Director,
pleaseDirector,
pleaseQuestion (from Illinois):
Could you comment on the legal, ethical and "sportsmanlike" aspects of this situation?
In a knockout team game, I was declaring 3NT and my LHO mistakenly let me win a trick with my small spot card. She was fourth to play and had three higher cards that would have won. Her small card was technically "played" (it was face-up on the table) and it didn't appear to be a purely mechanical error (I think she was so focused on giving count that she just forgot to win the trick).
She was horrified and reacted instantly to her error. I felt that stealing a trick in this way would be taking advantage of a technicality, so I allowed her to change her card and win the trick. The result was -100 instead of +600 for us.
My opponents seemed to think that it was routine to allow this type of correction. Neither offered any comment about my decision.
My partner was livid. He said I had an obligation to my team and the field to enforce all the rules and take full advantage of my opponents' mistakes. My team-mates backed me up, saying the trick was so undeserved that they would have done the same thing.
I've heard but have never fully understood the argument that this type of "favor" is "unfair to the field" in a matchpoint pair event. Can the same be said about a one-on-one knockout match?
Is my action considered good sportsmanship or a violation of the rules or something in-between? Does it matter if it was a mechanical or a mental error? Are there situations where I should never extend this courtesy?
Finally, should I decline if I make a similar error and my opponent offers to overlook it?
Thanks for your comments.
Stevenson:
There are two sorts of ethics in bridge. First, there are the ethics required by the Laws of the game. While some players seem to think they are optional, they are not:.They are a requirement, and you have to follow them. For example, being rude to another person, whether it be partner, team-mate, opponent, director, organizer, caddy, kibitzer or even hotel staff, is just illegal and subject to penalty.
Similarly, though often ignored, a player has no option when in receipt of unauthorized information from partner: He must do his best to gain no advantage. Sadly, many players do not, and some get quite angry when this is pointed and when they get ruled against.
You might call those legal ethics. But there are another sort of ethics, sometimes known as active ethics. I call them personal ethics. It is behavior above and beyond what is required to avoid gaining in ways that you personally feel are unfair. An easy example is if you know you have revoked, but no one else notices. The legal ethics say that you do not need to point it out. You can just keep quiet, and it is your opponents' hard luck if they did not notice. Many players do not point out their own revokes at such a time, and it is not illegal.
But many people feel this is unfair, and they will always point out their own revokes. They feel this is fair: That is their personal ethics. But one problem is that they are personal: Even if you point out your own revokes, you cannot expect opponents to act the same way. Thus you might feel you are putting yourself at a disadvantage. Nevertheless, most players have some form of personal ethics, but it is much more pronounced with some players than others.
The case you cite is very interesting. While I think my own personal ethics are quite reasonable it would not occur to me to let the opponent have their card back, and I think your opponents' attitude in finding it a normal action rather than a special action unfortunate, and less than you deserved. I also think it makes no difference whether the error is mental or mechanical, but if you see a difference I have no problem with that.
How about legally? Well, legally, you are on very shaky ground. The card was played, it may not be changed, if a Director had been called he would not have allowed it to be changed. Nevertheless, personal ethics often allow such happenings. I have known players whose opponents have revoked, but where it made no difference, say "Let's forget it" and not involve the Director. Again, they have no legal right to do this. In practice all but the most committed players tend to let certain things happen, eg they allow beginners more latitude.
You mention being unfair to the field. This is a lot of nonsense invented by some good players of poor sportsmanship who wanted an excuse to have no personal ethics whatever, and frankly to go further and use some pretty unsavoury practices. Protecting the field has no legal basis and is only used as a justification for poor practices.
But bridge is a team game, and you do have a responsibility to your team, whether it be just your own pair, a team-of-four, or even the rare team of a larger number. Of course, being in a team works both ways. If I had been in your situation I would not have let her have her card back. But if I had been your partner, and you had done so, I would have backed you. I would merely have realised your personal ethics were different from mine.
While I do not agree that your partner should have berated you as he seems to have done [that was illegal!], he does have a point. Bridge is very much a game of mistakes, whether it is failing to see a squeeze, miscounting points, misjudging slam potential, finding the wrong lead, revoking, forgetting your system or playing the wrong card. I would think most people would not have let your opponent take the card back, seeing it as just another mistake.
As for what to do if your opponent made such an offer, it depends very much on circumstances, but accept if you wish. Just as I would not have offered it back, I might easily refuse it if offered. Keeping sportsmanship in the game is desirable, and some personal ethics helps. Clearly mine are different from yours, but that does not matter.
I would not have offered the card back you as you did, and it is technically illegal to do so, but I applaud your personal ethics and your sportsmanship, and would have supported you fully if I had been your partner or team-mate.
Do you have questions about bridge laws, a ruling you received (or made) at a tournament or club game, how to handle an ethical dilemma?
David, who is very knowledgeable on North American bridge, will explain laws and proprieties, share opinions on specific cases and offer advice on any aspect of game direction, rulings, alerting, conventions and other laws-related topics. He is a European Bridge League (EBL) tournament director and recently scored the top mark on the EBL director's exam, generally considered to be the toughest exam in the world.
Please submit your questions to kwalker2@comcast.net and they will be forwarded to David for answers.
David maintains an archive of articles on laws and proprieties on his web site: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm