Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Sharon Fauss
1 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At the risk of making this whole thread ‘off topic’, I researched the definitions of fairness and ethics and applications thereof. My personal opinion is that at least in the local club levels, the directors should be expected to give similar rulings, avoid the ‘punishment’ angle, seek to make their customer base happy and to educate their players so that when they attend higher rated events, they do not get ‘surprised’ that the table rulings did not resemble the local club rulings. These are some of my findings….



“Fairness is the quality of making judgments that are free from discrimination. Judges, umpires, and teachers should all strive to practice fairness. Fairness comes from the Old English fæger, meaning ”pleasing, attractive.“ This makes sense given that the word is also used to describe physical beauty.”

“noun
Fairness is defined as just and reasonable treatment in accordance with accepted rules or principles.
Treating all people equally and applying reasonable punishments only when rules are broken is an example of fairness.”

“Every organization must confront the challenge of motivating its work force. From research on fairness in organizational contexts (‘organizational justice research’) we know that fairness is one key. Organizational justice research consistently finds that employees are more motivated when they feel that organizational resources are allocated fairly, that organizational decisions are made in fair ways, and that their organization treats them fairly. Moreover, employees who experience fairness at work are more likely to internalize the organization’s goals and values, and to develop close bonds with other organizational members. In this way, a ‘management-by-fairness’ approach motivates employees to work collaboratively for the long-term good of the organization and its members. Such a long-term collaborative focus tends to produce ethical behavior.”

“Does not fairness mean being fair to all parties in the form of equal justice and application of the Law? It should not mean more equal outcomes.”

“What is the meaning of ”Fairness“?
Answer:
Fairness is usually related to the concept of justice. This involves what is right and equal. Interpreting this is a problem, due to the limitations of human experience and the balance of all desired good.
Fairness can be interpreted as being equal in provision, in opportunity or in result. From each point of view, the other point of view may seem unfair.
Equality?
==========
Being fair can be seen as equality in the sense that everyone gets the same thing. This has the limtation that everyone may not want, need, deserve or even be able to use the same thing. An older child needs a different kind of gift or help or a different amount of allowance or responsiblities to perform.
To correct an injustice, it might be felt good to make it right by giving everyone the same amount of money, same status of job, same pay, or such. Some might feel to be fair, extra compensation needs to be given to make up for previous oversight or injustice, so that some will now get paid more.
But this would seem unfair to others doing the same work, or in the same role in society. Does one discrimination make up for another?
Provisions?
=============
It might be thought fair to give everybody the same provisions, whether they worked for them or not, such as socialist systems try to do, to be fair to everybody. This overlooks the production of wealth and maintenance, which depnds of motivation and reward.
It might seem more fair to pass everybody in the class whether they make good grades or not. This might keep them from feeling bad about themselves. But is that fair to them in the responsibilities they will be expected to fill later? They won't be prepared and will fail later. Is that fair to those who studied and worked hard and earned a high grade? Where is any motivation to do well, to improve?
Opportunity?
============
A common view of fairness in the Western systems, and especially in the US, is to provide equal opportunity, for people to use in what way they can. This is seen as fair, so everyone gets the same starting point, and difference in performance is assumed to be due to individual initiative, intelligence, hard work, etc.
Scholarships are provided, for instance, on this basis, so that poor students are not at a disadvantage in the opportunity to study.
These are some of the considerations in the concept of ”fairness.“ Much more detailed discussion would be involved for a more complete legal or ethical consideration.
OBJ
Originally written on 13 November 2000
This version posted 08 February 2003
Last edited 28 September 2012”
Feb. 8, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
…and now we have tossed fairness and equity to the wind and become totally subjective. At least with 12C1(e)one could expect the same ruling from different directors.
Feb. 7, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks, Ed. Unfortunately, it is not much help.
Feb. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I went through all 42 pages of the minutes and could not find a motion or any discussion of rules or anything pertaining to rule 12C1( c).
Feb. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Who advised the BoD of this? Where can I find a copy of the Denver Board meeting minutes?

Feb. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This rule change is getting attention at our local clubs among the active directors. So far, no one is inclined to try to use it as the only communication any of us has received as to usage is the article in the February Bridge Bulletin. I have read the article at least four times now and still feel uncomfortable. First, it appears we must poll other players to get information as to results possible, then we wait until game is finished and hand calculate the weightings and then manually enter the score into ACBLscore. My first thought is that the ACBL should not make rule changes that the ACBLscore software does not make easy for us to use. The ACBL Bulletin made it clear this article was intended for the club directors as a guideline and that this rule was effective Jan.1, 2016. Seems like the ACBL is implementing something and then tying our hands so we cannot do the task. It would be nice to have news letters in advance and updated training. A sample work sheet to calculate these weightings would be nice as well.
Feb. 6, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
you failed to mention that west hesitated significantly after the 2S bid made by South…. and I do not think the 2C bid promised 13 points. It could have been a garbage stayman bid.
Dec. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
also, I presented this hand to a very fine player at the recent Las Vegas Regional and his comment was that partner should pass the 2S bid…. and yes,Yuan, I meant to type 1S 2S
June 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thank you for comments. I do not know how to use the templates. Can anyone point me to an explanation of these?
June 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd pass 4NT and delay taking the ace of spades until the defender has to make a discard and pray that my pard has Kx of diamonds and a running suit. I think the hand is a total disaster.
June 21, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joe Hertz, I am aware of a situation that makes your statement incorrect. I have changed this posting because it was not in the best interests of the discussion to pursue anything further, here.
April 14, 2015
Sharon Fauss edited this comment April 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The ‘playing director’ at a club game has always been an issue of discussion, but most club players decide early on whether or not they will accept that situation or not and most players, IMO, think the possibility of a playing director adversely affecting the results of the game is slim. However, I personally know one playing club director that consistently won all the games played by a remarkably high percentage. It could be this person was incredibly lucky or incredibly smarter than the club players, but the consistency in itself was suspect.

As for the announcement of a result of a hand played at a prior table loud enough for the players at the next table to hear is an infraction worthy of calling a director and reported and as part of active ethics should always be done. TD's do have remedies for this unethical practice.
April 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some of you have made the point that I think is prime. In a club game, the maker of the boards may be put in a position where they have no choice but to play the hands they assisted in making up, for the betterment of the whole game, regardless of whether that person is known to be trustworthy or not. However, in a Sectional or higher rated game, the question of ‘appearance’ comes into play. Regardless of the ethics of the person making up the boards, there will always be a few that will wonder whether or not that player ‘peeked’ especially if that player did well in the event. I wonder why the ACBL has not addressed this situation and written an advisory regarding it?
April 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Are any of you including the expenses to move their headquarters to Hornbrook?
March 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The GNT and NAP online qualifiers in District 20 are carefully monitored and I believe the points earned in these events are fully counted as to color and apply to the mini McKinney counts. Other online games may not be under this type of scrutiny.
March 27, 2015
Sharon Fauss edited this comment March 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The official word on this from the ACBL is…
"Rev 9/14/13

Sometimes Dummy puts down only 12 visible cards. One card might be stuck behind another, or a card may have fallen to the floor. It is also possible that Dummy does not properly display the cards, placing the eight of diamonds amongst the hearts, for instance. If for any of the above reasons or similar ones dummy fails to follow suit to a trick the director should not apply the Revoke Laws. The defenders, however, may well be due an adjustment.

From Duplicate Decisions:

“If one of dummy’s cards is obscured, as by being stuck behind another, and the discrepancy goes unnoticed for some time, and its absence is found to have damaged the defenders, an adjusted score (Law 12) may be in order for failing to display dummy properly (Law 41 D).

“When a player, usually the dummy, says, ‘Everyone is responsible for the dummy,’ he is quoting a 1948 Law. This has no basis in current law. The player who is the dummy is responsible for the proper display of his hand.

“A director should look at how the play of the hand went and be ready to protect the non-offending side, awarding an adjusted score if necessary. There is also no automatic penalty to the declaring side; a director should also consider how declarer may have played the hand differently had he been able to see all 13 cards. The goal is to restore equity. In gray areas of how the play MIGHT have gone the director should side with the non-offenders.”
March 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ed,I said the director reviewed the hand records, not the scores
March 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Thanks for the comments!
March 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The director reviewed the hand records and determined that the average results for this hand were equal or better than the actual results, so no adjustment was made.

End of the story, the dummy hand had 7 HCP plus the “void” and passed his partner's 1H opening bid. I think the hand shape was 4-2-6-1 or 5-2-5-1 and of course the club was not showing. The average result was making 2 or 3 S or 2NT so you can see the defenders were not damaged.
March 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
no one was talked to away from the table
Sept. 13, 2013
1 2
.

Bottom Home Top