Here’s a perfect example from yesterday where I would have been better off allowing myself to be taken advantage of:

The auction began with a skip bid by Bobby of 3C (AJ102 92 5 J107532 NON VULNERABLE IN FIRST SEAT) and the next hand took far more than the 10 seconds suggested to make a call (and I would have too). She reluctantly passed. I had just sat in on a directors meeting which Bobby conducted at my local club on Saturday morning, where it was agreed one must call the director immediately after the possibility exists partner will bid (influenced by the hitch). The director was called (as my LHO said it was premature to call).

The director simply and tactfully said “Better now than later.” I Passed and my LHO muttered something and then I suppose I embarrassed him into pulling out the pass card (much to our disadvantage).

The person who denied the huddle (VULNERABLE) HELD 874 AK6 AJ6 K986. With 15 HCP I would have taken time out to think too. Partner (a nice guy and normally ethical player) considered balancing (VULNERABLE — REMEMBER) with KQ953 10854 K93 Q. REALLY?????
It is what Norman used to call “bidding with an insurance policy — knowing you are ‘covered’.”

The result: The bad guys (ME — for challenging her excessive contemplation) ended up with a poor result as he would have bid (probably 3S and gotten to game) and would have gone down instead of us.

However, I WOULD RATHER HAVE GOTTEN THE POOR SCORE IN MY CONTINUING EFFORT TO STOP HAVING PLAYERS RELAY UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION. As Bobby said, “her pause was excessive.” The interesting fact is that both players normally perform with integrity (but her hitch denial and his apparent outrage at being intimidated into passing did not sit well with either — and yet the good guys got punished.

Sometimes you just can’t win!

So articulately expressed — in your admirably unique DK style. Yes, “inexperienced” is so much classier than saying “bad” — but drives the point home in spades (or better yet — NT).

Sadly, so many of the directors are far from expert, or even good, players but are always friendly and cordial. However, the knowledge and correct interpretation of the law is so crucial — and the bottom line in MOST CASES (not all) –is the one making the ruling doesn’t want to hurt either contender’s feelings and wants to close his or her eyes and make the problem go away. I know I won’t win any Dale Carnegie Awards for the position I assume (in the interest of bridge), but I am working with a terrific individual who sometimes doubles as a director who is willing to allow Bobby to speak to the lovely people who direct on a regular basis who could use some basic pointers from him. I may be naive (though I pride myself on being on top of things), but I sincerely believe many newer players (or older ones who have returned to the flock after a long hiatus) really do not know what are considered unaccceptable v acceptables practices — and it is high time they learned from an experienced player whom they like and respect — with an eye to making the session more pleasurable and more equitable for everyone. It’s worth a shot!

A. Ignore partner’s huddle and bid whatever one thinks is best for his partnership.

B. Acknowledge partner’s break in tempo (BIT), but do not negatively take a position which, especially after the BIT, seems to not be in the best interest of partnership gain.

C. Pretend to discount any possible unauthorized information (UI) and still feel capable of making a fair decision in spite of the human condition which all of us possess, of self service.

D. Actually lean over backwards to dispell any and all UI by, if anything, making a decision which will, at least, seem to the world, as definitely NOT taking advantage of partner’s BIT.

E. Any other view not espoused in A through D above (Essay).

The above, if answered sincerely, may be a first step in getting both the conscience of the player and laying it on the table, possible workable rules of bridge morality. For example, to deny the human conditon and as applied to competitive bridge players, is simply unacceptable, not to mention impossible to deal successfully with.

The next psychological test will be to assess the chutzpah necessary to, after a significant, or even a relatively small but noticeable (sometimes called a professional) BIT, to now pass the decision back to partner. Please answer.

It appears that you have isolated the virus and therefore the root cause. Seemingly, and for whatever reason, relative beginners in the USA are quickly enticed into the local duplicate scene, and because your social bridge advancements take different and probably slower paths, we are left with differing views which, as you eloquently point out, are much closer to harmonious than I ever imagined.

To top it off, all three of us (including Judy) wholeheartedly agree that bridge students MUST be taught the ethics of the game early. Our exceptionally well organized major local club has invited me to first meet with the current owners (one brand new) and directors to explain what needs to be done by all of us and then a short time later give an open briefing, before the game, to the 100+ players who attend the games on more or less a daily basis as to what is going to be demanded of them. We are hoping that “Little by little we can do great things” and that our example will be duplicated (pun intended) around our rather large country.

Thanks much for your setting the record straight.

“and my bet would be that most players (perhaps 95%) who take up the game and by the time they play their fifth duplicate game understand exactly how hesitations and other telltale mannerisms by their partners transmit at least as much information ”

I think this is the crux of our differing views, as my experience at the local clubs is that it is only 5% of these really inexperienced players. Perhaps it is our clubs that are very different, as only about 5% of those at my clubs play in local tournaments.

I believe our views on tournament players and behaviour are much closer to harmonious

Judy:

“Perhaps if all teachers explained that to their students (even the older, more experienced ones), we would not be faced with the problems such as discussed today.”

I agree 100%.

You allude to “The ’social side of the game” being more important than the masterpoints. IMHO, that has no bearing on the subject at hand. When you are playing in a club game where ACBL masterpoints are officially issued, then you should learn the rights and wrongs of taking advantage of hesitations and play by the rules. It is not only about the directors’ capabilities. That is only one of the problems. You make reference to their checking with their classmates and their “teacher.” Great subject — the teacher. Ah, that may well be the rub. Let me tell you my personal experience.

Back in 1976, Charlie Solomon (who was teaching at the Philadelphia area country clubs) died suddenly and there was an immediate need for a replacement. His ‘assistant’ was not in demand so they started searching out new sources. Of course, my late husband, Norman Kay, who was gainfully employed as a successful VP at Merrill-Lynch (poor souls), graciously turned it down. There was really no one else available at Norman’s level (understandably so) — so I (and a friend who was co-owner of a card school) were interviewed for the position of teaching and coaching their teams in the country club leagues which Mr. Solomon started back in the fifties. They hired us on the spot. She had the teaching experience and I bore the good name of one of the most respected players of his era — locally, nationally and especially internationally. I just happened to luck out! But — I always told it like it was and often joked to my friends that when I gave a lesson, I was just one page ahead of my students. But — it worked out well until Norman and I went into the trotting and pacing hobby which required frequent four/five hour round trips to The Meadowlands and Yonkers Raceway — and time restraints forced me to give up teaching in 1983. But, I was proud of what I accomplished — more along the lines of manners and ethics — than the game itself.

It was a great honor and challenge (especially to me) who had never taught but certainly was privy to the great players of our day. In fact, for years after our marriage in ‘63, I never touched a card — but kibitzed Norman and Edgar all the way from the sectional level to world championships. I learned much more than bridge, safety plays, ‘correct plays,’ squeezes, end plays, etc. I came to understand the importance of deportment at the table and the difference between doing the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ thing. My digression has a meaningful purpose.

My first day of class had nothing to do with 52 cards, spades, hearts, diamonds and clubs. It zeroed in on bidding the cards in front of you. I passed on all the tips from Norman and Edgar about bids in tempo, unauthorized information, alerts (even back then), etc., etc. So — before my students picked up a card they knew TO BID BASED ON THEIR OWN CARDS — not their partner’s hesitations, hitches, histrionics, gyrations, etc. Perhaps if all teachers explained that to their students (even the older, more experienced ones), we would not be faced with the problems such as discussed today.

Therefore, I don’t buy the excuse “Our teacher has now explained why this is such a bad bid but last week I knew that we’d all bid 5H and I was tyring very hard not to take advantage of my partner’s hesitation!!” Had the teacher taken the trouble to explain the guidelines earlier, perhaps this excuse would not have been offered.

It’s easy for me to say — as I’ve been there, done that, etc. It is old hat to me!

While trying not to throw out the first stone, I must say that your last paragraph is a great fairy tale. Sure it could have happened exactly how you explained, but I would like to acquaint you with Damon Runyon’s famous American remark about how to gamble, “The battle does not always go to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but that is the way to bet”, and my bet would be that most players (perhaps 95%) who take up the game and by the time they play their fifth duplicate game understand exactly how hesitations and other telltale mannerisms by their partners transmit at least as much information as whole bidding systems combined.

The above is both the beauty (as well as the curse) of our game and it is our job as the administrators, to let every player know what is expected from them, otherwise our game is nothing better than “Let’s keep a secret” or “Liar’s poker”! Here is to believing in both Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, but only for family gatherings, not for bridge games.

I could not agree more with your final two paragraphs. Dealing with breaks in tempo is very difficult especially at club level where the social side of the game is often more important than masterpoints. Better training for our directors can only help address the issues.

But I do take issue with imposing your own bidding standards on others, especially on the less experienced, and presuming that they are necessarily being unethical, immoral or dishonourable.

For example, suppose the 5H bidder comes back the following week and says, “I gave my hand to all the others in my bidding class and they all bid 5H immediately. Our teacher has now explained why this is such a bad bid, but last week I knew that we’d all bid 5H and I was trying very hard not to take advantage of my partner’s hesitation!! But then I got flustered when you seemed to accuse me of unethical. What did I really do wrong?”