[Mbodell]

Another thing of something that some folks feel is ethical, but others don't, that I believe is not required by law is to call attention to your revokes and/or your partner's revokes. By law obviously you can't revoke intentionally, and if you discover the revoke when it is correctable you must correct it, but if it is later in the hand you don't need to point it out explicitly (at least this is what TD have told me). But some people would still at the end of the hand call the TD and say "I revoked" or "my partner revoked" even if the opponents didn't notice.

[Cascade]

aguahombre, on 2011-November-24, 13:40, said:

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.

I am pretty sure that nigel_k and I know that I intended the question strictly in a bridge context.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on 2011-November-24, 12:23, said:

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

O.K., I apparently read too much into your position. You are not taking a position on the ethics of NOT taking certain advantages.

[TimG]

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?

I think I have over disclosed (relative to what is required by Law) from time to time because I felt it the right thing to do (required by my ethics).

I have waived a penalty because I thought it the right thing to do. I doubt I am ever required by Law to waive a penalty and am probably in violation of Law in some circumstances where I have waived a penalty.

[nigel_k]

TimG, on 2011-November-28, 09:56, said:

I think I have over disclosed (relative to what is required by Law) from time to time because I felt it the right thing to do (required by my ethics).

I have waived a penalty because I thought it the right thing to do. I doubt I am ever required by Law to waive a penalty and am probably in violation of Law in some circumstances where I have waived a penalty.

I have done those things too, but my sense is that they are optional not obligatory. It would not be considered unethical if you didn't do it.

Actually it is not possible to disclose more than the laws of Bridge require, because they require you to disclose everything. But often a sponsoring organisation will wrongly decide that authority to prescribe alerting procedures includes the authority to prohibit alerting of a call based on an agreement opponents may not be aware of. In that case the only ethical course of action is to alert anyway.

[blackshoe]

TimG, on 2011-November-28, 09:56, said:

I think I have over disclosed (relative to what is required by Law) from time to time because I felt it the right thing to do (required by my ethics).

I have waived a penalty because I thought it the right thing to do. I doubt I am ever required by Law to waive a penalty and am probably in violation of Law in some circumstances where I have waived a penalty.

If you as a player have waived a penalty (as opposed to asking the director to do so) you are definitely in violation of the law.