[peachy]

barmar, on Jun 10 2009, 12:48 AM, said:

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

The definition of a psychic bid as given in the laws, is not that fuzzy IMO. I think it would help in discussing psychs to remember what it is:

"A gross and deliberate deviation from partnership agreement as to suit length or general strength"

The word "gross" is pretty fuzzy. How many points do you have to deviate from your agreed strength for it to be a gross deviation? 1-2 is generally agreed to be not enough, while most would probably consider 5 or 6 to be gross. But 3-4 is in the fuzzy category. And that's just when you count Work points, it becomes more tricky when you have to account for individual hand evaluation. One player might look at a hand and think it's 11 HCP, while another might decide that it's worth 13 HCP because of the 5-card suit and good spot cards; if the former opens it as a 15-17 1NT he would probably be considered to be psyching, but the latter would only be deviating by 2 points.

The word 'gross' is a bit like pornography. Hard to define exactly where the limits of 'gross' are but you recognize it when you see it. As to hand evaluation, if both partners in a partnership follow approximately same evaluation techniques/judgment, and upgrade or downgrade in similar fashion - there is no psych. It becomes a matter of proper disclosure.

[1eyedjack]

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 08:45 AM, said:

The word 'gross' is a bit like pornography.  Hard to define exactly where the limits of 'gross' are but you recognize it when you see it.

I'm going to have to remember this one. In UK taxes we regularly quote the "elephant test" (for example in determining whether a farmhouse is of a size and character in keeping with a working farm, as opposed to a "country pile"). I am just waiting to see the look on HMRC face when I next use the "pornography test".

[Cascade]

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

barmar, on Jun 10 2009, 12:48 AM, said:

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

The definition of a psychic bid as given in the laws, is not that fuzzy IMO. I think it would help in discussing psychs to remember what it is:

"A gross and deliberate deviation from partnership agreement as to suit length or general strength"

The word "gross" is pretty fuzzy. How many points do you have to deviate from your agreed strength for it to be a gross deviation? 1-2 is generally agreed to be not enough, while most would probably consider 5 or 6 to be gross. But 3-4 is in the fuzzy category. And that's just when you count Work points, it becomes more tricky when you have to account for individual hand evaluation. One player might look at a hand and think it's 11 HCP, while another might decide that it's worth 13 HCP because of the 5-card suit and good spot cards; if the former opens it as a 15-17 1NT he would probably be considered to be psyching, but the latter would only be deviating by 2 points.

The word 'gross' is a bit like pornography. Hard to define exactly where the limits of 'gross' are but you recognize it when you see it. As to hand evaluation, if both partners in a partnership follow approximately same evaluation techniques/judgment, and upgrade or downgrade in similar fashion - there is no psych. It becomes a matter of proper disclosure.

Even if only one player in the partnership varies their style or judgement it is not a psyche it is a matter of disclosure.

A psyche has to be a deliberate misstatement. If for example I think I am showing a strong no trump then my deviation is not deliberate and therefore by definition not a psyche. Basically I am not psyching when i use my bad judgement. This is like the requirements for a strong 2♣. If I think it is strong when I open it then it is not a psyche. This though doesn't excuse me from not disclosing my style.

I have a had few occasions when a player has claimed a 2♣ psyche. I have ruled that it is not a psyche but I have told the player concerned that if his style is to open extreme playing trick hands with relatively few high card points then he needs to tell the opponents about that tendancy.

[TimG]

blackshoe, on Jun 9 2009, 11:13 PM, said:

My teacher told me, as I said, that "the ethics of the game are defined by its rules". I suppose the flaw in this is that, willy-nilly, people will apply their personal ethics to what others do, whatever anyone else says.

I think that the difference in opinion here can be summed up by the difference between

"the ethics of the game are defined by its rules"

and

"the ethics of the game are defined by its rules, both written and unwritten".

You seem to be of the opinion that only the written rules are the basis for ethics.

I think of ethics in the bridge sense along the lines of Merriam-Webster's (online) 3rd definition for ethics "conforming to accepted standards of conduct". So, if there is a written rule which it is accepted practice to ignore, then breaking this rule does not constitute unethical behavior. Likewise, violation of an unwritten rule can be considered unethical even if lawful.

In short, I don't believe the codification of the Laws of Bridge means that these are the only rules that apply to the game.

[ArtK78]

This discussion of "ethical" versus "lawful" can be expanded to other bridge topics.

One topic that has received a lot of ink in The Bridge World is "lawful dumping." Lawful dumping is a situation where it is in the best interests of a pair or team to lose rather than to win. It most often occurs in a round-robin qualifying format. Team A has already assured a qualifying spot and is playing Team B, which is fighting for a qualifying spot. If Team A beats Team B, Team B will be elminated and Team C, a very strong team, will qualify. However, if Team A loses to Team B, Team C will be eliminated.

Clearly, Team A's chances of winning the event will be improved if Team C is eliminated. Does that mean that it is lawful, even ethical, for Team A to deliberately lose to Team B?

This is a very troubling problem, and it comes up every now and then. There have been examples of similar situations in other sports as well.

The Bridge World's position on the issue is that the organizers should draft the conditions of contest so that this situation cannot occur. But that doesn't change the ethical issue when it does occur.

Your thoughts?

[1eyedjack]

If it can be managed I would have thought that the obvious solution to lawful dumping is to create a format in which it can never be beneficial. I expect that has already been considered and dismissed as impossible?

[helene_t]

1eyedjack, on Jun 10 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

If it can be managed I would have thought that the obvious solution to lawful dumping is to create a format in which it can never be beneficial. I expect that has already been considered and dismissed as impossible?

A simple knock-out scheme solves that problem but is of course not suitable for all tourneys.

[jdonn]

helene_t, on Jun 10 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on Jun 10 2009, 03:51 PM, said:

If it can be managed I would have thought that the obvious solution to lawful dumping is to create a format in which it can never be beneficial.  I expect that has already been considered and dismissed as impossible?

A simple knock-out scheme solves that problem but is of course not suitable for all tourneys.

Perhaps they could do a bunch of small round robins, say of four teams each, leading to a knockout stage. I'm thinking of how the world cup does it. By keeping the round robins as small as possible, the opportunities for advantageous dumping are much fewer than in a full round robin, I think.

[JoAnneM]

Thank you, TimG, I wanted to say that but didn't know how. You did it quite well.

[onoway]

I don't care about psychs, the only ones so far which have hurt are the ones my pards have bid. Although I have no problems with sacs against games, what DOES get an emotional response from me is the deliberate bidding of a totally unattainable 6 or 7 in an effort to prevent slam contract scores, the bidder KNOWING he is going down a bunch of tricks. I know it is part of the game and I don't whine about it but it still stirs a resentful feeling that it is poor sportsmanship and the penalties for failure ought to be higher.
Holdover from rubber bridge? yes. Rational? Possibly not. But it's still there.

[NickRW]

onoway, on Jun 10 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

I don't care about psychs, the only ones so far which have hurt are the ones my pards have bid. Although I have no problems with sacs against games, what DOES get an emotional response from me is the deliberate bidding of a totally unattainable 6 or 7 in an effort to prevent slam contract scores, the bidder KNOWING he is going down a bunch of tricks. I know it is part of the game and I don't whine about it but it still stirs a resentful feeling that it is poor sportsmanship and the penalties for failure ought to be higher.
Holdover from rubber bridge? yes. Rational? Possibly not. But it's still there.

This is a total thread diversion, but they put up (like 20 odd years ago or something) the nv penalties for the 4th and subsequent undertricks to 300 from 200 to discourage exactly this.

Playing (money, not kitchen) rubber bridge I absolutely welcome big sacrifices - some dude who wants to be parted from his cash has paid to stop me making a contract that possibly might have been off anyway - and I get to carry on playing the rubber that he has already lost. Quick way to pay off the mortgage - bring it on!

Nick

[blackshoe]

So what do we tell beginners about these "unwritten rules"? "There are unwritten rules to this game. I can't tell you what they are. You'll have to just learn by experience"? Pfui. If you want these unwritten rules to apply to the game, write the damn things down.

I can tell you one thing: as a director, I am not going to enforce any of these "unwritten rules", and as a player, I don't particularly care if people follow them. For myself, I may follow some and ignore others — and I better not hear any accusations of "unethical!" or "cheating!" at the table.

[Hanoi5]

Quote

Perhaps they could do a bunch of small round robins, say of four teams each, leading to a knockout stage. I'm thinking of how the world cup does it. By keeping the round robins as small as possible, the opportunities for advantageous dumping are much fewer than in a full round robin, I think.

This is a pretty interesting idea. And isn't the Bermuda bowl played like this? Or the bridge Olympiad? There are several groups (maybe there are too many teams/countries in each group) and then they revert to the knockout stage.

Of course some people will say they are always in the 'death group' (Argentina anyone?), but I thnik it's a nice idea for tournaments where dumping has become an issue.

[NickRW]

Well, it depends on numbers of course. But, as an example, you can accomodate, say, 48 teams in 8 groups of 6. The winner qualifies for the knockout. 2nd and 3rd go into a draw and play off for the remaining 8 places in the knockout. 4th, 5th and 6th get to go home - but on the one hand they are not subject to the seemingly pointless expense of turning up for just one match - and on the other hand, with 3 teams getting a chance at the last 16, there isn't much room to complain about other teams chucking games to rest a pair or whatever. If you didn't finish in the first 3 of the group you just blew it.

Of course nothing is perfect. Now you get moans about the seeding for the round robin - such is life.

Nick

[peachy]

TimG, on Jun 10 2009, 07:56 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 9 2009, 11:13 PM, said:

My teacher told me, as I said, that "the ethics of the game are defined by its rules". I suppose the flaw in this is that, willy-nilly, people will apply their personal ethics to what others do, whatever anyone else says.

I think that the difference in opinion here can be summed up by the difference between

"the ethics of the game are defined by its rules"

and

"the ethics of the game are defined by its rules, both written and unwritten".

You seem to be of the opinion that only the written rules are the basis for ethics.

I think of ethics in the bridge sense along the lines of Merriam-Webster's (online) 3rd definition for ethics "conforming to accepted standards of conduct". So, if there is a written rule which it is accepted practice to ignore, then breaking this rule does not constitute unethical behavior. Likewise, violation of an unwritten rule can be considered unethical even if lawful.

In short, I don't believe the codification of the Laws of Bridge means that these are the only rules that apply to the game.

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

When there are rules in a game (Laws and Regulations, in bridge) and they are written down, those _are_ the rules. If there are additional rules that the majority would like to include, then whoever is in charge of making the rules should be informed/petitioned/whatever and the "unwritten" ones incorporated into the written rules before they can be considered "rules of the game". Until then, they are personal preferences or matters of personal ethics, something like that. Life is full of them, within and outside of the game of bridge.

[Lobowolf]

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

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

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up.

[TimG]

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.

[matmat]

Lobowolf, on Jun 10 2009, 02:14 PM, said:

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

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

When someone accidentially drops a card on the floor, avert your eyes so as not to see it if it landed face up.

how is this, or the one about informing your opp if you see their hand, a rule? Will the TD penalize me for looking if at the card that falls on the floor? is it my responsibility to make sure that my opponents keep their cards a secret from me? so long as I don't go out of my way to see their cards, I don't believe I am breaking any rules...

[jdonn]

This thread has certainly been a useful way to learn who the bridge lawyers are.

[matmat]

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

This thread has certainly been a useful way to learn who the bridge lawyers are.

hey,... I'd never actually look at their cards... but to call this an unwritten rule is silly.