Rules That Come Up and a Bridge Ethics Quiz

Rules That Come Up

By Potter Orr

Gatlinburg was this week and I have directed 4 games this week with one more to go.  While there have not been a lot of director calls, the issues that have come up are worth a quick review.

Bidding Boxes  When the ACBL promoted the use of bidding boxes in duplicate games, they added rules for their use.  One of the overlooked rules deals with a player pulling out the wrong bid.  What is a mechanical error? For example, reaching for a 2 ♠ and pulling out a 2♥ bid. Pulling a 1♠  bid and only then seeing that right hand opponent bid 1 NT.  Mechanical mistakes are limited to just this.  Mechanical errors are also limited to either the top section (bids) of the box OR the bottom section (pass, double, redouble).

If you make a true mechanical error, you are allowed to correct it without penalty until your partner bids.  This includes even AFTER your left hand opponent has bid – as long as partner has not bid.  If you wish to correct your bid, you should call the director immediately.  This is much easier than trying to convince your opponents yourself.

1 NT Opening  Many players are aware of the recent change in allowable 1 NT opening bids.  Rules consider a 1 NT opening to be natural even if it contains a singleton as long as that singleton is an Ace, King or Queen.  If it contains a singleton, it may not also contain a doubleton.  If the 1 NT hand does not meet this criteria, the bid is considered a psych.  Repeated use of this psych would constitute an illegal partnership agreement.

Asking the Meaning of Bids  In all forms private agreements of the meaning bids is not allowed.  This is especially important in duplicate where many, many conventions are used.  The convention chart requires that certain bids must be “alerted” at once by the partner of the bidder – for example, Jacoby 2 NT over an opening bid.  Other more common conventions must be “announced” by partner – for example, transfer bids over strong NT openings.

In addition, a player may ask the meaning of an opponents bid – by asking their partner.  There is a protocol for these inquiries:

• • ·         You may ask about a previous bid only when it is your turn to bid.

  • ·         If the bidding is over, the player about to make the opening lead may ask about bids before selecting their lead.

  • ·         There is one exception.  When it is your turn to bid but your pass will end the bidding, you should not ask unless you are seriously considering making a bid other than pass.  The reason for this is that your question may be perceived as a suggestion about your partner’s lead.  See next point.

  • ·         When you are on lead, select your card and place it FACE DOWN on the table and ask partner if they have questions.  Since your lead is chosen (and cannot be changed), your partner may now ask the question they skipped earlier.  It also prevents leading out of turn!

There is also some strategy involved in asking for explanations.  Unless you are considering a bid and need to know, it is usually best to hold questions to the end.  You will have a chance then as described above.  The reason for waiting is that you do not want to alert the opponents about a misunderstanding they may have had.

When you do ask the partner of the bidder, they are obligated to explain their partnership understanding about the meaning of the bid.  If they give the explanation by naming the convention (it was a kamikaze overcall) and you are not familiar with the convention, you may ask them for clarification.

Finally, if opponents ask your partner about the meaning of your bid and partner gets the explanation wrong, you may not correct them at the time of the explanation.  If your side wins the bid, you MUST explain the mistaken explanation before the opponent chooses his opening lead.  If your side ends up on defense, you MUST WAIT until the end of play to explain the incorrect explanation.

Penalty Cards:  When a defender (there are no penalty cards for declarer or dummy) exposes a card that is retracted (see below), that card becomes a penalty card.  It is best to call the Director but here are the rules:

• • ·         Lead out of turn is complicated and requires the director but the card lead may become a penalty card.

  • ·         Failing to follow suit and realizing your error before offender OR his partner play to the next trick can be corrected.  The erroneously played card becomes a penalty card and a card from the correct suit is played.

  • ·         If a defender inadvertently pulls 2 cards at once, one of them must be played and the other one will become a penalty card.  Call the director on this one.

  • While there is one or more penalty cards on the table, special rules apply:

  • ·         The penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity

     o   If the player with a penalty card is on lead, they must lead the penalty card.

        o   If the player with a penalty card cannot follow suit, the penalty card must be played.If the suit of the penalty card is lead, the player must follow suit with the penalty card                            (special rules for one of two cards pulled at once)

• • ·         If partner of the player with a penalty card on the table is on lead, the declarer has rights:

     o   Declarer may forbid the lead of the suit of the penalty card.  If he does, the card is picked up and partner must lead some other suit for as long as he holds the lead.

     o   Declarer may require the lead of the suit of the penalty card.  If he does, the card is picked up and partner must lead that suit.  If he does not have that suit, he may lead any card but the penalty card is still picked up. 

ON ETHICS

By Steve Moese

More hurt feelings and disenchantment occur from infractions and bad behavior, and their impact at the Bridge Table.  I find that many players have a poor grasp of ethics as it applies to bridge.  No, I don’t mean they don’t understand the basics.  We tend to have a weak understanding how our own personal sense of ethics and the rules and regulations of Bridge intersect. 

This topic is a flashpoint for many.  I intend to take a very different tack than many of you have seen.   Let’s first get clear on what we mean by Ethics:

From the Dictionary:

2a : a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values 1-- plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

the present-day materialistic ethi

an old-fashioned work ethic—often used in plural but singular or plural in construction

an elaborate ethics

Christian ethics

2b : plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group 

professional ethics

2c : a guiding philosophy

2d : a consciousness of moral importance 

forge a conservation ethic

3 plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (such as rightness) 

debated the ethics of human cloning

We choose meaning 1 and 2b above others for the sake of our conversation.  2a is what we individually bring to the game

“Dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation”.

“The principles of conduct governing an individual or a group”. 

Now let’s add some perspective. Bridge is first and foremost a game, with a highly defined set of laws that are common globally, and a body of regulations that vary by regulating authority.  The ACBL is the regulating authority for Canada, Mexico and the USA.  So that means we use the ACBL Convention Charts (New Charts due November 2018) and ACBL Regulations including conditions of contest. 

If you have travelled the world, you know that human culture is diverse and that values vary wildly across cultures.  What authorities have provided us however is a clear mandate about Bridge itself that does not depend on the many different value systems that span bridge players worldwide.  Think of it as a common basis for ethics and appropriate behavior. 

So how does Bridge eliminate the varying attitudes that different cultures bring to our game?  How do we reconcile the legality of playing to win by any legal means with stealing tricks (legally) by false signals or misleading bids? 

The answer is a very carefully crafted set of Laws and Regulations.  This body of work is far from stagnant or dormant.  On the contrary there is constant effort to update and improve laws and regulations to enable a fair competition.  (Please see http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/Laws-of-Duplicate-Bridge.pdf for a recent copy of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge).

The first point to appreciate is LAW 72A:

LAW 72

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

A. Observance of Laws

Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws.

What is very easy to miss (and is almost never taught to new players) the final sentence of 72A.  The key element is subtle, and perhaps even counter-intuitive.  Because Bridge is a game, all ethical behavior is completely defined by the Laws (and by extension, the rules and regulations including conditions of contest as promulgated by the ACBL). 

You may choose to disagree with this, and if you do, this article is for you. The logical consequence of this is not so obvious.  Often our personal sense of fairness does not properly coincide with LAW. Whoa, Steve, what do you mean?  Let’s take a look at several mini scenarios to see if you can check your beliefs and feelings against ethics in this game.  

1.       Jane and Bill have been arguing quietly until you get to their table.  All of a sudden a nasty verbal fight breaks out.  They snarl at you to butt out while they resolve their bridge differences.  You are long-time friends with both and decide to respect their wishes. 

2.      Steve, a good friend, sits at the table and is about to bid when his cell phone rings.  He excuses himself and walks away to take the call, returning in 2 minutes with a shut off phone.  You mention to Steve that he shouldn’t have a phone on at the table.

3.       During the course of play against novice players, you have a nothing hand xx QJxxxx xxxx x You choose to open 1♥ in 3rd seat.  The opponents fail to get to their game.  The opponents call the director.

4.       During the course of play, you fail to follow suit on a trick that your side lost.  Your revoke isn’t established until the end of the hand when you play the last card.  No one, even you, notices the revoke.  After the round, partner pulls you aside and asks if you revoked?  You realize you did.  What does the LAW require you do now?

5.       You and the opponents are engaged in a very complex competitive auction.  After 6 rounds of bidding you are at the five level and pause to take stock.  When you pass, partner finds the winning bid.  The opponents call the director claiming there was Unauthorized Information and they’ve been damaged.  What do you do here? 

      6. Unsatisfied with a director’s ruling in your favor an obviously agitated if not angry player from another Unit says your play was cheating.  You try to calm the        

       situation but to no avail.  Is there anything more you should do? 

ON ETHICS - Discussions and Answers

1.       Jane and Bill have been arguing quietly until you get to their table.  All of a sudden a nasty verbal fight breaks out.  They snarl at you to butt out while they resolve their bridge differences.  You are long-time friends with both and decide to respect their wishes. 

Zero tolerance is part of the bridge regulations.  Arguing at the table, no matter how little or by whom, is unacceptable.  Instead of letting this pair skate, call the director.  It’s the director’s job to determine what happened and to assess any rectification if warranted.  It is not our job to act in the director’s place.  When we let two people behave poorly against the ZERO TOLERANCE regulations, we are acting in the place of the director.  Often our personal sense of fairness overrides what the Bridge Laws say we should do.  Unless you are the director, don’t make a ruling, and never based on your feelings (See Law 10A and Law 11A & 11B). 

2.       Steve, a good friend, sits at the table and is about to bid when his cell phone rings.  He excuses himself and walks away to take the call, returning in 2 minutes with a shut off phone.  You mention to Steve that he shouldn’t have a phone on at the table.

We all know how distracted we can become when playing.  I have often forgotten to turn off my cell phone when playing at the club. In tournaments, the phone must not only be off but it must be out of view (no wearing it on a belt or on a lanyard folks).  It’s tempting to let the infraction slide.  The rules say you shouldn’t.  I’ll leave this one up to you, but calling the Director is not only permissible it is expected.  Yes, you would be uncomfortable if someone called the director on you and your cell phone, but they are behaving ethically within the rules. 

3.       During the course of play against novice players, you have a nothing hand xx QJxxxx xxxx x You choose to open 1♥ in 3rd seat.  The opponents fail to get to their game.  The opponents call the director.

Whether we like it or not, psyching is NOT ILLEGAL. Psyches are an intentional major deviation from one’s agreements intended to fool one’s opponents.  In Bridge we are allowed to fool one’s opponents.  However, we are not allowed to have partner KNOW when we are psyching.  That’s right – we have to fool both partner and the opponents.  If partner is aware of our psyche through past experience, we have created an implicit agreement, one that is illegal because the bid made was grossly different from the natural bid based on standards outlined in the regulations. 

Many clubs have a “No Psyching” policy, but that is not supported in bridge law.  However Clubs do have the right to manage their games without oversight.  Bucking the “No Psyching” policy at a club is difficult if not impossible because even the ACBL does not oversee how clubs are administered.  (The only oversight from outside the club is for cheating accusations). 

4.       During the course of play, you fail to follow suit on a trick that your side lost.  Your revoke isn’t established until the end of the hand when you play the last card.  No one, even you, notices the revoke.  After the round, partner pulls you aside and asks if you revoked?  You realize you did.  What does the LAW require you do now?

I will wager that everyone I know who hasn’t read bridge law would say that that pair is obligated to report the error and seek rectification for the other side, no matter what.  I respect you and your opinion if that is how you feel.  Indeed, there is nothing wrong with doing just that.  The Laws do limit what rectification is possible, but in every case if you choose to act, please talk with the Director.

However, under Bridge Law it Is equally ethical to do nothing!  That’s right.  Bridge law unburdens any pair from having to report any undiscovered irregularity their side caused.  Here is the citation:

LAW 72

B. Infraction of Law

1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally,  even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept.

2. In general, there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).

3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.

LAW 62

CORRECTION OF A REVOKE

A. Revoke Must Be Corrected

A player must correct his revoke if attention is drawn to the irregularity before it becomes established.

LAW 79

TRICKS WON 

A. Agreement on Tricks Won

1. The number of tricks won shall be agreed upon before all four hands have been returned to the board.

2. A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose.

 So you see, the pair in this scenario has no ethical obligation under the rules of bridge to report anything.  If their opponents discover the infraction later, they must act. 

 5.       You and the opponents are engaged in a very complex competitive auction.  After 6 rounds of bidding you are at the 5 level and pause to take stock.  When you pass, partner finds the winning bid.  The opponents call the director claiming there was Unauthorized Information and they’ve been damaged.  What do you do here? 

It’s very important to understand what information is authorized and what is not.  A full discussion of Unauthorized information would take several pages.  Let’s focus on this point.  If a break in tempo occurs, the first step is for the non-offending side to mention that they noticed a break.  If the other side disagrees, they (the other side) must call the director (Law16B2).  Otherwise bidding and play continue with the non-offending side reserving the right to call the director at the end of the hand.  Key here is that a tempo break by itself is not a violation.  The violation occurs only if the tempo changer’s partner chooses an action indicated by the change in tempo.  Need an example of using information?  Consider you and partner are bidding in a slam sequence with ♠ as the agreed trump suit.  Partner bids 4N (Keycard Blackwood).  You respond 5♣ showing 1 or 4 Keycards.  Partner now breaks tempo and bids 5♠ very slowly.  You look at your hand and see extra values so you decide to bid 6♠.  If your 6♠ bid was demonstrably suggested by partner’s hesitation and some other call (say, Pass) is a logical alternative, then you must use Pass (regardless of prior intent)!  Of course, if you bid 6♠ anyway, the director will return the contract to 5♠ making 6. (This is the very famous “Hesitation Blackwood” scenario).  They key to this scenario is to know that breaks in tempo (FAST or SLOW) are not violations per se.  Use by partner of any information conveyed by the tempo break is an irregularity that the Director will address at the right time.  The right time is at the end of the hand and not during bidding or play.  Yes, you can have tempo breaks during play too.  These also require that you ignore information from the break in tempo.    Any information from partner’s break in tempo is authorized to opponents, but they use it at their own risk.

Please note that purposeful attempts to use breaks in tempo to deceive opponents are illegal and punished severely (Code od Disciplinary Regulations): 

 6.       Unsatisfied with a director’s ruling in your favor, an obviously agitated if not angry player from another Unit says your play was cheating.  You try to calm the situation but to no avail.  Is there anything more you should do? 

This unfortunate scenario outlines one of the most severe infractions when playing bridge.  No one may accuse another player publicly of cheating.  No one.  This is an absolute prohibition that will be dealt with by discipline committees severely.  Punishments are severe. 

So you see, you should always call the director when an irregularity occurs.  Never make your own rulings at the table.  Allow the director, and not your personal sense of ethics and fairness, decide if an irregularity occurred and what rectification if any is warranted.  This isn’t to say we shouldn’t be nice at the table.  We should.  However we need to understand that there is a big difference between charity and ethics.  In Bridge, the Rules define ethical behavior, not the players. 

One final thought.  ACBL’s Active Ethics is limited to four areas of the laws: Principle of Full Disclosure, Social Behavior, Slow Play, and Statement on Conventions.   http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/ethics-and-discipline/active-ethics/  Active Ethics doesn’t allow players to make exceptions to any Laws or regulations, no matter how charitable it seems, or how your personal sense of fairness informs you.  If something is amiss,

CALL THE DIRECTOR! PLEASE!

We invite you to read the District 11 Proprieties Ethics Handbook: 

http://www.district11bridge.com/20170208-ACBL-District-11-Good-Ethics-Handbook.pdf