[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2013-October-11, 11:40, said:

I think you can know once dummy hits the table.

I was talking about during the bidding.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-11, 20:06, said:

I was talking about during the bidding.

No one expects you to call the TD about your partner's action during the bidding.

The question was what to do once dummy hits and you can see that partner appears to have taken advantage of the UI.

[blackshoe]

If I can see it, so can opponents. It's not my job to think for them.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-12, 23:16, said:

If I can see it, so can opponents. It's not my job to think for them.

The point is that the inexperienced opponents might have no clue and might not even know that they might be entitled to a ruling in their favour.

[Lurpoa]

jeffford76, on 2013-October-10, 16:19, said:

Partner forgets a convention and bids a game forcing 2♦ (that you alert and the opponents ask about) in the unopposed auction 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♠. They then pass your 2NT rebid, so it's clear that their earlier bid was a misbid to everyone at the table before the opening lead is made.

When dummy comes down, you realize that it is likely that if the director is called the score will be adjusted to 3NT down one more trick than the amount 2NT is down given the unauthorized information from your alert. Would you call the director?

(This isn't in one of the laws forums, because I think it is clear that you have no legal obligation to call.)

Personal Ethics....
anybody else who thinks something is wrong with that terminology ?

[Adam1105]

akwoo, on 2013-October-10, 21:41, said:

I would make sure the opponents knew their rights to call the director, but would not call the director myself. And I would try to do this before dummy was actually faced.

This is 100% the correct answer. Bridge NEEDS to have maximum ethics — like golf.

[mycroft]

The ethics of the game are defined in the Laws, and Regulations made under the aegis of those Laws. If you follow them, you are being Ethical.

You may choose to stick exactly to that level of Ethics, or you may choose to go forward from there. In either case, you are being Ethical, and others have no cause against you; if you are known as one who plays right down to the line, every time, expect to have others, even those who normally are beyond what is legally required, stick to the line against you. You have no cause for complaint against that, either.

Having said that, those who go beyond what is legally required, and are upset that other opponents do not give them the same leeway, have my sympathy, and require instruction (and, from me, it frequently consists of the previous paragraph) - but that's it.

Note: as can likely be seen from the left side of this post, I adhere more to the "play right to the Law line" than many; and fully expect - in fact, sometimes insist even when the opponents want to "ignore" something - to be held to the same standard. I wish that more players knew the right, Legal, way to waive away an infraction, of course.

Edit: Note that the ethics in Golf - many adhered more in the breach than in the fact, at least outside tournament play - are also written into the Laws. The difference is that in golf, you are expected to know, and apply, the Law. Putting the first half of that expectation into Bridge would, IMHO, be an improvement.

[blackshoe]

Well said!