[Fluffy]

---

Match points.

Declarer plays 4♠,

LHO leads ♥AK before leading a diamond. Declarer puts ♦Q in dummy and ruff ♦K in hand.

RHO puts the card as a winner.

At the table RHO returned ♣A quickly and was instructed that it is not her turn to lead picking it up and scoring it later, but then I wondered, in a better tournament where rules are followed is it ethical for declarer to wait to give opponent the chance to lead out of turn?

[pran]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-01, 00:41, said:

---

Match points.

Declarer plays 4♠,

LHO leads ♥AK before leading a diamond. Declarer puts ♦Q in dummy and ruff ♦K in hand.

RHO puts the card as a winner.

At the table RHO returned ♣A quickly and was instructed that it is not her turn to lead picking it up and scoring it later, but then I wondered, in a better tournament where rules are followed is it ethical for declarer to wait to give opponent the chance to lead out of turn?

"for that purpose"?

NO, definitely not.

[Trinidad]

Ethics are complicated, because they consist of three components:

• What the Laws say
  
• What a person with integrity would do
  
• What everybody thinks that a person with integrity would do

1) I don't see anything in the Laws that prevents you from gaining from an error by the opponents (thinking that he won the trick). Whether the error is indicated by an irregularity (quitting the trick in the wrong way) is irrelevant.
2) Is, unfortunately, an individual choice
3) Is somewhat unpredictable when you are at the table.

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-01, 03:36, said:

Ethics are complicated, because they consist of three components:

• What the Laws say
  
• What a person with integrity would do
  
• What everybody thinks that a person with integrity would do

1) I don't see anything in the Laws that prevents you from gaining from an error by the opponents (thinking that he won the trick). Whether the error is indicated by an irregularity (quitting the trick in the wrong way) is irrelevant.
2) Is, unfortunately, an individual choice
3) Is somewhat unpredictable when you are at the table.

Rik

How do you consider:

Law 74C said:

The following are examples of violations of procedure:
...
7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

I say that delaying your lead to the next trick for the purpose of giving an opponent the chance to lead out of turn is a violation of procedure.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-March-01, 03:44, said:

How do you consider:

Quote

The following are examples of violations of procedure:
...
7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

I say that delaying your lead to the next trick for the purpose of giving an opponent the chance to lead out of turn is a violation of procedure.

We didn't vary our normal tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. The opponent was already disconcerted. It is entirely legal to leave a disconcerted opponent disconcerted. There is no law that states that you need to help out a disconcerted opponent and "reconcert" him.

So, this example in this Law doesn't apply.

Rik

[gordontd]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-01, 00:41, said:

At the table RHO returned ♣A quickly and was instructed that it is not her turn to lead picking it up and scoring it later

Why was it not a penalty card?

[wanoff]

If you're desperate to win at all costs..........why not.
I wouldn't though.

Besides it's pointless because ♣A will be wrong unless you find yourself sitting in a beginners class.

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on 2014-March-01, 04:36, said:

Why was it not a penalty card?

And why was declarer not allowed to accept the lead out of turn (Law 53)?

The answer is implicit in the OP: It was not a "better tournament".

Rik

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-01, 04:13, said:

We didn't vary our normal tempo for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. The opponent was already disconcerted. It is entirely legal to leave a disconcerted opponent disconcerted. There is no law that states that you need to help out a disconcerted opponent and "reconcert" him.

So, this example in this Law doesn't apply.

Rik

This what really worries me with many players today: They forget that bridge is a game for gentlemen and ladies and use every opportunity to win at any cost.

If a gentleman is aware that an opponent apparently (incorrectly) believes he won the trick that gentlemnan will not wait and hope for the opponent to commit a lead out of turn, he will immediately call attention that "it was not your trick".


A comment to gordontd: Once the ♣A is led out of turn (and this lead is not accepted) then that card shall of course be ruled a major penalty card, the consequence of which should be contract won with 11 tricks.

However, what occurred at this table was obviously not bridge played according to the rules but rather some private pastime.

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-01, 05:23, said:

And why was declarer not allowed to accept the lead out of turn (Law 53)?

The answer is implicit in the OP: It was not a "better tournament".

Rik

A decent declarer should see that by not accepting the lead out of turn he will win all remaining tricks for a total of 11.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-March-01, 05:42, said:

A decent declarer should see that by not accepting the lead out of turn he will win all remaining tricks for a total of 11.

That is no reason not to offer him to accept it.

A "gentleman declarer" (see your previous post) might even chose to do so.

Rik

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-March-01, 05:39, said:

This what really worries me with many players today: They forget that bridge is a game for gentlemen and ladies and use every opportunity to win at any cost.

If a gentleman is aware that an opponent apparently (incorrectly) believes he won the trick that gentlemnan will not wait and hope for the opponent to commit a lead out of turn, he will immediately call attention that "it was not your trick".

Of course, and in tennis you are not allowed to hit hard.

So, in practice, it varies what is considered ethical. At the local bridge club, bridge is a social game for ladies and gentlemen. For a lady or gentleman it would indeed be a shocking suggestion to try to take advantage of a disconcerted opponent.

Once you get to a highly competitive level, the aim is to be smarter than the opponent. The game is defined by the Laws. Obviously, you are still behaving nicely and try to make it an enjoyable time for everyone, because the Laws tell you to. But they do not tell you to prevent an opponent from doing something silly. Bridge is a game of making as few mistakes as possible, or at least making less than the opponents. This means that you allow opponents to make their mistakes. At that level, there is nothing unethical about this.

This is far from the same as trying to win at all cost. There is no cheating, there are no dirty tricks trying to distract the opponent, no kicking under the table. It is only allowing the opponents to make a mistake.

Rik

[RunemPard]

I would do my best to catch them before they play it...and I would feel guilty for a while if I never tried to stop it. That simple. Is it unethical? I guess not, but if someone needs to resort to this to win they need to just find a new game. IMO?

[pran]

Trinidad, on 2014-March-01, 06:15, said:

Of course, and in tennis you are not allowed to hit hard.

So, in practice, it varies what is considered ethical. At the local bridge club, bridge is a social game for ladies and gentlemen. For a lady or gentleman it would indeed be a shocking suggestion to try to take advantage of a disconcerted opponent.

Once you get to a highly competitive level, the aim is to be smarter than the opponent. The game is defined by the Laws. Obviously, you are still behaving nicely and try to make it an enjoyable time for everyone, because the Laws tell you to. But they do not tell you to prevent an opponent from doing something silly. Bridge is a game of making as few mistakes as possible, or at least making less than the opponents. This means that you allow opponents to make their mistakes. At that level, there is nothing unethical about this.

This is far from the same as trying to win at all cost. There is no cheating, there are no dirty tricks trying to distract the opponent, no kicking under the table. It is only allowing the opponents to make a mistake.

Rik

Ethics are the same at all levels of bridge.

Deliberately and silently waiting for an opponent to lead out of turn because you notice that he has pointed his last quitted card his way instead of your way is in my honest opinion disgusting and reveals a player lacking every sense of ethics.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-March-01, 05:42, said:

A decent declarer should see that by not accepting the lead out of turn he will win all remaining tricks for a total of 11.

Trinidad, on 2014-March-01, 06:02, said:

That is no reason not to offer him to accept it.

A "gentleman declarer" (see your previous post) might even chose to do so.

Rik

Sure, TD shall offer offender's LHO the option to accept the lead out of turn, not doing so is a major TD error.

But it is up to LHO whether or not he will accept the LOOT and his reason for his decision is nobody's business. And:

Law 10C3 said:

When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action.

so declarer is no less gentleman if he refuses to accept the LOOT.

[Fluffy]

A similar scheme: You notice both opponents are thinking about what to lead to a contract, should you tell the one who is wrong that it is not his turn?

[pran]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-01, 11:44, said:

A similar scheme: You notice both opponents are thinking about what to lead to a contract, should you tell the one who is wrong that it is not his turn?

Why?

If they lead face down as they are supposed to then there is no problem at all, the opponent on the lead will stop his partner from facing his card.

But I have no problem with declarer preventing his RHO from leading after he has begun the act of leading.

However, declarer has no business interfering with either of his opponents thinking, he cannot know why that opponent is thinking until the thinking is followed by some action.

[Bbradley62]

wanoff, on 2014-March-01, 04:40, said:

Besides it's pointless because ♣A will be wrong unless you find yourself sitting in a beginners class.

Really? Depending on the auction and his diamond holding, after "winning" his ♦K East might reasonably think this is his one and only chance to cash the setting trick.

[Trinidad]

pran, on 2014-March-01, 09:26, said:

Ethics are the same at all levels of bridge.

Deliberately and silently waiting for an opponent to lead out of turn because you notice that he has pointed his last quitted card his way instead of your way is in my honest opinion disgusting and reveals a player lacking every sense of ethics.

I am afraid that your honest opinion does not count. Please refer to a law. Laws count.

It is simple: for some, the game is defined by its laws. For others, there is more than that. For again others, like me, it depends on the kind of game.

To give you some peace of mind: I don't think that I would ever - at any kind of competition - would wait for an opponent's lead out of turn. But I definitely have a different set of ethics depending on whether I play with "the big boys", where only the laws count, or at a social tournament, where there are other things at stake than matchpoints.

Rik

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2014-March-01, 04:36, said:

Why was it not a penalty card?

Because once attention was called to it, all four players at the table violated Law 9B1, and the player who picked up his card (presuming no one told him to do so) violated Laws 9C and 10A.