[mikeh]

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

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

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.

I would turn my head to not see it. Same about seeing somebody else's cards because they are holding them so that others can see. I would tell them I can see them if I looked. Those are my personal values, or ethics if we want to stay within the topic, nothing to do with the laws of bridge. I am sure the majority shares those values.

Exactly, the majority of players are happy to play by the unwritten rules. Some bridge lawyers are not.

I'm not sure what you mean. Bridge lawyers know the law and play by the rules and enjoy the benefit of seldom being on the short end of a ruling because they are as good or better than a TD in applying the laws/rules. It is not unethical to be knowledgeable about the rules and know how they apply. It is also not unethical to be world class and execute a squeeze while other players mess up their transportation and fail. It is a n acquired skill. Some have acquired law skill, why berate them for it.

Personal values are not part of bridge laws. I keep repeating this but it does not sit well with some folks. So I won't say it any more. But personal values should not be instituted into the laws, IMO.

I was reminded, when I read this, of a golf magazine interview with Tom Watson, when he was at the peak of his game... must have been almost 30 years ago or so. He was asked about other leading players, and ethics. If memory serves, and it may not, he was somewhat critical of Gary Player. Not that Gary cheated... but that Watson's impression of Player was that Player would take advantage of absolutely every edge that he could get away with, while complying with the letter of the rules... Watson was a believer in complying with the spirit of the rules, as well as the letter. He was careful to make sure, as I recall the article, that Player's approach was perfectly legal and was followed by a substantial minority of touring pros, but there was no doubt what Watson felt about that approach.

I was already a fan of Watson, but that part of the article has stuck, accurately or otherwise, with me ever since.. and Watson went up in my estimation. I try to emulate Watson in my approach to the rules of bridge...altho sometimes a bit of Player seems to sneak in

What this means, to me, is that most of this thread is misdirected... there is no absolute wrong or right.. only one's sense of the morally correct thing to do. For me, it is a no-brainer. Having said that, many years ago, when I was a young player who was nowhere near as good as I thought I was, but was still one of the top players in my small, isolated community, I psyched successfully, in a local tournament, against novices. The director, a senior ACBL director who liked running these small tournaments, took me to one side, and told me that while I did nothing wrong, he hoped I would never do it again. I shrugged it off at the time, but, looking back, he was absolutely correct.

If you are a Gary Player person, then go ahead... I won't admire you, but I won't begrudge you the wins you pick up by doing it.

[awm]

Another situation where these sorts of ethics come up involves alert policy. It's often the case that some method which is quite unusual doesn't actually require an alert or pre-alert. Again one is given the decision of following the letter of the laws (and not alerting) or alerting because the opponents are likely to want to know. Some ACBL examples of this include:

(1) Direct cuebids which are not Michaels (i.e. top and bottom cue). Technically not an alert, but pretty much everyone will assume Michaels.

(2) Playing a strong club system is not a pre-alert, but it can surprise people especially in lower level or stratified events.

There are also ways you can take advantage of seeding rights (for example in a swiss teams you can often wait for opponents to sit down and then line up around them; frequently they don't even look up who they are playing against before sitting for the round). This is probably not completely "ethical" but I've never seen any rules against it.

[ArtK78]

When I play online, I find it inappropriate, if not unethical, if a pair that I am playing against in a pair event fails to prealert my partner and me that they are playing an unusual system (anything other than Standard or 2/1).

My regular partner and I play a light opening system with 10-12 1NT openings. I always greet each new pair with "Hi all - we open all 10 HCP hands nonvul in 1st and 2nd seats including a 10-12 1NT opening" [by the way, to save time, I have this copied so that I can just paste it into the chat area].

This is especially important in a speedball game where you have limited time to take care of the mechanics of the game, let alone start checking your opponents' convention card.

[Cascade]

mikeh, on Jun 12 2009, 08:23 AM, said:

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

jdonn, on Jun 10 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 10 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

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.

I would turn my head to not see it. Same about seeing somebody else's cards because they are holding them so that others can see. I would tell them I can see them if I looked. Those are my personal values, or ethics if we want to stay within the topic, nothing to do with the laws of bridge. I am sure the majority shares those values.

Exactly, the majority of players are happy to play by the unwritten rules. Some bridge lawyers are not.

I'm not sure what you mean. Bridge lawyers know the law and play by the rules and enjoy the benefit of seldom being on the short end of a ruling because they are as good or better than a TD in applying the laws/rules. It is not unethical to be knowledgeable about the rules and know how they apply. It is also not unethical to be world class and execute a squeeze while other players mess up their transportation and fail. It is a n acquired skill. Some have acquired law skill, why berate them for it.

Personal values are not part of bridge laws. I keep repeating this but it does not sit well with some folks. So I won't say it any more. But personal values should not be instituted into the laws, IMO.

I was reminded, when I read this, of a golf magazine interview with Tom Watson, when he was at the peak of his game... must have been almost 30 years ago or so. He was asked about other leading players, and ethics. If memory serves, and it may not, he was somewhat critical of Gary Player. Not that Gary cheated... but that Watson's impression of Player was that Player would take advantage of absolutely every edge that he could get away with, while complying with the letter of the rules... Watson was a believer in complying with the spirit of the rules, as well as the letter. He was careful to make sure, as I recall the article, that Player's approach was perfectly legal and was followed by a substantial minority of touring pros, but there was no doubt what Watson felt about that approach.

I was already a fan of Watson, but that part of the article has stuck, accurately or otherwise, with me ever since.. and Watson went up in my estimation. I try to emulate Watson in my approach to the rules of bridge...altho sometimes a bit of Player seems to sneak in

What this means, to me, is that most of this thread is misdirected... there is no absolute wrong or right.. only one's sense of the morally correct thing to do. For me, it is a no-brainer. Having said that, many years ago, when I was a young player who was nowhere near as good as I thought I was, but was still one of the top players in my small, isolated community, I psyched successfully, in a local tournament, against novices. The director, a senior ACBL director who liked running these small tournaments, took me to one side, and told me that while I did nothing wrong, he hoped I would never do it again. I shrugged it off at the time, but, looking back, he was absolutely correct.

If you are a Gary Player person, then go ahead... I won't admire you, but I won't begrudge you the wins you pick up by doing it.

I draw the line when the so-called unwritten rule is insulting and patronizing to those it is purported to protect.

I suspect that a no psyche against weaker players is also against the ACBL general conditions of contest.

For example say I believe that the best way for me to get the best score I can out of a certain hand is to psyche. Then if I choose not to psyche I am deliberately not playing my best. The ACBL general conditions of contest require

"Players are expected to play each hand to win at all times. No dumping is permitted even if such dumping may be in the contestant's best long-term interest."

Not psyching in this situation seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to dump.

[Rain]

I don't think it ethical for psyches when your partner may expect it, and your opponents don't.

This situation mostly occurs when partner/you are advanced players and opponents are beginners. People new to bridge won't know about psyches. It's not like it's taught in bridge books.

[blackshoe]

Actually, there are a couple of fairly recent books on the subject. Mike Cappalletti wrote one of them.

[Hanoi5]

link please? I was writing on the subject for my Bridge Guide and I only found an article in a dead magazine (the American Popular Bridge) and some stuff in a chapter in a book. And also some stuff in the bridge encyclopedia.

Not much. Can you link me to that book?

[gnasher]

There's this one, by two English writers:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Psychic-Bidding-...44758107&sr=1-4

[1eyedjack]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2009, 11:10 PM, said:

There's this one, by two English writers:
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Psychic-Bidding-...44758107&sr=1-4

I'm on the lookout for a copy of The Finer Arts of Bridge by Victor Mollo, but the copies on the Internet all seem to be horrendously expensive. Well, that's supply and demand, I guess, but they have priced it out of my league.

[mike777]

Ethical rules do vary quite alot from sport to sport. In golf you are required to call penalties on yourself if you break a rule even to the point of disqualifying yourself.

OTOH in baseball the ethical rules are quite the opposite. From what I see of European Football, acting seems to be a required skill while I doubt most of us who watch or play American Football even have any idea what most of the rules are on the gridiron.

[the hog]

ArtK78, on Jun 12 2009, 03:46 AM, said:

When I play online, I find it inappropriate, if not unethical, if a pair that I am playing against in a pair event fails to prealert my partner and me that they are playing an unusual system (anything other than Standard or 2/1).

My regular partner and I play a light opening system with 10-12 1NT openings. I always greet each new pair with "Hi all - we open all 10 HCP hands nonvul in 1st and 2nd seats including a 10-12 1NT opening" [by the way, to save time, I have this copied so that I can just paste it into the chat area].

This is especially important in a speedball game where you have limited time to take care of the mechanics of the game, let alone start checking your opponents' convention card.

Art this is a very US centric post. There are other systems which are generic to areas you know, eg Acol. Are you suggesting Acol is unusal? lol

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Jun 11 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Jun 12 2009, 03:46 AM, said:

When I play online, I find it inappropriate, if not unethical, if a pair that I am playing against in a pair event fails to prealert my partner and me that they are playing an unusual system (anything other than Standard or 2/1).

My regular partner and I play a light opening system with 10-12 1NT openings.  I always greet each new pair with "Hi all - we open all 10 HCP hands nonvul in 1st and 2nd seats including a 10-12 1NT opening" [by the way, to save time, I have this copied so that I can just paste it into the chat area].

This is especially important in a speedball game where you have limited time to take care of the mechanics of the game, let alone start checking your opponents' convention card.

Art this is a very US centric post. There are other systems which are generic to areas you know, eg Acol. Are you suggesting Acol is unusal? lol

I had the same reaction. Didn't we have a long thread along these lines about Polish Club maybe half a year ago? Times are changing and the world is more connected, so if you are going to play online tournaments it behooves you to gain at least a passing familiarity with systems that are extremely common or even universal in areas with large bridge-playing populations.

[blackshoe]

Hanoi5, on Jun 11 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

link please?

http://books.google.com/books?id=qCwCAAAAC...result&resnum=5

[barmar]

Is the Golden Rule an unwritten rule? It's not written in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, but it's written many other places.

The point is that there are "bridge ethics" as defined by the Laws, but there are also general "life ethics". Just because you're playing bridge doesn't mean you're exempt from social norms.

Bridge is a social activity, not just an intellectual exercise.

[Elianna]

matmat, on Jun 11 2009, 11:37 AM, 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?

People may not want to play bridge with you (that would the be consequence).

I'm not just speaking for myself, but I would bet that there are plenty of people that you might like to play bridge with (if you ever are interested in playing in person) who wouldn't play with you if you were breaking an unwritten rule, like looking at a card an opponent dropped.

Heck, I'd be willing to bet that there are people who won't play with others who are rude to the opponents (even if they are polite to partner).

[PassedOut]

Many years ago I stopped playing as a partnership with a fellow student who I noticed had especially sharp eyesight. Kept my cards out of sight when playing against him later also.

As others have noted, the systems I started with (Roth-Stone, then K-S) did have psychic controls when they were legal. We'd always open 1♦ first or second with something like:

x-x-x
x-x-x
K-J-10-x
x-x-x

and pass any response that was not a psychic control (2NT was very strong and forcing in Roth-Stone, even upon a psychic opener).

Now that's not allowed, and I almost never psych because I want partner to believe my bids. In fact it's gotten to the point with one of my partners that no amount of strong bidding by the opponents convinces him to hold off the red card if I open, so I've sort of painted myself into a corner in that partnership.

[hanp]

Some players claim to remember every hand they ever played but I remember only very few. But I do remember this:

I remember Zia writing in his book about psychic gametries.

I remember Fred bidding 3NT after his partner preempted, going for only 50 a trick in a BBO exhibition match many years ago.

I remember Tom Hanlon's psyche against me that cost us dearly in the Nashville life master pairs.

I remember Hamman bidding 5C first and then 6C when Versace bid 5H, inciting a double when he knew 6C would likely make.

I remember Meckstroth winning a hand of the year award for a brilliant trick 1 falsecard.

I remember my first summer of bridge, when my friend Ruben was bragging about how he as declarer won the first trick with the ace instead of the queen with a side suit wide open.

I have always thought that such plays and bids were among the most beautiful parts of the game and I don't agree that the ordinary bridge club is no place for such strategies.

[mike777]

yes...ditto.

[barryallen]

Psyches are a part of Bridge which would be virtually impossible to practically outlaw. Where would you stop? someone that goes to 3NT bypassing a major? As far as beginners are concerned, that's just part of the knocks in the Bridge world they have to get familiar with. Personally not for me, due to it easily spoiling a pairs evening and akin to trading whisky with the Indians for Manhattan. Even worse bragging about the event afterwards, may as well short change toddlers if that's what moves your spokes.

One particular area of psyches I do have a big issue with, the one where you would be shocked to hear they did not psyche during a series of boards. Some TD's will look at the events and come to the conclusion that during the course of the event, no out right gain could be established. But secondary to that, these types of players can have a distorting effect on results, because by their very nature they readily can produce tops and bottoms. For this reason I would always inform the TD at the earliest opportunity without delaying play.

Psyching with a calculated purpose will always have it's place in Bridge. The trouble is that coming in on the coat tails of those bids are players with low boredom thresholds that have had no active part for the last 5 minutes, some very gifted technicians.

[Benoit35]

Interesting hanp... Just yesterday, I advised a partner to refrain from doing the Bath coup on the opening lead, to fool the defense into insisting on clubs (where a second stopper was there anyway) rather than switching to the more dangerous spades.

I also remember getting "oohs" from a declarer whom I fooled into playing for the drop rather than the finesse, by leading the jack from KJ10 into dummy's AQ.

Misrepresenting your hand during card play is usually seen as a good thing - especially for the declarer, since concealed agreements are not an issue (as opposed to the defending pair). I, for one, enjoy messing with defenders and jedi-mind-tricking them into leading my favorite suit. I can barely pull off a squeeze, but I suspect that being a master squeezer doesn't produce as much success as being a master make-the-defense-help-you-maker.

So why is deceptive bidding so frowned upon by many players, while deceptive card play is generally admired?