[gnasher]

Law 74A3 said:

Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

Law 74B4 said:

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from ...
prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

These are part of the Laws. That makes most of the things discussed in this thread illegal. If you knowingly break the Laws with the intention of gaining an advantage, you're cheating.

Phil said:

Pretty sure the Ace - Eight designations let the opponent correct their play if they mishear you. A rules guru can cite chapter and verse here.

I'm not a rules guru, but I believe that the rules are:
- If dummy mishears and plays the wrong card, and a defender plays before the error is corrected, the defender can correct it. The information from the withdrawn card is authorised to the other defender, and unauthorised to declarer.
- If a defender mishears and plays out of turn, he's stuck with his choice. And quite right too.

Artk78 said:

Here is Paragraph B of Law 46:

That deals with what should take place following the infraction of an incomplete designation. It doesn't make the incomplete designation any less of an infraction.

Artk78 said:

Furthermore, the quote from the introduction to the laws reads as follows:

"...'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),..."

So, while you may be technically correct that the call for a "high" card or a "low" card from dummy is an infraction, it is an infraction that is corrected by the interpretation provided in Law 46B 1. and is not subject to penalty.

"Not often penalized" does not mean the same as "not subject to penalty". If you intentionally commit an infraction for the purpose of gaining an advantage, you're cheating, and in any sane jurisdiction you will be punished accordingly.

[ArtK78]

gnasher, on Nov 3 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Artk78 said:

Furthermore, the quote from the introduction to the laws reads as follows:

"...'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),..."

So, while you may be technically correct that the call for a "high" card or a "low" card from dummy is an infraction, it is an infraction that is corrected by the interpretation provided in Law 46B 1. and is not subject to penalty.

"Not often penalized" does not mean the same as "not subject to penalty". If you intentionally commit an infraction for the purpose of gaining an advantage, you're cheating, and in any sane jurisdiction you will be punished accordingly.

Given that 99.9% of all players will occasionally call for a "high club" or a "low heart" or a "heart" from dummy without any intention to "cheat," I object to your characterization of the intentional commission of an "infraction" as "cheating."

And I understand that you have qualified your comment with "for the purpose of gaining an advantage," but I cannot see how it is possible that such a designation of a card can possibly gain an advantage (notwithstanding the original post in this thread).

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Nov 3 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

Given that 99.9% of all players will occasionally call for a "high club" or a "low heart" or a "heart" from dummy without any intention to "cheat," I object to your characterization of the intentional commission of an "infraction" as "cheating."

I didn't. As you acknowledge in your next paragraph, I very explicitly said " If you intentionally commit an infraction for the purpose of gaining an advantage, you're cheating".

Is this really so hard to understand? If you say "high club" because you feel like it, you're committing a trivial and socially acceptable breach of the rules. If you say "high club" in order to influence an opponent's play, and you know that it's against the rules, you're cheating.

If you say it in order to influence an opponent's play, but you don't know that it's against the rules, you're not cheating, but you require education and your score may require adjustment.

Quote

And I understand that you have qualified your comment with "for the purpose of gaining an advantage,"  but I cannot see how it is possible that such a designation of a card can possibly gain an advantage (notwithstanding the original post in this thread).

Then you will never suffer from this problem. kfay, on the other hand, believes that he can gain such an advantage, and if he now tried to do so he would (assuming that he now understands what the rules say), be cheating.

[pooltuna]

jdonn, on Nov 3 2009, 01:56 PM, said:

I just can't get it Arend. So after the session you can say to yourself "it was ok that I fooled him, but not ok to fool her, and for that guy I thought it would have been ok to fool him but I was mistaken at the time about the nature of his health, oh well accidents happen." This is much like the earlier discussion of computer bridge where I argued people are wrongly equating the cards as part of the game. There is no reason in bridge that cards should look similarly to each other, or sound that way, it's simply how they are as a practical matter since they have always been that way and people think they are nice to look at. As such I don't think one should take advantage of those aspects as a strategy to win at bridge.

Nothing is wrong with taking advantage of someone not paying attention through methods like discarding down to a singleton king before you think he is watching your discards, or discarding an ace from A7 when the only other card left is a 4 since you think he didn't pay attention to whether the 7 was played. But I can't accept taking advantage of a club looking like a spade.

I probably should leave this thread now given pooltuna's dispicible comment about people with physical limitations, as I couldn't give it a fair reply without offering up comparisons that appear offensive or otherwise making comments that would probably get me warned.

treating opponents with physical ailments in a different manner than you would treat other opponents is usually considered by same as insulting

[barmar]

Since this "infraction" is so common, it's true that it would practically never result in a penalty on its own. It also seems unlikely that a player would be able to tell that declarer had used an incomplete designature for the purpose of gaining an advantage. About the only way I think he could be caught would be if he bragged about it afterward (as he apparently did to the OP).

[RMB1]

The OP asked if this was unethical, not if it would result in a penalty.

Robin

[kfay]

ArtK78, on Nov 3 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

gnasher, on Nov 3 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Artk78 said:

Furthermore, the quote from the introduction to the laws reads as follows:

"...'should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor’s rights but not often penalized),..."

So, while you may be technically correct that the call for a "high" card or a "low" card from dummy is an infraction, it is an infraction that is corrected by the interpretation provided in Law 46B 1. and is not subject to penalty.

"Not often penalized" does not mean the same as "not subject to penalty". If you intentionally commit an infraction for the purpose of gaining an advantage, you're cheating, and in any sane jurisdiction you will be punished accordingly.

Given that 99.9% of all players will occasionally call for a "high club" or a "low heart" or a "heart" from dummy without any intention to "cheat," I object to your characterization of the intentional commission of an "infraction" as "cheating."

And I understand that you have qualified your comment with "for the purpose of gaining an advantage," but I cannot see how it is possible that such a designation of a card can possibly gain an advantage (notwithstanding the original post in this thread).

Not sure if people understand the full story here. Like myself, I think my friend often designates cards as 'top heart' or 'heart.' The former meaning the highest rank, the latter meaning the lowest.

In this intance he said 'Play the high heart' emphasis on THE! to give the impression that it was, in fact, high. It wasn't just a nonchalant way of calling for the card.

Anyway, maybe it's not unethical. It just struck me as such but if people don't think so...

[barmar]

It seems to me that an opponent would have to be really out of it for the distinction between "a high heart" and "the high heart" to fool him. And it would require a declarer with incredible table sense to realize that this coup would work. But I guess he doesn't really have to know it will work -- if it doesn't, he's no worse off than if he hadn't tried it.

What I had trouble following in the original story was how declarer got back to dummy. The post started out saying that dummy had two hearts, but I guess it also had a high trump that wasn't mentioned (but implied when you said that crossing to dummy drew the last trump).

[mikeh]

gnasher, on Nov 3 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 3 2009, 09:32 PM, said:

Given that 99.9% of all players will occasionally call for a "high club" or a "low heart" or a "heart" from dummy without any intention to "cheat," I object to your characterization of the intentional commission of an "infraction" as "cheating."

I didn't. As you acknowledge in your next paragraph, I very explicitly said " If you intentionally commit an infraction for the purpose of gaining an advantage, you're cheating".

Is this really so hard to understand? If you say "high club" because you feel like it, you're committing a trivial and socially acceptable breach of the rules. If you say "high club" in order to influence an opponent's play, and you know that it's against the rules, you're cheating.

If you say it in order to influence an opponent's play, but you don't know that it's against the rules, you're not cheating, but you require education and your score may require adjustment.

Quote

And I understand that you have qualified your comment with "for the purpose of gaining an advantage,"  but I cannot see how it is possible that such a designation of a card can possibly gain an advantage (notwithstanding the original post in this thread).

Then you will never suffer from this problem. kfay, on the other hand, believes that he can gain such an advantage, and if he now tried to do so he would (assuming that he now understands what the rules say), be cheating.

I couldn't express my feelings any better than this.

[TimG]

kfay, on Nov 3 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

In this instance he said 'Play the high heart' emphasis on THE! to give the impression that it was, in fact, high. It wasn't just a nonchalant way of calling for the card.

This seems to me to be blatantly unethical.

[Jlall]

So is calling for the jack in hopes that they cover it wrong when you have JT9 in dummy? Or KJT in dummy and I call for the jack hoping they play the queen? What if I have KJT in dummy and Axxxx in my hand and no entry so I call for the ten or low hoping they duck and I can take 5 tricks?

I know I do stuff like this sometimes, I will def stop doing it of course if it is wrong/cheating even though everyone I know will also do this. FWIW I never thought it was against the rules or even unethical.

[Echognome]

I think there are definitely gradations here and making an unnecessary emphasis crosses the line. Compare the following statements:


1. "Play the top heart winner"
2. "Play the high heart"
3. "Play a top heart"
4. "Play a high heart"
5. "Play the heart ten"

I don't think it's right if you purposely vary your speech to gain an advantage. I think it's perfectly legitimate to play different spot cards or honor cards for a psychological advantage, but view that as entirely different as varying your speech in calling for the same card. To me, that is the difference between something being ethical and unethical.

If you call for different cards with touching honors, say you hold JT9 and call:

a. "heart jack"
b. "heart ten"
c. "heart nine"

There is simply no issue.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Nov 3 2009, 06:06 PM, said:

So is calling for the jack in hopes that they cover it wrong when you have JT9 in dummy? Or KJT in dummy and I call for the jack hoping they play the queen? What if I have KJT in dummy and Axxxx in my hand and no entry so I call for the ten or low hoping they duck and I can take 5 tricks?

I know I do stuff like this sometimes, I will def stop doing it of course if it is wrong/cheating even though everyone I know will also do this. FWIW I never thought it was against the rules or even unethical.

No: you are, in specifying the card to be played, in complete compliance with the law. However, if, knowing that RHO was half-asleep and that the Q was missing, and held by RHO, you said: 'cash the top heart', hoping that RHO would ruff the card you have just, falsely, described as a winner, then that would be cheating.... and calling for the 'high' heart when knowing that you are supposed to call for the jack, and when you do so INTENDING to catch the half-asleep opp...that's indistinguishable, in my view, in ethical terms, from the more blatant reference to 'cashing' the top heart.

Calling for the 'high' heart with no intent to mislead, perhaps from laziness, or habit, does not constitute cheating. Since this question of intent makes cheating almost impossible to prove in these situations, in my view ethical players should and in my experience do strain to call for cards by spot or rank unless it is clear to all at the table that there is no issue... as in both opps are known to be void... or dummy has either a stiff or a solid sequence.

[blackshoe]

If the question is one of a player who wishes to be ethical, the answer is simple: always call for cards from dummy in the manner specified in Law 46A.

[Jlall]

mikeh, on Nov 3 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

No: you are, in specifying the card to be played, in complete compliance with the law.

Ok. I would obviously never say "cash the high heart." I do sometimes say top heart rather than calling for the exact card, pretty sure this is random. I routinely just say "heart" if I want the lowest one.

[JoAnneM]

I doubt that the person that we purposely place under the strongest light in the room because of his eye disease is insulted because of our consideration.

I doubt that the lady that has her cards pre-sorted for her by the previous player because of her failing eyesight feels insulted. She actually wouldn't be able to play without this extra help. We also say our bids out loud and announce our plays vocally.

I actually don't know of any player who has failing eyesight or hearing who was insulted by receiving some accommodation at the table.

And if I thought that anyone was taking advantage of these people by playing to their handicaps - well, I wouldn't want to be in the same club with them.

On another subject in this thread, somewhere I read that intentionally discarding a same color card, hoping to cause the opponent to miscount, is illegal. Can't remember where I saw it.

[ggwhiz]

I can't believe anyone thinks this "gamesmanship" (original example, not Jlall or others) is remotely acceptable. Not unethical, perhaps and well debated here BUT......

There are so many reasons that Bridge has never made it as a spectator sport and I think this kind of action is a big one, not to mention the rookies that quit the game shortly after playing in their first stratified events.

[matmat]

ggwhiz, on Nov 3 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

I can't believe anyone thinks this "gamesmanship" (original example, not Jlall or others) is remotely acceptable. Not unethical, perhaps and well debated here BUT......

There are so many reasons that Bridge has never made it as a spectator sport and I think this kind of action is a big one, not to mention the rookies that quit the game shortly after playing in their first stratified events.

sorry. i don't get it. if it is not unethical or illegal, what's wrong with it?

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Nov 4 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

Ok. I would obviously never say "cash the high heart." I do sometimes say top heart rather than calling for the exact card, pretty sure this is random. I routinely just say "heart" if I want the lowest one.

Randomly varying how you call for a card is technically illegal, but also harmless and acceptable to just about everybody. That's completely different from varying how you call for a card in order to gain an advantage.

[gnasher]

matmat, on Nov 4 2009, 05:46 AM, said:

ggwhiz, on Nov 3 2009, 10:59 PM, said:

I can't believe anyone thinks this "gamesmanship" (original example, not Jlall or others) is remotely acceptable.  Not unethical, perhaps and well debated here BUT......

There are so many reasons that Bridge has never made it as a spectator sport and I think this kind of action is a big one, not to mention the rookies that quit the game shortly after playing in their first stratified events.

sorry. i don't get it. if it is not unethical or illegal, what's wrong with it?

The example in the original post is both unethical and illegal. I've quoted the laws that make it illegal.