|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
Cory  7 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
This happened many years ago, after I'd just joined a popular club in my area.
My partner and I were playing against probably one of the top players in the country (at that time) and one of his favorite partners. This top player was on my right and had dealt. I had a huge hand and in my excitement, opened 2  out of turn. Of course the director was called and the ruling was explained to me. If my RHO passed, there'd be no penalty as long as I repeated my original call. If RHO bid however, there would be a penalty according to whether I repeated my call, or changed it to something else.Imagine my consternation when RHO opened 1 ! Since my original call of 2 would not be appropriate for my hand (and my partner would have to pass it anyway), I had to change my call, knowing my pard would be barred from bidding altogether. So, hoping for the best, I bid 3NT.This turned out badly, as my partner had a long, weak suit and our correct contract was 4  . 3NT went down on a club lead and we got a bottom board.When we opened up the traveller, I discovered that RHO had bid on nothing but KQJxx of clubs! Obviously without my bid out of turn, he would have passed. Now I KNOW he could have psyched (except that this player normally never psyched), but LHO thought sufficiently badly of his pard's behavior to seek me out after the session was over and apologise. I was too intimidated by both the player and the situation to do anything about this at the time, but am wondering now, years later, whether I could have, and what the panel's opinion of this incident is. |
|
JimO 175 posts Forum Host Reply |
There is nothing wrong with RHO's action.
Law 72A4: When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity commtted by an opponent, it is appropriate to select that action most advantageous. You got a bottom board because you bid out of rotation.
|
|
player 80 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
I would have done the same thing. If the expert had revoked, would you not have taken the penalty?
|
|
NZGuy 54 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Revoking is one thing, and it has to be penalised, because it can affect the result of the hand. But in this case, if I was the opponent in a situation like this (and I often have been), I wouldn't psych a bid if I had a clear-cut pass. It may be bridge, but it's certainly not cricket! What ever happened to good sportmanship - did we lose it at the turn of the century?
|
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
There is a distinction between a player's ethical responsibility as laid down by the Laws and other official commentary, and what I call "personal ethics" which are based on a players' own views, and those of his friends.
A player is required to follow the official line on ethics. However, "personal ethics" are for the player himself, and he has no right to insist that other people, who may disagree with his views, should follow them. It is not unsportsmanlike to open 1 in the cicumstances described. The authorities do not say so, the Law book does not say so, and many many players would consider it a normal action.To be unsportsmanlike it has to be at the very least against the normal accepted mores - and other replies in this thread show that is not the case. So I respect that you would not open 1 , but it is not unsportsmanlike to do so.
|
|
HenryS Reply |
Country: US
One of the things I miss most after Edgar Kaplan's passing is the style and elegance of the Bridge World's editorials. During the 1970s, Kaplan raised the question of sportmanlike dumping and, indirectly, the very question you raise. In his view - and in mine, although mine is of far less weight than his - it is entirely legal to pursue one's own advantage under the laws as long as the participant does not cheat. Your bid out of turn created a situation in which he could generate a good board for himself by opening 1c. (I note, incidentally, that in England KQJxx and out of clubs would be an entirely acceptable 3c opening bid by some, at least to judge by Mould's book on preempts.) He took advantage of your error to increase his chance of scoring well. There is nothing wrong with that. Mechanical errors happen all the time in sports. In baseball, baserunners get picked off because they break for a base too soon. In american football, safeties and cornerbacks get faked out. A boxer might drop his guard for a brief moment because he is distracted. There is nothing wrong, in any of these sports, with taking advantage of an opponents mechanical error. To accuse or suspect someone of malfeasance on this basis would be wrong. Kaplan finished this particular editorial with a story about a revoke that had been forgiven against a pair (by his description, I suspect it was Becker-Hayden, but I'm not sure). Turns out that by forgiving the revoke, the pair in question won the championship. Had the revoke penalty been enforced, the 2nd place pair would have won. In Kaplan's words, they were justly furious. "They didn't want to lose [the tournament] that way [a competitor's error being forgiven]." |
|
Cory 7 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
I have to admit I'm surpised by everyone's comments - at the time this happened, about 20+ years ago, my friends all thought the action was well out of order. And like I say, LHO took the trouble to even apologise to me - what does that tell you?
Maybe the Laws uphold this action, but I'm very uneasy about it. |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
It tells me that LHO's "personal ethcs" and RHO's "personal ethcs" were not the same, which is normal enough.
|
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
It tells me that LHO's "personal ethcs" and RHO's "personal ethcs" were not the same, which is normal enough.
|
|
tigerboy 47 posts bridgetalk member  Reply |
Country: New Zealand
This situation seems to permit more than one opinion as to the most acceptable procedure. If I, as an experienced player, were confronted by a couple of comparative beginners in an event of little consequence, I would probably pass and let them get on with it unhindered. However in a tournament of any consequence against players of the experience one would expect in the circumstances, I would consider my parameters to be somewhat different, and would do as the original player did. You commit an irregularity and you pay the penalty. |
|
Guest Reply |
Reminds me of a situation that occured last year. Playing against a pair who reliably fail to alert or alert late. Partner opened 1NT and RHO bid 2C. I held a ropey heap with a diamond suit. No alert from LHO, but I knew one was coming so I bid 2D. The alert duly arrived I asked the meaning and changed my call to pass as allowed in the rules. Bidding now gets back to partner who squirms (he didn't know the rules as well as I) is the information authorised or not? After consulting the director he eventually bid 3D and was allowed to play there for a good score. I took advantage of the situation by playing the rules that I knew would let me get the best out of the situation. The opponents could have easily stymied me by having theit alert card ready.
More than 50% of the time if partner is going to bid over opponents 1NT it is going to be conventional so if you see partner reaching for the bidding box get the alert card ready. I play a system full of conventions (strong club, 5 card majors, three weak two's) and so am always ready to alert partners bid, double or even pass. Not sure I would bid 1C in front |
|
Guest Reply |
I think that deliberately taking advantage of a late alert in this way is probably against the spirit of L21B1 (not that that counts for much). It is intended to provide redress for players who have been genuinely misled by the opponents, not to provide a free bid for those who know darned nicely what the call means.
That said, I'm not much in favour of directors deciding what rules were intended to mean, and I can't see that this contravenes the letter of the law (one could argue that the failure to alert misinformed them, even though they were properly informed from convention card, previous auctions, whatever), so I'd probably uphold it. And I also think that consistent, careless late alerts are intensely irritating, so "Guest" has my sympathy. As an addendum, I am also irritated by players who try to take advantage of an occasional, forgivable late alert by LHO by removing their last bidding card from the table before requesting an explanation, and then either replacing the card or trying to change their call, as if the laws permit them to do this without recourse to the tournament director. James |
|
olddude909 65 posts bridgetalk member Reply |
Country: US
Personally, I have no problem with this strategy as long as you give your LHO time to "play" the alert card. I would consider this severely unethical if your 2d call was made in the same motion as your RHO's 2c call, because I would consider that an attempt to create a favorable situation instead of merely taking advantage of a favorable situation. So, for what it's worth - not much, I'm sure - as long as you waited a moment or two and otherwise made your 2d bid in tempo, you're fine in my book. HenryS |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
This ploy of changing your call when LHO alerts late does depend on following the Laws, and the description here suggests the Laws were not followed.
You are not allowed to change your call without the TD's permission. The way I read it you did not call the TD at that time so your change of call was illegal. The TD will determine whether the alert was really late or whether your call was rushed: if the latter he will not allow a change. Next is the fact that you may only change your call if it is was because you were misinformed. But you say that you were merely trying to take advantage of your perception of the rules: that's not the same thing at all. So your ploy is just illegal. The TD should have adjusted the board back, and warned you for giving rulings at your own table.
|
|
James Vickers Reply |
Country: UK
L21B1 talks about allowing a player to change their call "where it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation". Now "Guest" could argue that with an alert he would not have bid 2D, so his 2D bid was strictly speaking a result of the misinformation (failure to alert), i.e. it wouldn't have been made had there been an alert. This is a horrible example of sophistry (something I normally leave to others), but ruling against a player who has contravened no law leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. (Of course David is right that only the Director may allow the correction of a call.) James |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
6 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 5 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:32:16 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status