Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-06-12

II
cal standpoint, that has ever been de-
vised. Its very continuance IS . recreation for
real ladies and real gentlemen depends abso-
1utely upon the highest standards being main
tanned.
Players who have not made study OF the
ethics Of the game and do not understand the
basis for particular customs frequently do things
which would be unpardcnable in a more ex-
perienced bridger. They are entitled to char
table attitude ON the part of their opponents,
but the obligation nevertheless rests very def
nitely upon the latter to explain the nature
Of the transgression so to protect the player
from censure which might come in other CIR
cles.
Recently an experienced tournament player
harshly criticized for pulling several differ
ent cards successfully from hts hand and finally
playing another one, a singleton-rying to
make declarer believe he had several of the
suit. The incident has called forth this COM
ment from an enthusiast:
perhaps my sense Of ethics is warped but
I fail to see the distinction between bluf6ng
the declarer by the described method and
bIuffing by the Of a psychic blun bid.
Further. where is the line Of demarkation be-
tween a false card and hssitating when you
are sitting under . finesse declarer is about
to take. h.ufhng him into thinking you hold the
missing honor?
IAN four actions mentioned are poker bluffs
imported into bridge If one is fair play Why
ID the other cheating? Why make fish Of one
and fowl Of the otheF?"
Forbes E McCann who asks those questions
has not a warped sense Of ethics at all He
is utterly frank and sportsmanlike. but Is typi-
cal Of thousands Who simply do not under
stand.
In the highest code it Is considered perfectly
proper for a player to make Intentionally any
bid he wishes. so long as 1t IS sufficient and in
proper turn. It IS also ethical to p.a, shy card,
50 long as there Is no intentional failure to
follow suit when able to do 50. II . player
with any bid or play does the unusual for the
purpose of confusing the opposition he Is act
ing in absolute fairness so long as he has no
special agreement with his partner regarding
the meaning Of the bid or play which would be
entirely different from the obvious meaning to
opponents.
But if a player uses any means other than
the bids and plays chosen to convey or receive
either Information instrumentation he
transcends the best standards. Using special
emphasis or mannerism Of any kind IN making
. bid or play is unfair even If done uninter-
tionally It is q players duty to see that he
uses tone Of voice and manners which cannot
convey any idea about his hand.
It is likewise a players duty to refuse to take
cogni2nce of any emphasis or mannerism of
his partner or opponents. The player recently
cited, Who decided to dnesse after seeing his
also violating the ethics Of the game. 1t was
his business to disregard what the opponent
did and he deserved to suffer-though it is too
bad that the original ransgressor, who tempted
him to do as he did, coul1 BE- allowed to profit
by it.
If players are going to study each others
facial expressions note the length of time re-
quired to decide bid, notice the part Of tie
hand from which player draws a card and
also are going to assume the role Of actors and
strive to inform or misinform by their ways,
then it is time to say good-by to the high claims
bridge has made for its code of ethics. The one
who becomes most skillful in misleading his
opponents win shortly become the most adrcit
in informing his partner by means extraneous to
the game. Whereupon the whole fabric of
bridge ethics will have been unwoven and sue
cess will follow the player with the best control
over his own mannerisms and the best ability
to read those of others, rather than the enc
most skillful in his bids and plays and in the
making of differences from those of others.