i need to have them respect me.

No, it doesn't.

if i don't give a crap about what others think of me, why would a change in their opinion be a penalty?

That's a good point. Maybe "penalty" should have been in quotes. Or maybe "consequence" would be a better word. If you don't care what they think, then it's like partner making an inadmissible double and barring you from the auction when you were going to bid anyway. It still follows as a result of the action, but it may or may not bother you.