Join Bridge Winners
One Disillusioned NLM

I understand we all have our own ideas about morality and justice and even what is civil to write on a congratulations thread. I also understand that rules, whether they govern the game of bridge or what/where one makes a post, have to be followed.

For a moment, I relished in Boye Brogeland’s suggestion: “a Mensch approach when we face situation that can’t really be solved fairly in court…There are more than one way to win.”

Then, I started thinking that in order for a "Mensch approach" to work, players might have to share a common goal. I thought that common goal might be “whatever is in the best interest of the game.” With that in mind, sure, everyone will have his/her own ideas. Perhaps some of those ideas should be more heavily weighted than others. But if players have different goals, as has been suggested elsewhere, then, regretfully, I'm not confident I can rely on the "Mensch approach."

The laws reflect a common goal to “define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.”

I find this appeal in the BR pairs this year disheartening. The two players who made it have been two of my favorites to watch since I began playing. In watching them, I have learned an immense amount about the game. (It is probably because of them that I could deconstruct the auction and figure out that a diamond was the only lead).

And when I would watch them, what was more extraordinary than even their calls and play, were those moments in which I realized I will never be qualified enough to assess the extent of their talent.

I understand the laws allow Levin and Grue to appeal. While appealing is never wrong, I find it questionable to do so here. Why?

I believe that Levin and Grue can figure out* this lead is 100%.

I believe they would acknowledge* a person in their class can figure out this lead is 100% at the table.

I believe they would acknowledge* Glubok is in their class, as far as a poll is concerned, at least.

Thus, I believe they realize*, Glubok does not have a LA.

Therefore, no damage. 

To get a ruling, and especially to bring appeal after getting adverse ruling, would be, in essence, asking a law or procedure to essentially “get it wrong,” to achieve result contrary to the purpose of that law or procedure.

Let’s say Levin and Grue have this auction against some of their  “peers” who for some inexplicable reason think that anything, but a diamond can be logically led on this auction, and the ruling goes against them. I have sympathy. The law and procedure got it wrong. If it does so frequently, or illogically, then there is a problem with the law or procedure and you work to change where it is failing.

In the end, to my sense of morality and justice, to embrace a law and procedure that allows people to ask it to "get it wrong," is, well, wrong.

Edit: * words changed from "believe" because I can concede, I never know what anyone believes but me. Perhaps my disillusionment did not do my thoughts justice. On the other hand, perhaps it made people pay more attention to issues that are ignored. Or my choice of words was so poor it kept people from the substance of what I said. I don't know whether or not the edits help.

Regardless, all of those things are my opinion. And ultimately, I understand, my opinion shouldn't matter to anyone. Except me. That's my concession. I will also concede that a diamond may only be close to 100% at the table before the comment.

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top