| |
BGonline.org Forums
Rules/Ethics Question from Novi
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: Rules/Ethics Question from Novi (Steve Mellen)
Date: Saturday, 16 July 2011, at 12:11 p.m.
There is NO DOUBT in my mind that if a player conceeds, even if he can win, you can accept it and at that moment the match is over (according to the rules). As for whether you should point out that he can still get off the gammon is a matter of your personal beliefs.
Ethics is always a gray area, and I don't believe ANYONE has the right to tell you or anyone else what he should or should not do in situations like this, UNLESS there are standards that are written in the rules or in a code of standards of ethical behavior, or unless there are agreements that have been made between the players (e.g. agreeing to play legal moves).
Having said that, it is my personal believe that resigning when you still have a chance, if it is a mental error, is no different from a mental error of failing to see you could take a checker off, failing to see that you could enter from the bar, failing to see that you can double because it's post-crawford, failing to see that you hit and therefore failing to put your opponent's checker on the bar, etc. etc. The way the rules stand, when an opponent makes a mental error he is expected to be responsible for it and IT IS NOT his opponent's responsibility to help him. In fact, his opponent has an obligation to the tournament organizers, to the other players, to his calcutta partners, and to the public, to do everything he can legally to win, and part of that, IN ANY SPORT OR GAME, is to take advantage of your opponent's errors, be they simple mistakes in judgment or total brain-farts.
Therefore, it is my opinion that if a player resigns or makes any of these other mistakes, you should quietly and absolutely take the win. A gentleman would not even point out the error because that might only make him feel bad, and that's pouring oil on the wound. Now, if he immediately noticed his mistake and wanted to play on after clearly resigning, in my opinion, HE IS NOT ACTING ethically by putting you in a tough spot that was not of your making.
Lastly, I would absolutely apply these standards in a major tournament where I am playing an Open player who absolutely should know better and should be expected to be help to the highest standards of play. However, in my local club, in a side event, and in a "friendly" competition, while I do not feel obligated to, I might well cut my opponent some slack in all of these areas, and I have many times. By the way, part of my decision depends on who I am playing. If I was fairly sure my opponent was not the kind of person who would give me a break if the situation were reversed, I think you know my position.
In the semi-finals of our club event I was playing David Rockwell's son who made a terrible illegal move at DMP that clearly gave me the match. It was his first tournament, he was excited, and the winner got to play his father in the finals. I was in a close fight for points to make the club team that year, and I pointed out his error and let him make the proper move and he beat me. I would not have done the same thing if an experienced player was playing against me, as the experienced player should simply know better, and I know that if I made a mistake, even if he would let me correct it, I would refuse. And therein lies the rationale to my feeling ethical about taking the win if someone makes a mistake like you describe. If I make the mistake myself, not only would I not ask for mercy, I would not accept it if offered.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.