Hi Paul,

Perhaps we should use your thoughtful topic to advantage by discussing various serious aspects of it.

Obviously “no harm, no foul”, a former famous saying dating back (I think) to a LA Laker basketball broadcaster (Chick Hearn) who coined that expression to better define a basketball referee’s mindset in whether to call a foul or not.

Let me digress from that subject to a corollary one involving “Little Things mean a Lot” a romantic love song sung and popularized many years ago by Joni James.

What if West holds playing matchpoints:

s. AKJ10x
h. AQ
d. Jxxx
c. xx

and with All Vulnerable and North dealer the bidding goes:
N. E. S. W.
1 Club Pass 1 Heart 1 Spade
2 Hearts Pass Pass ?

Is it right or wrong to Pass? Is it right or wrong to bid 2 spades? What if East passed fast (his regular tempo) both times? What if East passed fast the first time, but hitched before he passed the 2nd time?

Should that make a difference in the definition of possible harm? Should the result be included in that definition? Should West’s usual aggressiveness or timidity enter into the discussion? Or for that matter should East’s tendencies be considered? (Both of the above are subject to subjective answers by those who might be in the know).

Proceeding further, should the TD be called and if so, when, before or after West has bid 2 spades? And what if one of West’s diamonds is a 6th spade, would that in turn effect a possible call and render a different verdict? Would reasonable, unbiased experienced players possibly think differently and how often?

Rambling on, when should bridge teachers, TDs, club owners, or one of the more respected members of that region’s bridge players be heard on the subject of ethics and what is expected from good or medium players, or plain novices, in the ways of giving or receiving UI? What part experienced players (possibly defined as having played tournament bridge for 5 years or longer), play as role models in setting the goal of lesser experienced players and their behavior?

As Howard Cosell may have said if he had been a bridge player .. There are a veritable plethora of bridge ethical questions to be resolved before a player can consider himself (or herself) to be properly educated on how to behave.

Of course, if my dream is fulfilled, bridge in the schools will teach Ethics 101 in the very early stages of a kid’s bridge education, without which the game will forever be cursed by discussing such things as “No harm, No foul” which at least to me and my naked hearing cannot possibly have a correct decision available without going into much greater detail.

Hi Bobby,

Your thoughts, as always, hit the nail bang on the head! I particularly liked your last paragraph about Ethics 101, as have long wondered why “table behaviour” is not an intrinsic and important part of bridge education. People who are capable of learning defenses to NT openings are also capable of learning not to finger the bidding box, make facial expressions of approval or disapproval, fidget, break tempo and then pass, ask questions about the bidding when it’s not their turn, or ask questions that are totally unnecessary or meant to wake partner up. All of the above are particularly prevalent at the club level, where the situation is further exacerbated by the non-offender more often than not thinking “Oh, well – the lady who fingered the bidding cards for a minute and then passed is such a nice person I’ll just let it go and not call the director”. Or if two very experienced, but not very good, players are playing together and one of them makes a BIT at some point in their auction, how can it be determined what the logical alternatives would be for the partner? What may be a logical alternative to an expert will probably not be seen as a logical alternative by a poorer player. All of the above, and more, could be avoided by the “Ethics 101” you propose.

Hi Paul,

First and foremost I sincerely appreciate your very kind words and feel duty bound to think further comments through, before posting.

It seems to me that Horn Lake is dedicated to keep bridge or its poor relation, “High Card Wins” alive for as long as possible using bribery (masterpoints for even below 40% games) and pretended kindness and sympathy through allowing newer players to pretend to play bridge, but in reality are permitted to step out of bounds and still be allowed to score.

To make matters worse, (or possibly better in the eyes of some) the new players are not even aware of what the ethical rules of the game should demand and when not strictly regulated have found better ways to describe hands than just the bidding itself. A hesitation here, an ill timed question there, and telltale body action often works just as well as sometimes accurate bidding and certainly incurs less risk, but does get the message across.

All well (but not good) and the only thing we need to realize is that the game of bridge has all of a sudden changed to Charades rather than undoubtedly in my mind and I think and hope many others, the greatest intellectual game ever invented.

Is that really the game the ACBL wants to preserve when the rest of the world seems to look forward to much greater things involving educating our youth with the marvelous attributes the real game possesses, logic, problem solving, numeracy, proper partnership communication, legal deception and intense competition requiring unrelenting concentration and dedication to the inviolate rules of the game. The ethics required in playing bridge properly are very similar to the ethics in business and family.. honesty, disclosure and a good work ethic.

The many European nations which now teach bridge in their schools (to rave notices) as well as all of China are merely an indication of how valued it is in those populations.

Shouldn’t the ACBL do everything possible to sell teaching bridge in our schools where all masters are served, and bridge, as we know it. will continue? The kids will have another important educational tool to learn from and the game itself will thrive instead of slowly (or perhaps not so slowly) just die in the Western Hemisphere.

I happen to think that an all out effort by everyone connected to bridge (and is willing) to bond together to get the above done, without which, our great grandchildren will miss an opportunity to benefit from what many of us think is a glorious opportunity to have fun while at the same time, learning important theories about developing mind adventures in very worthwhile competition.

No harm, no foul may become no teach, no game!