[cherdanno]

blackshoe, on Jun 8 2009, 10:35 PM, said:

There's a difference between the ethics of a game and ethics in general. The ethics of a game, as I learned it, are defined by its rules. So it cannot be unethical, in the context of game ethics, to do something that is legal under the rules. Whether it's ethical in a broader sense is a different question. I suppose the "regardless.." comment arises from my experience that people persist in confusing the two. On reflection, I probably could have worded it better. 

Could it be that you learned it wrongly?

I guess you don't know soccer well. Otherwise, you would know an excellent example of the difference between ethics of soccer, and its rules.
When an opposing player is lying on the grass with an injury, there is no rule preventing you from playing on. But the ethical thing to do is to play the ball out of bounds.
Then the other thing gets a throw-in - according to the rules, it's just a normal throw-in. But they throw the ball back to the team that originally had possession.
Not doing so would be considered unethical by every player, coach, fan. But there is no rule stipulation either behavior.

[Elianna]

mikeh, on Jun 8 2009, 06:21 PM, said:

...
However, and without adopting han's somewhat radical view, the truth appears to be that most club players are pissed off simply by an expert turning up to play...if he or she is playing with another expert.
...
The moral of the story is that most club players do not want to play bridge as we know it... and they resent the mere presence of those who do...psyching will piss them off fast but so will cue-bidding to a slam... or taking more than 20 seconds to think about a play...or simply winning consistently...depriving them of the chance to outshine their peers by winning a club game.
...

This is entirely in keeping with what I've observed as a director. Not just comments directly to me, complaining of players, but also from what players say to each other.

They definitely object to people that they see as expert outsiders coming to their game and taking "their masterpoints". And it's not the beginners who object, it's the "club experts" who do most of the backhanded objecting.

[Phil]

jillybean2, on Jun 8 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 7 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

Once you've seen a nice beginner leave a duplicate game because of experts psyching and such, you'll understand this viewpoint.

experts psyching 'and such' , what else would you ban in order to protect beginners who chose to play in open games?

I'd give them a lot of latitude in tempo situations. Other than that, they need to follow the rules I think.

[Elianna]

Phil, on Jun 8 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 8 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 7 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

Once you've seen a nice beginner leave a duplicate game because of experts psyching and such, you'll understand this viewpoint.

experts psyching 'and such' , what else would you ban in order to protect beginners who chose to play in open games?

I'd give them a lot of latitude in tempo situations. Other than that, they need to follow the rules I think.

Where do you draw the line at who's a beginner? Most of the players that object to things like psychs have been beginners for longer than I've been alive.

To put it more extremely, I was called about a psych two weeks ago by an indignant player, who has been playing for longer than either of her opponents has been alive. One of whom was my mother (but she wasn't the psycher).

[Jlall]

If they suck it doesnt matter hpw long theyve played imo

[jillybean]

Phil, on Jun 8 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

jillybean2, on Jun 8 2009, 12:50 AM, said:

Phil, on Jun 7 2009, 10:01 PM, said:

Once you've seen a nice beginner leave a duplicate game because of experts psyching and such, you'll understand this viewpoint.

experts psyching 'and such' , what else would you ban in order to protect beginners who chose to play in open games?

I'd give them a lot of latitude in tempo situations. Other than that, they need to follow the rules I think.

I was thinking more along the lines of restricting methods advanced+ players could use against beginners. Gambling 3nt, weak openings, false carding and such like are also difficult for a beginner to cope with and could leave them feeling duped.

But these simplified games are available now in new comer/SAYC/novice games. As Elianna points out, this leaves those who have been playing faithfully for 20+ years as the ones demanding protection.

I understand club managers wanting to keep these players but I think they should lobby the WBF to change law40 rather than banning or penalizing those who psyche.



One last question, where do the 57 or so people who voted “Usually okay” play bridge?

[Gerben42]

Quote

The moral of the story is that most club players do not want to play bridge as we know it... and they resent the mere presence of those who do...psyching will piss them off fast but so will cue-bidding to a slam... or taking more than 20 seconds to think about a play...or simply winning consistently...depriving them of the chance to outshine their peers by winning a club game.

Yes, that's the real point, isn't it. People do NOT like it when you come in their club and painfully point out that none of them really has a clue about the game.

The reason is that they are interested in playing a social game where THEY decide what's social or not, and as an outsider you cannot help but violate these rules, either by psyching, falsecarding, opening a weak NT, or causing a fight with a double squeeze.

Novices are NOT scared away by psyching or fancy conventions. It's the regulars who have been playing a diminished game for longer than I've been alive. And clubs would like to keep them around for another 30 years.

Quote

One last question, where do the 57 or so people who voted “Usually okay” play bridge?

Other than tournaments, I play in a club in Nuremberg that has two groups. The "social" group and the really more social "competitive" group. Playing in the social group is complicated in the way I have described above, whereas in the competitive group, normal bridge is played.

The club has 1 league team in the German premier league, two teams in the regional league, one of them only barely missed promotion to the German 2nd league. Members include many national champions and one member of the German Venice Cup team. I consider myself very lucky, such clubs are very rare in Germany and exist only in the large metropolitan areas.

As you can imagine, the two groups do not really mix well. Especially in vacation seasons, there is the risk that one group is too small and we have to play in one group. This causes a lot of stress, and if I'm present on such a night and the A-group is too small, I usually suggest we make a 2/3-table team game instead of mixing with the B-group.

[helene_t]

Elianna, on Jun 9 2009, 06:21 AM, said:

mikeh, on Jun 8 2009, 06:21 PM, said:

...
However, and without adopting han's somewhat radical view, the truth appears to be that most club players are pissed off simply by an expert turning up to play...if he or she is playing with another expert.
...
The moral of the story is that most club players do not want to play bridge as we know it... and they resent the mere presence of those who do...psyching will piss them off fast but so will cue-bidding to a slam... or taking more than 20 seconds to think about a play...or simply winning consistently...depriving them of the chance to  outshine their peers by winning a club game.
...

This is entirely in keeping with what I've observed as a director. Not just comments directly to me, complaining of players, but also from what players say to each other.

They definitely object to people that they see as expert outsiders coming to their game and taking "their masterpoints". And it's not the beginners who object, it's the "club experts" who do most of the backhanded objecting.

I recognize this but in my experience, most club players (but possibly not the most vocal ones) enjoy the occasional presence of strong players.

At the local club of uqx, manudude03 and me, we have seen an influx of strong, relatively young players over the last one and a half year. The reactions are mixed. One of the LOL pairs talk enthusiastically about some crazy conventions one of the junior pairs plays and they think it's great fun to discuss how to defend against them. Often, especially when I play with one of the juniors, we will get questions from opps who had a bidding problem and are curious about how we would solve it. During the post-mortem, several of the older players who are used to playing in Acol-only fields are curious about the implications for the board just played of the fact that we play a different system.

There are some negative reactions, too. Some dislike unfamiliar treatments. But most of the grumping can be avoided by being nice to opps.

[cherdanno]

In my experience, they always enjoy a handsome good-looking player in the age of their daughters, even if he takes away some of their masterpoints.

[helene_t]

cherdanno, on Jun 9 2009, 12:02 PM, said:

In my experience, they always enjoy a handsome good-looking player in the age of their daughters, even if he takes away some of their masterpoints.

lol right, I once had a p who was a single guy around 30, the LOLs at the club frequently discussed which of their daughters, granddaughters or nieces might be a suitable match for him.

[Benoit35]

We have a no-psych club here. A couple of stories that will echo some of the comments and illustrate whom the no-psych rule is meant to protect.

Here are two players at our club. Player A is very experienced and consistently places near the top. Player B is equally consistent, scoring between 25% and 30% every time.

Situation 1: After I open a 12-14 1NT on both boards, my LHO tells us that we should pre-alert about our weak notrump. Player A or Player B?

Situation 2: After 1♠ - 2♣ (Drury) - 3♣ - 4♠ and before the lead is made, my partner explains the "help suit game try" concept. I make the contract and open the score sheet: nobody else bid game! A thunderous top. Opponents ask to see my hand. I show them my three club losers opposite dummy's singleton, and how the shape benefit allowed us to make game with a combined 23 HCP. "We should try it sometimes," says LHO to RHO. Player A or Player B?

Situation 3: I overhear some complaining at the table behind me. I had played the same board the prevous round. The player in my seat had opened 1♣, and partner had reponded 1♦ with 3 HCP and ♦KT9865 or the like, helping opponents miss the fact that they had 25 HCP between them. "I should call the Director about this", "Psych aren't allowed here", "You should alert about very weak responses" and such. Turns out my partner and I had just gone through the very same auction. Player A or Player B?

I think you know the answers. If psyching were allowed, I think you also know against whom I would find it unethical to psych, and against whom I would consider it my God-given duty.

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Jun 9 2009, 06:02 AM, said:

In my experience, they always enjoy a handsome good-looking player in the age of their daughters, even if he takes away some of their masterpoints.

LOL; around where I taught this winter, a "good looking player around the age of their daughters could be someone in their early 60's"

[blackshoe]

cherdanno, on Jun 8 2009, 10:39 PM, said:

Could it be that you learned it wrongly?

No. It could be that I was taught wrongly, but as my teacher is an international expert director, I don't believe it. I shall ask him.

Quote

I guess you don't know soccer well.

No, I don't. Interesting example, but it strikes me this is not "ethics of soccer" except perhaps by adoption.

If in soccer the team played on, in spite of a wounded player on the field, what would you expect a referee to do? Based on your description, there seems to me nothing he could do. What would you expect the game organization to do? Ban the team? Fine them? Anything?

The same applies, I think, to these bridge questions. If a good player psychs against bunnies at some club, about the most anyone can do is tell him that's not welcome in the club. The TD can't tell him not to do it, because doing it is legal. It's not a matter of bridge ethics, it's a matter of "general' ethics. It may be that this player will be ostracized by everyone who learns of this incident, but that again isn't a matter of bridge ethics.

There is

Law 74A2 said:

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

but I think first that "should" in this law means such things will rarely be penalized, and second, that it doesn't apply to legal actions, anyway. I do not want to have to respond to 300 TD calls per game in the nature of "I'm not having fun, hang him!"

[Benoit35]

You're right blackshoe, there's nothing the TD can do about it. But that doesn't mean you should psych against LOL's and beginners. Better to stick to your system, and demonstrate some of your gadgets to those willing to learn (see my "Situation 2" above). Much more rewarding, on the scoresheet as off. It's also about giving back to the game.

Ethics matter, whether they're written in the rule book or not.

Besides, what's the fun of pulling off a genius psych when your opponents aren't even likely to appreciate it?

[jdonn]

It sounds to me that by "bridge ethics" you mean "rules of bridge" and by "general ethics" you mean "bridge ethics". There are other examples like cherdanno's too.

For example many in baseball consider it unethical to bunt in a late inning against a no-hitter in progress.

In mixed martial arts players often touch gloves in the center after the fight starts, or often choose not to as well and either is ok. But it is horribly unethical, and I have seen it once, for a player to walk out with arm extended as though he is touching his opponent's glove purely for a decoy, then when his opponent sticks out his arm attack him.

I don't know what it would even mean to call situations like this 'general ethics'. They are not illegal within the rules of the game, but the possibilities don't exist at all outside the game, so in what way are they "general"?

[cherdanno]

It is true the bridge lawyers like to define "bridge ethics" as "following the letter and the spirit of the law". But that is not what the English word "ethical" means.

In the soccer example, you are right the referee couldn't to anything. But the fans of the team would be embarassed, the fans of the opposing team outraged, and probably someone of the opponents would retaliate with an ugly foul. The commentators would be understanding of the ugly foul. If anyone in the team had been in the running of a fair-play award, the betfair odds for them would drop to 0.1% within a minute. These are all signs that there is a consensus that this is unacceptable unfair behavior. If that isn't part of "ethics of the game", I am not sure what the term is supposed to mean.

[Benoit35]

I'll play devil's advocate for a second: In soccer, the "fair play" aspect is taught to young players from a young age. Everybody knows the "unwritten rules" because they are clearly passed around.

I don't know that the same can be said about bridge's "unwritten rules".

[helene_t]

cherdanno, on Jun 9 2009, 04:02 PM, said:

It is true the bridge lawyers like to define "bridge ethics" as "following the letter and the spirit of the law". But that is not what the English word "ethical" means.

The words "ethics" and "ethical" are highly confusing. In philosophy classes I think it is usually taught as being about moral obligations towards fellow humans (and possibly higher animals), and one can argue for ages about whether we have other moral obligations than the ethical ones (i.e. towards "god", "nature", "mother earth" or whatever), and whether ethics (more general: morality) is culture-dependent or not. It was never clear to me if "this is unethical" means "it is against the ethical norms" or "it is against what the ethical norms ought to be like". I gather that different philosophers have different ideas about that as well.

Among medics, it is usually about the concern for the individual patient. For example, if I recruit a volunteer for a drug trial knowing that the trial is harmful to him, I am unethical: I may be doing the right thing nonetheless if it is the only way to proceed with an experiment necessary to save the lives of thousands of others, but that's not what would usually be called an "ethical" issue.

Then some twenty years ago it became fashionable to deem all kind of new technology (especially biotech) "unethical", although it presumably violated the kind of (religious) morality that I was taught is not about ethics. My impression was that it was a kind of buzz word: "it is unethical" effectively means "I am just emotionally biased against it but I want to sound as if I have thought deeply about it".

As for bridge ethics, I prefer not to use the term since it's unclear whether it refers to the laws or to good sportsmanship.

[Phil]

jdonn, on Jun 9 2009, 09:54 AM, said:

For example many in baseball consider it unethical to bunt in a late inning against a no-hitter in progress.

In mixed martial arts players often touch gloves in the center after the fight starts, or often choose not to as well and either is ok. But it is horribly unethical, and I have seen it once, for a player to walk out with arm extended as though he is touching his opponent's glove purely for a decoy, then when his opponent sticks out his arm attack him.

I don't know what it would even mean to call situations like this 'general ethics'. They are not illegal within the rules of the game, but the possibilities don't exist at all outside the game, so in what way are they "general"?

Also in hockey, the enforcer doesn't go after the other team's 'skill' player.

This is part of the game, but it isn't in the rules. It is more a part of an unwritten 'code of conduct'.

Sort of like not psyching against a newbie

[Lobowolf]

"Ethics" is a word with a couple (ok, more than a couple, but a couple of main ones) of distinct definitions.

One is a general definition akin to morality. This would be similar to sportsmanship, and by this definition, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's ethical.

Another is a set of rules that govern a profession. While that doesn't strictly apply to bridge (except for those who are playing a living), I think it's essentially what Blackshoe is talking about. Bridge is a self-contained, self-regulated system. It's rules are its ethics, in that sense.