Sportsmanship
a
adam@tameware.com
Make it clear as a matter of law that every player's goal is and ought to be to place as highly as he can in the event in which he is entered, so long as he scrupulously follows the laws and regulations in force. Occasionally, this goal might be best achieved by failing to do his best on a deal or in a match. When such situations for gain through poor play occur, the fault lies with the game's administrators, and a player should not be criticized regardless of the action he takes.
Michael Nelson
What Adam is referring to is what Edgar Kaplan called "sportsman-like dumping", that is dumping done solely to improve one's side's results in the event. I would agree with EK and Adam that this is a CoC issue. Dumping for any non-bridge reason is, of course, highly unethical.
D
Danny Kleinman
Dear Adam,
Your view seems both reasonable and admirable, but may have unintended consequences. I can agree with you wholeheartedly about the spirit of the rule, which is to bar dumping.
Dumping is hard to prove, but I've had one experience of it. I was playing in a Knockout Teams with the wife of a well-known professional. In a late round, perhaps the semi-final, we encountered her husband and a client of his. All of a sudden, the woman who had played well in every previous match turned to putty. It was in her family and financial interest to dump. To this day, perhaps two decades later, I do not know whether she was dumping. Perhaps some rule regarding professionalism is in order. There was certainly a conflict of interest.
I do have an opinion what the professional should have done, It's what I do when I'm playing with a client against my girlfriend and a partner of hers. When they come to my table, or I to theirs, I turn to my girlfriend's partner and say "Play well for me!" to make it clear that I don't want the opponents to help me win.
There is another conflict of interest that troubles me. This is a kind of dumping in which I engage regularly, for I have NO COMPATIBLE PARTNERS any more. When I knew less about bridge, playing was easy. I could play "four-card majors" with one partner and "five-card majors" with another. One way with Eddie Kantar and another way with Fran Tsacnaris, for example. I thought each style about equally good.
As I came to understand bidding better, I developed different opinions. And stronger opinions. It's no longer "four-card majors" or "five-card majors" (each equally good). Now, rightly or wrongly (of course I believe it's rightly) I think the issue is IN WHICH SITUATIONS IS IT MANDATORY TO OPEN A FOUR-CARD MAJOR and in which situations is it a blunder. It's been many years since I played with any partner who opens a four-card major in first or second seats.
And so I "dump" with partners observant enough to notice that I've opened a four-card major lest I incur their wrath. Nobody who sees me will think I'm dumping, but in my heart of hearts I know I am. I never cease to be troubled by this.
There are other situations in which I "dump" also. Here's one that occurred recently. My LHO dealt and opened a Weak Two Hearts. I've very fast and within four seconds I knew that I would have a very close choice between 2NT and pass if and when 2H came round to me. I know what to do in such situations: if it's close to 50-50 I do not try to calculate whether it's 53-47 opne way or 53-48 the other. I guess quickly, thinking I won't be far wrong either way. On this occasion, I guessed to balance with 2NT. That's what I'd have done had my partner taken 10 seconds to pass, but he took 40 seconds. When 2H came round to me, I passed. Even though I thought a majority, if polled, would balance. Is this dumping?
I've had perhaps the unique experience of being kicked off a team in the 4th and final session of a National Swiss Teams ny a national director at the request of the other three on my team. I was supposed to have read my partner's distress during the auction and to have stopped in game, but I acted on the basis of our explicit partnership agreements and bid a slam---down three. I was happy to be rid of my cheating partner and colluding teammates. One man's honor is another man's dumping. So I have deep qualms about rules to prohibit dumping.
A
Aviv Shahaf
Danny Kleinman: Hello Danny,
I don’t believe Adam’s suggestion is to bar dumping.
It is about better defining dumping.
Your example with the spouse, if her subpar performance was intentional, would still be dumping since it does not increase her team’s chances of winning.
Not only that, if her actions were guided by financial gains it is much worse than dumping…
The only example you gave that could be somewhat related to dumping is your choices within a partnership, where you estimate that keeping partnership harmony gives you better chance of winning the event than choosing what you believe is the winning action on a specific board.
Please note that it might not be as clear if your choice is guided not because you believe it increases your chances of winning the event, but by your fear of losing your client for future events.
Your other examples has nothing to do with dumping.
They are about following the laws and ethics of the game.
I’m sure you would still balance with 2NT if you believed Pass was NOT a LA, regardless of how long your partner hesitated.
D
Danny Kleinman
Aviv Shahaf: Thank you, Aviv, for your guidance. "Keeping partnership harmony" covers a wide range and suggests an interesting paradox. I have two regular partners I shall call Harry Smug (who fancies himself a great player) and Louise Guggenheim (who knows she is not), and I play with each in a tournament, Harry in the Men's Pairs, Louise in the Mixed Pairs. Inevitably there arise borderline lands, especially if we use the (old-fashioned) Bridge World Standard 1NT range (good 15 to bad 18 HCP). I pick up a 15-HCP hand that's "good" because it has strong spot-cards and "bad" because it has flat shape. I might open 1NT, either of my three-card minors, or even my good four-card heart suit. If you love bridge, you might love close decisions like this! Case 1. It's the first round of the session. I know what I'd do with Harry. With slightly better clubs than diamonds, I open 1D. Not 1C, because if he sees me open a 3-card club suit, he'll never raise my clubs for the rest of the session. Not 1NT, because he loves to play the notrumps (even though when hearts split 3-3 he'll forget to cash my fourth heart. If I "hog the notrumps" he'll be grumpy the rest of the session and bow boards right and left. The opponents are innocent beneficiaries. Case 2. Also with Harry, but this time the last deal of the afternoon. I know I'll play the notrumps one trick better than he will. Same hand---but this one I open 1NT. The opponents are innocent victims. is it fair? Case 3. Evening session with Louise. Slightly different hand in first round, but same three choices. This time I have "aces and spaces" I hog the notrumps. Louise is happy ("You play them so much better, dear!) Had she declared the notrumps, she might have blown the contract and been kicking herself the rest of the evening. Case 4. Same hand, but now it's the last deal. If I make the slightly superior suit opening and she gets to play the notrumps, she'll be so happy when she makes it but it won't affect her performance on subsequent boards because it's the last board.
SO, in short: Is "keeping partner happy" good sportsmanship in Round 1 but bad sportmanship in Round 13? Because of my guesses about the effect of my choices on my winning the event? How much should we try to legislate? I feel a shortage of wisdom.
A
Aviv Shahaf
Danny Kleinman: I already acknowledged that these “partnership” scenarios could be associated with “dumping”.
I don’t believe however that these type of scenarios will ever be affected by Adam’s proposal and/or ever generate a request for a ruling of any kind.
Adam is concerned about Team A who already secured qualification losing on purpose to weak Team B in an attempt to keep strong Team C from qualifying.
I agree with Adam that if the COC makes such strategy available then it should not be unethical and/or illegal to do so.
D
Danny Kleinman
Aviv Shahaf: Thank you again. You and Adam are right.