[Free]

Agree 100% with Justin.

[barmar]

billw55, on 2011-November-22, 08:05, said:

Perhaps we could allow "drawing 3 rounds of trumps", for example. Or even, "drawing all 4 remaining trumps". But IMO, not just "drawing trumps".

That's what I usually do. I say something like "I can afford to draw 3 rounds of trump if necessary".

[TimG]

Vampyr said:

1321893523[/url]' post='590688']
This is not true. Your obligation under the Laws of Bridge is the same as anyone's. Your inclination might be different from some.

Isn't "ethical obligation" something of an oxymoron? Ethics generally involve judgment and "accepted standards" rather than adherance to objective, codified rules.
Anyway, it seems perfectly reasonable that different people would feel different ethical obligations. These should not be confused with legal obligations.

[mycroft]

In many cases, Tim, you would be right. In bridge, there is a certain minimum ethical standard that has been given the strength of Law (mostly because, mind you, there were people who didn't mind being thought of as boors, as long as they were thought of as "boors that win") with the movement of the Proprieties into the Laws of Bridge. In addition one of the Proprieties makes the reverse connection - that someone that abides by the Laws is by definition ethical (without saying that someone who infracts the Laws is not ethical, unless they do it deliberately - yet another Propriety with the strength of Law).

Whether your personal ethics (or mine, or "different people") choose to expand from the minimum is, yes, a continuum. But in bridge, some of your legal obligations (including the fact that you are obliged by Law) *are* ethical obligations.

There are many games and sports (usually of the historical "played by gentlemen" variety) where it is believed best if the players *behave* like ladies and gentlemen, even if they no longer are (or even if they do not do so in Real Life). Those games and sports have by and large had to codify that "belief" as Law in order to get it to trigger, this century. Even so, games get played, and standards slip. I find that - disappointing.

[nigel_k]

TimG, on 2011-November-23, 08:09, said:

Isn't "ethical obligation" something of an oxymoron? Ethics generally involve judgment and "accepted standards" rather than adherance to objective, codified rules.
Anyway, it seems perfectly reasonable that different people would feel different ethical obligations. These should not be confused with legal obligations.

The word 'ethical' is used in a very strange way in bridge. I don't really know why.

In real life, there is obviously a huge difference between legal vs illegal and ethical vs unethical. But in a game like bridge, they ought to coincide, i.e. ethical and legal duties are the same. Obviously you can accidentally infringe a law without being unethical but when making conscious decisions about how to act there should be no such thing as 'legal but unethical' or vice-versa.

Some people think it is 'ethical' to go beyond what the laws require when in possession of unauthorised information for example, but the legal obligation is quite strict so there isn't much room to exceed that without doing something ridiculous.

[TimG]

nigel_k, on 2011-November-23, 13:55, said:

Obviously you can accidentally infringe a law without being unethical but when making conscious decisions about how to act there should be no such thing as 'legal but unethical' or vice-versa.

How about "ethical, but not required by Law"?

[FrancesHinden]

billw55, on 2011-November-22, 07:30, said:

It's not directly on the topic of the post, but as long as we are discussing claims with outstanding trumps ..

As I have stated before, I strongly believe that there should a written rule which states: when a claim is made by declarer, the defense is automatically awarded a trick for every trump they hold (including trumps in separate hands), without regard to any other circumstance whatsoever. Perhaps excepting cases where loss of a trick is entirely impossible (i.e. declarer holds only top trumps in hand).

IMO this would save so much interpreting, lawyering, director calls, and forum threads, that it would be well worth the extra bit of time it takes declarer to remove any non-high trumps.

Pity about the fact you can no longer claim on a cross-ruff

[nigel_k]

TimG, on 2011-November-23, 15:31, said:

How about "ethical, but not required by Law"?

Can you give me an example of something that is required by ethics but not required by law?

[aguahombre]

nigel_k, on 2011-November-23, 16:27, said:

Can you give me an example of something that is required by ethics but not required by law?

Whose ethics? The person you are asking used "ethical", not "required by ethics".

[Vampyr]

There is a lot of misunderstanding running through this thread, mainly based on the title. Is "obligation" what is required by law, whereas "ethical" actions are "choices"? If this is agreed to be the case, then the question is simply: are there situations in bridge where the two might be different?

[CSGibson]

I actually did this the first hand I declared playing against George Jacobs's team in the Vanderbilts earlier this year - claiming down one because I miscounted trump initially (this was my first teams game against people I regularly read about & I was nervous. Sue me). I actually stated a line of play that pulled the outstanding trump and would have had the contract succeed, but claimed down one anyway.

The pair I was playing against, Noberto Bocchi and his partner (Ferraro?), quietly accepted the claim and we returned the hands to the board. Before we started the next board, though, I woke up and told them that my claim of down one was incorrect and that my line would actually have made the contract. We called the director, and he sorted it out as a make. They then proceeded to kill us anyway.

Edit: Afterwards I apologized to Bocchi and his partner for the trouble (since we had to call the director & stuff), and they looked at me like I was crazy. Bocchi then implied he wouldn't have accepted my incorrect claim except that he was playing professionally in a nationally rated event.

[JLOGIC]

meh, edit, I shouldn't say anything.

[han]

CSGibson, on 2011-November-23, 21:55, said:

Edit: Afterwards I apologized to Bocchi and his partner for the trouble (since we had to call the director & stuff), and they looked at me like I was crazy. Bocchi then implied he wouldn't have accepted my incorrect claim except that he was playing professionally in a nationally rated event.

So, he cheated, but only did so because he was paid for it?

Oops, I used the c-word.

[gnasher]

It's only cheating if you know it's against the rules. Some top players are astonishingly ignorant of the rules of their profession.

[Cascade]

nigel_k, on 2011-November-23, 13:55, said:

The word 'ethical' is used in a very strange way in bridge. I don't really know why.

In real life, there is obviously a huge difference between legal vs illegal and ethical vs unethical. But in a game like bridge, they ought to coincide, i.e. ethical and legal duties are the same. Obviously you can accidentally infringe a law without being unethical but when making conscious decisions about how to act there should be no such thing as 'legal but unethical' or vice-versa.

Some people think it is 'ethical' to go beyond what the laws require when in possession of unauthorised information for example, but the legal obligation is quite strict so there isn't much room to exceed that without doing something ridiculous.

I agree with Nigel.

I also am interested in his subsequent question. Is there an example of something that is legal but unethical?

To me ethics is really playing lawfully in your deliberate actions and unethical is deliberately taking advantages that are not consistent with the laws.

[aguahombre]

It is true that the vast majority of things which are unethical are codified, so that those of us without conscience will know what to do or not to do.

Certain sports or games, such as poker, have different base of ethics than others. And for those of us who cannot figure out where the line should be drawn, poker has rules also.

Even war has the Geneva Convention and certain other laws in individual countries.

[aguahombre]

As for an example of something legal but unethical:

Doing nothing when you know something illegal and harmful is being perpetrated; OR a candidate for an office of public trust remaining silent when he knows his opponent is being wrongfully smeared.

See Water Cooler re: Paterno.

[BunnyGo]

In answer to the question about legal but unethical: There was recently a thread on bridgewinners debating whether playing out a hand with slim to no chance of an overtrick (required a mistake by opps...nothing else was good enough) in a small slam was ethical. The declarer took no time for his play, but the defense took 15 minutes trying to set the hand/not give up the overtrick, since he didn't claim.

I have no strong opinion about whether this is ethical or not, simply mentioning that some people thought it might not be.

[mycroft]

in bridge, there are certainly things that are legal but against *my* sense of ethics - but that's not the question you asked.

Again, I note that the ethics of the game are codified in the Laws - given the strength of Law; because when they weren't - when there were things that were legal-but-improper - people did them, because they didn't care.

As far as RL law is concerned, there are many, many unethical actions that are legal. I think the entire raison d'être of The Colbert Report is to point these out - hopefully to either raise indignation in the populace to require change, or embarrass those doing it. Currently, I think one of the reasons I fear for the United States is that I don't expect either to actually happen.

[Zelandakh]

There are many who think that pros psyching against LoLs is unethical but it is certainly permitted in the laws. However, Blackshoe has often pointed out that the ethics of bridge are laid out in the laws and that therefore nothing that does not breach the laws can ever be said to be unethical per se. There are many things you can do beyond the minimum required by the laws to satisfy your own sense of ethics - for example Fantunes write on their CC that they pre-alert their 2 bids because they think they should be pre-alertable even when the BO says otherwise.