[barmar]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2009, 12:41 PM, said:

Sorry for the confusion, then. But my questions remain. Given that he is not aware that he has made an unintended call, what can he do or not do (in situations where the call is not obviously displayed so that he — and presumably everyone else — can see it) in search of determining what call he made?

Suppose he intends to pass, but has a brain fart and the word "double" comes out of his mouth without him realizing it, and LHO redoubles. He then says, "How can you redouble when I passed?" Everyone at the table confirms that they heard him say "double", and he then says "but I meant to pass."

Now you call the TD and let him sort it out in accordance with the laws on inadvertent calls.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2009, 11:36 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 16 2009, 06:11 AM, said:

That penalty could be anything from a warning to a penalty that brings the North/South result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in.

It is my view that awarding procedural penalties in an amount designed to "rectify" the score is not just bad practice, it's illegal. If you have a legal justification for adjusting the score, do so in accordance with Law 12. Once that's done, it's done. Awarding of PPs is a separate issue, and the size of the PP should be based solely on guidance from higher authority, local practice, and the TD's judgement of the severity of the offense, without any consideration of whether the rectification provided in the laws for the offense concerned is "adequate".

I agree.

And I consider the severity of the offence to be tightly connected to the expected gain from the offence.

Thus I grade my PP when applicable according among other premises also to the expected gain.

That allows me to issue a simple warning to a newbie who doesn't know better while for the same offence I can hit an experienced player with the full force of for instance Law 23 or a PP if no other law applies directly.

I suppose we can all agree that there was a very specific and unwarranted expected gain behind South's irregular activity in the situation discussed here?

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Are you talking about the degree of expected gain (where an expectation of gaining say 1 matchpoint is different from an expectation of gaining 5 matchpoints) or about the expectation there is any gain at all?

I would be very surprised if any player considers "expected gain" in anything like numerical terms.

But I think you're talking about the second situation - and clearly the player (South, was it?) expected to gain by all his shenanigans. And from your latest post, apparently we're in agreement that the "size" of the PP should depend on how far down the pike between "clueless noob" and "fully cognizant that what he's doing is wrong" South is. If he's at one end, the PP (a warning, at most) will do nothing to "bring the NS result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in", while if he's anywhere near the other end of that road their (NS's) result will be considerably less than that - at least if law 12 does its ideal job, and the adjustment gets back to "equity". But if there's no adjustment — because under law 25A (in this case) the TD has to allow the change of call — that makes no difference to the size of the PP. In fact, it may be best to determine the PP before considering what rectification the law provides. I don't know, I'll have to think more about that idea.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Sep 16 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

The only thing wrong with that is I do not think it is true.  I am trying to take advantage of an opponent's error to get a favourable bridge result, which is the normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

- An opponent drops a card on the floor, face-up but in a position where only I can see it. I look at it rather than looking away.

- An opponent reaches for the bidding box when it's not his turn. I don't try to stop him, because I want to benefit from a bid out of turn.

- An opponent seems to think that he won the last trick, whereas in fact I won it. It looks as though he's about to lead to the next trick. I don't warn him that he's not on lead, because I want to benefit from a lead out of turn. [Edit: my first version of this probably wasn't legal, so I changed it.]

I believe that these are all legal (though I'm prepared to be corrected).

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario. I really hope you're not going to say that each of these is also a normal reaction to an opponent's error.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-September-17, 02:54

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 16 2009, 08:18 PM, said:

Are you talking about the degree of expected gain (where an expectation of gaining say 1 matchpoint is different from an expectation of gaining 5 matchpoints) or about the expectation there is any gain at all?

I would be very surprised if any player considers "expected gain" in anything like numerical terms.

But I think you're talking about the second situation - and clearly the player (South, was it?) expected to gain by all his shenanigans. And from your latest post, apparently we're in agreement that the "size" of the PP should depend on how far down the pike between "clueless noob" and "fully cognizant that what he's doing is wrong" South is. If he's at one end, the PP (a warning, at most) will do nothing to "bring the NS result back to what an uncorrected mechanical error would have resulted in", while if he's anywhere near the other end of that road their (NS's) result will be considerably less than that - at least if law 12 does its ideal job, and the adjustment gets back to "equity". But if there's no adjustment — because under law 25A (in this case) the TD has to allow the change of call — that makes no difference to the size of the PP. In fact, it may be best to determine the PP before considering what rectification the law provides. I don't know, I'll have to think more about that idea.

Just tell me: What is equity on the board absent any infraction of laws; i.e. is if South (as he should have done) had called in tempo without any noticeable reaction to the mechanical error made by North?

South here probably had an expectation of a solid bottom score if North's call were not corrected, and the expected gain by his irregularity is to instead obtain a reaonable score at least around average. South also probably was aware that North could be allowed to correct his error so long as South made no subsequent call.

Thus my impression is that South was experienced enough to know his laws, making his activity unacceptable, and consequently I should vote for a PP around 50% or maybe even 100% of a top score depending on whether South could have expectations to just save a reasonable score with his irregularity or that they were on their way to a top score contract.

I don't know anything that makes it illegal for me as a Director to vary a PP depending upon the outcome of an irregularity once a PP is warranted?

regards Sven

[bluejak]

Quote

I don't know anything that makes it illegal for me as a Director to vary a PP depending upon the outcome of an irregularity once a PP is warranted?

No, Sven, it is not illegal [despite someone earlier, Ed I think, suggesting it is]. But a lot of people, me included, think it undesirable. I believe the level of PP should depend on the level of offence, not on the effect of the offence.

Quote

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

- An opponent drops a card on the floor, face-up but in a position where only I can see it. I look at it rather than looking away.

- An opponent reaches for the bidding box when it's not his turn. I don't try to stop him, because I want to benefit from a bid out of turn.

- An opponent seems to think that he won the last trick, whereas in fact I won it. It looks as though he's about to lead to the next trick. I don't warn him that he's not on lead, because I want to benefit from a lead out of turn. [Edit: my first version of this probably wasn't legal, so I changed it.]

I believe that these are all legal (though I'm prepared to be corrected).

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario. I really hope you're not going to say that each of these is also a normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Perfectly normal. A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error: you believe that some errors and not others should be taken advantage of. While I do not object to you acting the way you seem to believe, of course, I doubt that you can have any legitimate complaint against the people who do not. It is the subject I keep hammering away at: personal/active ethics against legal ethics. Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

[campboy]

Isn't the first of those -- looking at an opponent's hand in order to see cards -- a violation of 74C5?

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Sep 17 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

Perfectly normal.  A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error:

I'm pleased to see that it's now "probably a majority" rather than "about 99.9% of bridge players". However, I think you're still very wrong about the proportion of players who would deliberately do any of the things I've described.

Quote

you believe that some errors and not others should be taken advantage of.  While I do not object to you acting the way you seem to believe, of course, I doubt that you can have any legitimate complaint against the people who do not.  It is the subject I keep hammering away at: personal/active ethics against legal ethics.

I didn't say I had any complaint against such people, and I certainly didn't suggest that such actions were against the rules. I said, "I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time in East's company. What sort of bridge player doubles 5NT rather than asking whether North actually meant to bid that?"

Quote

Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

Even if you are right about this, so what? A contemptible action still merits contempt, regardless of how many other people would take the same action.

[barmar]

bluejak, on Sep 17 2009, 08:59 AM, said:

Quote

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

- An opponent drops a card on the floor, face-up but in a position where only I can see it. I look at it rather than looking away.

- An opponent reaches for the bidding box when it's not his turn. I don't try to stop him, because I want to benefit from a bid out of turn.

- An opponent seems to think that he won the last trick, whereas in fact I won it. It looks as though he's about to lead to the next trick. I don't warn him that he's not on lead, because I want to benefit from a lead out of turn. [Edit: my first version of this probably wasn't legal, so I changed it.]

I believe that these are all legal (though I'm prepared to be corrected).

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario. I really hope you're not going to say that each of these is also a normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Perfectly normal. A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error: you believe that some errors and not others should be taken advantage of. While I do not object to you acting the way you seem to believe, of course, I doubt that you can have any legitimate complaint against the people who do not. It is the subject I keep hammering away at: personal/active ethics against legal ethics. Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

I've never seen anyone who didn't actively try to avoid taking advantage of any of the above types of errors. If I warn someone that I can see their cards, and then they do it again, I may joke that the next time I'll look, but I never mean it. If a card drops on the floor, everyone else instinctively averts or covers their eyes, in my experience.

I feel bad for you if the people you play bridge against (I hope not with) see no problem with punishing opponents for these types of errors.

I'm not sure what makes these different from some other bridge errors, but I think most people naturally treat them differently. There's a gut feeling that these types of accidents are not "part of the game". Perhaps anything goes in cut-throat rubber bridge, but duplicate bridge is expected to be more civilized.

Maybe it's a cultural thing, so it depends on where you play.

[campboy]

Well, I would certainly avoid looking in the first two cases, and in my experience the overwhelming majority would do the same.

In the last two cases, if I was sufficiently aware to know that it wasn't their turn, I would say so without really thinking, but I would not expect others to do the same.

Bidding or playing out of turn and making insufficient bids are certainly errors of bridge, and it seems right for them to cost. Dropping cards is an error of coordination.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 17 2009, 07:59 AM, said:

Quote

I don't know anything that makes it illegal for me as a Director to vary a PP depending upon the outcome of an irregularity once a PP is warranted?

No, Sven, it is not illegal [despite someone earlier, Ed I think, suggesting it is]. But a lot of people, me included, think it undesirable. I believe the level of PP should depend on the level of offence, not on the effect of the offence.

Don't misunderstand me. I do not automatically vary a PP according to the outcome. What I argue is to assess the estimated consequence of the irregularity as can be expected by the offender and vary the PP accordingly. And it makes a lot of difference to me when an irregularity appears to having been deliberate rather than accidental.

If the irregularity is likely to have only a minor effect on the result I have almost found it also to having been accidental. In such cases I very seldom impose PP other than in the form of a warning.

However, when the irregularity bears every sign of having been deliberate and in addition likely (in the offender's mind) to have a major effect on the result I sure stand ready to impose a much stronger PP.

And I shall "reserve my rights" to do just that.

(The description given by OP clearly IMHO fits this last alternative.)

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

De jure, the reason for a PP is

Quote

for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure or requires the award of
an adjusted score at another table.

There is no guidance in law as to when to issue a (lawful) PP, or how big to make it. Those are left to TD discretion. So legally you can do whatever you want. However, as David says, and I agree with him, the size of the PP should depend on the level of the offense, not on the TD's guess as to how much (in MPs or whatever) the player may have expected to gain by whatever action generated the need for a PP.

In the case in point, we have neither a complete auction nor any idea how the cards were distributed amongst the four hands, so I think it folly to assume that South expected a zero if the contract were 5NT, and an average (or better) if it was something else. Certainly he might expect that 5♠ would do better than 5NT, but that's a different thing.

I did say upthread

Quote

It is my view that awarding procedural penalties in an amount designed to "rectify" the score is not just bad practice, it's illegal.

I was thinking of

Law 12B2 said:

the director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side

and that in spirit, at least, the laws do not intend that we use PPs to "help" in rectification. I have to admit there's no specific prohibition. Maybe there should be (but that's a topic for a different thread).

[dan_ehh]

I would appreciate it if someone addressed McBruce's and my own suggestions that this is a case for L23.

[blackshoe]

I think Law 23 does apply here, but not to disallow a change of call, as Dan suggested. Rather to allow the TD to adjust the score if the change of call damages the NOS. The irregularity that leads to Law 23 is not the change of call itself, of course, it's North's actions directing South's attention to his unintended call.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Sep 17 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 17 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

Perfectly normal.  A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error:

I'm pleased to see that it's now "probably a majority" rather than "about 99.9% of bridge players". However, I think you're still very wrong about the proportion of players who would deliberately do any of the things I've described.

It is probably a majority because it is a different situation. You surely do not believe that people do not act differently in different situations? I believe that when a person makes a strange bid 99.9% of people call over it without any thought of asking whether he meant it. I believe that when a player shows you his cards a large number, probably a majority, will look. Two totally different situations.

gnasher, on Sep 17 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 17 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

Even if you are right about this, so what? A contemptible action still merits contempt, regardless of how many other people would take the same action.

I do not believe taking advantage of your opponents' mistakes is really a matter for contempt.

[bluejak]

blackshoe, on Sep 17 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

I think Law 23 does apply here, but not to disallow a change of call, as Dan suggested. Rather to allow the TD to adjust the score if the change of call damages the NOS. The irregularity that leads to Law 23 is not the change of call itself, of course, it's North's actions directing South's attention to his unintended call.

It is possible, I suppose, but it seems a reach. Law 23 is generally used for a perfectly normal infraction which everyone makes all the time, but special circumstances apply and Law 23 kicks in. Here we have an attempt to communicate with partner, which does not feel the same to me at all.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Sep 18 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

I believe that when a person makes a strange bid 99.9% of people call over it without any thought of asking whether he meant it.

But we're talking about a situation where

bluejak, on Sep 14 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

North bid 5NT, obviously intending to bid 5♠.

To make absolutely sure that I hadn't misunderstood the situation you described, I asked:

gnasher, on Sep 15 2009, 04:18 PM, said:

As I understand your description of the situation, it's obvious to everybody except North that 5NT was a mechanical error.  Is that correct?

So, unless we've been talking at cross purposes for then past twenty posts, we're not talking about something East thinks is a "strange bid"; we're talking about something that East knows, or is almost certain, is a mechanical error. The action I have been discussing is East's bidding over what he believes to be a mechanical error. If East didn't think it was a mechanical error, or just didn't think at all, of course I wouldn't criticise him.

bluejak said:

gnasher, on Sep 17 2009, 04:26 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 17 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

Even if you are right about this, so what? A contemptible action still merits contempt, regardless of how many other people would take the same action.

I do not believe taking advantage of your opponents' mistakes is really a matter for contempt.

Yes, we know that. My point was that the argument "Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed." is spurious. The morality of a particular action is not dependent on the number of people who would take that action.

Anyway, this talk of ethics is getting away from my original point, which was this: I play bridge because I like to win at bridge. Somebody who intentionally takes advantage of an opponent's mechanical error, or intentionally looks at a dropped card, plays bridge because they like to win. I don't think I would have much in common with such a person.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Sep 17 2009, 02:59 PM, said:

Quote

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

[List continues with similar actions, that are legal according to the law book]

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario. I really hope you're not going to say that each of these is also a normal reaction to an opponent's error.

Perfectly normal. A lot of people, probably a majority, see no problem with taking advantage of an opponent's error: you believe that some errors and not others should be taken advantage of. While I do not object to you acting the way you seem to believe, of course, I doubt that you can have any legitimate complaint against the people who do not. It is the subject I keep hammering away at: personal/active ethics against legal ethics. Your personal ethics are nowhere near universally followed.

Fortunately, my experience is that these personal ethics are almost universally followed. I feel sorry for you if you are submersed in a culture where these personal ethics are "nowhere near universally followed". (Maybe it is the TD bias: a TD usually sees the troubles when he is called. It is a very rare occurance that a player calls the TD to express how pleasant the oppponents were.)

If I would be in a position where these personal ethics were not almost universally followed, I would stop playing bridge. If there would be a "lot of people, probably a majority that see no problem" with these actions, I would leave the planet.

Ethics in bridge go beyond the bridge law book, just like ethics in life go beyond the law books. After all, bridge is part of life.

Rik

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on Sep 17 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

Here are some other ways to gain an advantage from an opponent's error:

- An opponent holds his hand in a position where I can see it without effort. I look at it rather than asking him to hold his cards up.

- An opponent drops a card on the floor, face-up but in a position where only I can see it. I look at it rather than looking away.

- An opponent reaches for the bidding box when it's not his turn. I don't try to stop him, because I want to benefit from a bid out of turn.

- An opponent seems to think that he won the last trick, whereas in fact I won it. It looks as though he's about to lead to the next trick. I don't warn him that he's not on lead, because I want to benefit from a lead out of turn. [Edit: my first version of this probably wasn't legal, so I changed it.]

I believe that these are all legal (though I'm prepared to be corrected).

I hope you're going to tell me how these differ from the original scenario.

An important difference in some of the cases you mention here, especially the 3rd and 4th, is that under Law 9A3 a player (with some exceptions) may attempt to prevent an irregularity. So the law gives you explicit permission to say something.

Or else saying something, although strictly extraneous, is harmless. I have the following conversation frequently. "I suggest you hold your cards up." "Sorry." "I think you mean 'thank you'. "

In contrast, in the case of another player's possible mechanical error, it is unwise to speak, because you just can't be sure what has happened. If you are wrong, you may end up on the wrong side of an adjustment because of the damage caused by your extraneous comment.

[dan_ehh]

I don't think this was the original topic of the thread, but since so much has been said already, I would like to add my two cents:

I personally avert my eyes when someone shows me their cards, and also tell them to "hold their cards back", and I would never try to look at a dropped card. However, I act like this because of my personal desire not to win this way, and not because I think it is, or should be, a universally accepted moral.

Trinidad wrote:

Quote

Ethics in bridge go beyond the bridge law book, just like ethics in life go beyond the law books. After all, bridge is part of life.

It is my belief that Ethics and Bridge are two terms completely unrelated to each other. Ethics apply in real life, and Bridge is a game. Human beings require a set of moral rules to live by, because no one has a rule book for life (the penal code is a beginning but is insufficient).
In a game, however, we have a set of clear rules which constitute the game, and as long as we are acting within the boundaries of these rules, we are not doing anything wrong.

gnasher wrote:

Quote

The morality of a particular action is not dependent on the number of people who would take that action.

This is true, but I do not think it has any bearing on our game. I will even give you an example.
As an online TD, I often encounter this claim: "1♥ was a misclick? Then he should have informed us about it", to which I reply that there is no lawful obligation to do so. Often another message arrives, saying "perhaps not, but I would have, because that is the ethical thing to do".
Different people have different opinions as to how the game SHOULD be played.
I don't think exploiting your opponents' mistake (mechanical or not) is anything to be frowned upon.

What do you think about the rare case when you get to make a grand slam missing the trump ace because someone revokes? Revoking is often a mechanical error in the sense that the revoker does not realize he did not follow suit until it is too late.