I think my kitchen-table analogy
is a good one:
If a friend and I were playing a match for nothing over my kitchen table, and the same situation occurred, would I be correct to find a flaw in my friendís backgammon ethic? You bet! And the odds are that my friend and I would not be playing many matches in the hospitality of my home in the future because of it.
The same standard should apply at Hartford.
When a player has the choice of a very civil decision, and makes a decision to be uncivil, I think it is perfectly appropriate to judge his ethics negatively. His choice may be within the rules, but those same rules would have allowed him to make a different choice. If he opts to be unpleasant, the strict legality of his decision does not obgligate me to overlook unpleasant nature of his ethic.