Good morning Mr Wolff
In response to Two-Buck Chuck’s question on carding, you replied, in part:
“…And I concede that if people do not ask what you play, an unusual method may pay dividends…”
I fully understand that experienced Opponents can be expected to ask, to protect themselves, especially in Tournaments or any game with a strong field.
However, in a Club game, where most of the field is known to be playing the same carding, if I were playing something quite different / unusual, I’d be inclined to pre-alert this to be fair.
Would that step of voluntary disclosure be overly generous and unnecessary?
Thanks

Hi Clarksburg,

Stand up and take a bow. You have won, if you will excuse this expression, my heart, with your spade for active ethics with your gift of diamonds at your local club. And no trump (not meant as a political reference), is left unturned. And furthermore, no one should chuck your advice, it’s worth more than two bucks.

Yes, I am not in favor of poison gas tactics and agree with you that, while playing at a local club, even if not asked beforehand, I suggest, especially while playing against newbies, if unusual discarding (anything other than high being encouraging and even in number when showing count) should be alerted beforehand, just in case the opponents are either too shy or just naïve and not ask.

However during the play, it is illegal to then announce, since some may think that the statement being made is merely to remind one’s partner what the other may fear is not remembered.

All the above would send the message which Active Ethics always emphasizes, bridge, by being the greatest of all mind games, is not devised to take advantage of every kind, even if it is somewhat obvious the opponents need help in understanding what different pairs may be playing.

The motto should always be, win legitimately by outplaying and outbidding one’s opponents, not by shady untoward advantages, by strictly playing methods which main advantage (and often only) is intended to go against the game itself, one for ladies and gentlemen who always seek a level playing field, where each hand represents starting from the same position of knowing the code language meanings of each other, both in the bidding and the defense*.

*does not carry over to being required to teach others how to play good bridge, e.g. advanced logical meanings of many inferences in both the bidding and the defense, being part of the game, and not being attached to specific partnership understandings, but only to the sophisticated interpretation of what this or that play or bid is more likely to mean, based only on the game itself, not private undisclosed partnership knowledge. Never is a declarer under any obligation to be responsible to disclose any tricky play he has in mind, but only to keep his opponents aware, in certain bidding explanations his partnership agreements which may pertain to only that partnership and not standard practice.

By way of explanation and to create an example if the bidding went by only one partnership, one of a minor, one of a major by his partner, two of that major raised, and then four of that major by the original responder, if the raise by the opening bidder promised four trumps, then that could be disclosed (although not required) so that the defense would be privy to the original responder having only 4 trumps himself.

The above is only intended to what Active Ethics could mean and not to take a position one way or the other as to what that responder needs to do. (as a matter of fact I have never heard of anyone who does announce such a thing, but, if I did, without being asked by their opponents, we all would then know that this partnership is practicing Active Ethics and on a regular basis.

Before I hear from the “boo birds” about the above, for that to be alerted (without it being required as it is not) one has to be careful not to only alert it when the responder had five or more of that suit and not only when he has exactly four, because then he could be interpreted to seek advantage rather than to restore a level playing field.

Somewhat complicated, but necessary to mention.

However, as a caveat, it is important to understand that legal deception in bridge (partner does not have any privileged, private information which is not made available to their opponents) is alive and well and is in no way either unethical or illegal and thus to be encouraged and applauded, not disdained.

I often get tripped up when I get asked about a bid. It requires practice, just like other parts of the game. Even if I know the convention backwards and forwards, it can be tricky to verbalize something like New Minor Forcing.

I don’t recall the ACBL Bridge Bulletin every paying much attention to this topic but getting it wrong can lead to bad things like score adjustments.

Hi Slar,

You touch on a subject to which I, at least in the past was very active, especially on appeals committees, had some serious disagreements with others who also were interested in the laws and their application. My bridge career paralleled Edgar Kaplan, but came along about 10 to 15 years later and he and I co-chaired many WBF committes enabling me to at least, think I knew how Edgar viewed whichever relevant bridge subject was involved, and his influence, although perhaps 50% of the time we had at least some differences with application, had much to do with my perspective. Since he wrote, with help,most of the laws still used by both the WBF and the ACBL, mainly from that experience, help form what I thought was best for the future of our game, particularly the high-level brand.

Simply explained, I always believed that at least some subjectivity might be available with the interpretation of bridge laws. IOW, if the committee believed that the defendant was trying to do the right thing, but in doing so, a question arose as to his character or honesty, that the committee itself (and wishfully the TD making that decision first), taking into consideration the beforehand knowledge of that player and the experience necessary to sit on that committee, help determine what actually happened.

Obviously, the committee experience and knowledge becomes critical to such an enterprise, and add to that opinion the qualities which go into the selection of that committee member or, if not so, just recuse himself on that particular decision.

To alll of the above, was I constantly looking to make better and advise to the individual selected (my nose and therefore voice were ever present in that choice) his responsibility to the game itself to not exercise bias if he thought it possible to exist within him (or her).

Obviously there were countless times when that type of control was not possible, but even then, and hopefully in the quiet of closed sessions, trying to keep personal animosity at full length, the discussion, some on point, others basically philosophical, never left the room, but usually resulted in something positive.

With your description about tricky information given, of course, the sophistication of the players involved had much to do with my vision of intent.

My experience has convinced me that bridge committees, more so than almost any other, to my knowledge, types of jurisprudence, need extremely careful selection of members and then add TOTAL accountability to what each committee members opinion, or else, don’t render a vote (not at all popular with many which fact alone convinced me that I was right). So much was left off some of the write ups of the committees I was on and usually chaired, but because of my present circumstances, (mostly retired but old) whatever influence I previously had, good or not (as judged by some) is left for history to determine.

Finally, at least to me, I wish many more precedents were established so that similar fact situations could help future committees, but again I was in the minority concerning the value of precedents, and that too, made me worry about the credibility of those who were in favor of that condition.

Yes, the result of all the above has caused much consternation, but the end result, at least IMO, has shown a big plus for the future of bridge jurisprudence, but, of course that result is only my opinion, which, like everything else, is subject to disagreement.

Today, at least regarding the high-level game, the presence of professionalism in bridge indeed makes bridge committee decisions suspect at best, and corrupt at worst, causing that important phase of our off-the-charts-game extremely needy to be improved and therefore not corrupt.