[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-24, 09:45, said:

Obviously, to me anyway, a person can't fess up to something they didn't know they did. If they didn't know revokes are against the rules, then .

Not the point, but I think you know that. Just to be clear, the point is that the player may not know he revoked. Whether he knows revokes are against the rules is not at issue.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-April-24, 09:52, said:

The ACBL (and other places, I'm sure) have developed a code of Active Ethics which goes beyond the Lawful Requirements (and the code admits it); if you choose to be Actively Ethical, your reward is being known as such. It is not being able to require the same of your opponents (although you can gossip about slander them in the bar afterwards).

FYP.

As I've already said somewhere recently, the ACBL's Code of Active Ethics doesn't say a darn thing about 'fessing up to revokes, even by implication.

[blackshoe]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-24, 11:12, said:

I think that it would be an improvement in the law if after a claim or concession all players were required to face their hands before returning them to the board.

barmar, on 2013-April-24, 12:22, said:

Agreed. In the "little things" thread, someone mentioned people who claim by just folding their hand and putting it in the board, the polar opposite of this. Happily, I don't think I've encountered any of these.

I have. Usually they're experts or very good players who are just showing off. The ethical ones don't do it unless they're pretty sure the opponents are aware of what's going on, and they're apologetic when they get that wrong. That said, I agree with Jefford.

[Phil]

Directly related to this are IB's.

When partner makes an insufficient bid, do you go mum?

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-24, 14:52, said:

FYP.

As I've already said somewhere recently, the ACBL's Code of Active Ethics doesn't say a darn thing about 'fessing up to revokes, even by implication.

Heh - so I don't read something before posting, just once. That one goat, indeed. Having said that, as you and I are on the same page about this (not required by law or propriety, your own ethics is your own issue)...

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-24, 09:49, said:

Not requiring us to fess up to our own revoke is an "exception" to the general requirement that we fess up to our own irregularities; so, I don't understand that question.

I misinterpreted your intention.

barmar, on 2013-April-24, 12:22, said:

Agreed. In the "little things" thread, someone mentioned people who claim by just folding their hand and putting it in the board, the polar opposite of this. Happily, I don't think I've encountered any of these.

What I see more of is defenders conceding by just putting their hand in the board. Sometimes it is funny - the defenders are in more of a position to know about the layout, and I had no idea I was winning the remainder!

[aguahombre]

Phil, on 2013-April-24, 16:47, said:

Directly related to this are IB's.

When partner makes an insufficient bid, do you go mum?

This is different, IMO, from a revoke; and I am selective. Even though the IB is out there for all to see, inexperienced players who might or might not know their rights -- and might feel hesitant to call the director when playing against veteran players --- are served best by us ratting on ourselves. However, against experienced players, I consider it a courtesy to let them do what they will do....condone the IB by acting, or call the TD. If they don't accept and don't call the TD, then I will do so.

Edit: Please, nobody claim that means I am only courteous to experienced players ---as much fun as it would be for you to do so.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2013-April-24, 19:32

[jeffford76]

Let us suppose there was a law requiring you to point out your infractions or your partner's infractions. Would it have any penalty for failing to do so?

If it does, then this means we have to make judgments on people's character - whether they didn't notice, or whether they didn't speak up. This is not a position that I would wish to be in as a director not interested in getting sued.

If it does not, then the law punishes the law-abiding while doing nothing to the law-breaking. This seems like a very bad idea to me.

As mentioned earlier, you are required to disclose misinformation because frequently the opponents would have no idea they were misinformed. So even though this punishes the law-abiding, I don't see a better way to handle it. In the case of many other infractions, I think it suffices to leave it to the other side to pay attention.

Despite my apprehension about such a law, I would still prefer it to what we have now where each person decides on their own (and frequently thinks poorly of the people who decide differently). The other alternative would be a law prohibiting such disclosure which would be fair, but I don't think will ever happen.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-24, 14:56, said:

Usually they're experts or very good players who are just showing off. The ethical ones don't do it unless they're pretty sure the opponents are aware of what's going on, and they're apologetic when they get that wrong.

Some of them are apologetic. The last time it happened to me that I needed to see the hand to be sure the claim was correct I received the "compliment" of "I thought you were better than that." This in a situation where the player had to have the remaining tricks if his hand matched the bidding, but that wasn't always true of that particular player, and I'm not sure why I was supposed to just trust him.

[aguahombre]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-25, 10:04, said:

Let us suppose there was a law requiring you to point out your infractions or your partner's infractions. Would it have any penalty for failing to do so?

If it does, then this means we have to make judgments on people's character - whether they didn't notice, or whether they didn't speak up. This is not a position that I would wish to be in as a director not interested in getting sued.

If it does not, then the law punishes the law-abiding while doing nothing to the law-breaking. This seems like a very bad idea to me.

I understand your points. However, I would not mind having a law, instruction, regulation..whatever which is unenforceable for the reasons you state. It still would have the value of defining an expectation for our behavior/actions. We would know the ethical obligations if we are of the school which says "If it isn't written, it is ethical.", or if we have no personal ethics.

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2013-April-25, 10:04, said:

Let us suppose there was a law requiring you to point out your infractions or your partner's infractions. Would it have any penalty for failing to do so?

We already have such a law, requiring you to correct misinformation by partner.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-April-26, 09:19, said:

We already have such a law, requiring you to correct misinformation by partner.

I think Jefford was asking about the possibility of a more general law.

In the MI case, the law says you "must" call the director and correct the information at the appropriate time. The introduction to the laws states that failure to do what one "must" is "serious indeed" and implies that a PP should almost always (more often than "more often than not" anyway) be issued. I've never seen one. If I issued one around here, there would be an uproar. I would probably be tarred and feathered.

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-26, 15:01, said:

I think Jefford was asking about the possibility of a more general law.

This is true. Also if you don't want to type out my full username, which is fine, please just use "Jeff".