SpadeHeart 
Wickham Park Bridge Club
 DiamondClub
Release 2.19r
Recent Updates
Home Page
Jan 14, 2026 20:16 EST
Special Events
Jan 13, 2026 09:32 EST
0 0 0 0 0 0
Pages viewed in 2026
Special Events

Active Ethics in Bridge: What It Means and Why It Matters

Bridge is a game of laws. The rules are written down, debated, and enforced. But bridge is also a game of ethics, and ethics don’t work the same way rules do. You can follow every law in the book and still damage the game if you ignore your ethical responsibility at the table.

That’s where active ethics comes in.

Active ethics is the idea that ethical behavior in bridge isn’t passive. It’s not just about avoiding cheating or blatant violations. It’s about taking responsibility for how your actions, hesitations, explanations, and reactions affect the fairness of the auction and play. It requires awareness, restraint, and sometimes speaking up when silence would be easier.

Passive vs. active ethics

Passive ethics says: “I didn’t break a rule.”
Active ethics says: “Did my behavior give or deny information unfairly?”

For example, imagine your partner hesitates before passing. You know that hesitation suggests values. Passive ethics says you’re allowed to use your own judgment afterward. Active ethics says you must actively avoid taking advantage of that unauthorized information, even if the law doesn’t force your hand in every case.

Bridge law recognizes this distinction. It talks about unauthorized information, logical alternatives, and demonstrably suggested actions. But laws can’t cover every human moment at the table. Active ethics fills the gap.

Why bridge needs active ethics

Bridge is a partnership game built on incomplete information. That makes it unusually vulnerable to ethical erosion.

Small things add up:

  • A tone of voice when explaining a bid

  • A sigh after partner’s lead

  • A pause that suggests a problem

  • A quick correction that reveals too much

None of these are dramatic. None look like cheating in the obvious sense. But over time, they skew results and undermine trust.

Unlike games of pure chance, bridge depends on the assumption that all players are operating within the same ethical framework. When that assumption breaks down, skill becomes less meaningful. Strong players gain an unfair edge not by better judgment, but by better exploitation of human signals.

Active ethics protects the integrity of skill.

 
What's New
What's New

Returning to face-to-face bridge after fifteen long months of revokeless virtual bridge, I am sure that we could all use refresher course in the laws related to revokes.  Revokes are defined as a failure to follow by The Laws of Duplicat Contract bridge.

Revokes are the cause of much embarrass  ment at the table, but the laws are here to save us from our mental lapses.  The law allows dummy to ask the declarer "Having non, partner?" after declarer failed to follow suit.  Defenders are also allowed to ask the same question of their partner.  This should lead to revoke-less bridge.

I advise all players to get into the habit of asking the above question: ‘Having none, partner?’ every time partner fails to follow suit (for the first time in a suit).

The penalty for a revoke can be quite severe, whilst if you discover the revoke at the time, the player is able to replace his card with a correct one. Then the only penalty is that his exposed card becomes a ‘major penalty card’. A major penalty card: the card played erroneously, remains face-up on the table and must be played at the first legal opportunity. There are also a few other penalties that apply if your partner gets the lead when you have a penalty card on the table – you should call over a friendly director to have these explained – the declarer can forbid or demand a lead of the penalty-card suit, in which case the leader must obey (if possible). Note that, in this case the penalty card is picked up and the defender does not have to play it – the declarer does not have to exercise this option in which case, the player on lead can lead anything and the penalty card remains on the table.

Even with the "Having none, partner?" ammo at our disposal some revokes still become established.  Either we fail to ask our partner the golden question or our partner insists that he is void when in fact he is still holding a card in the lead suit.  Mistakes happen.

How does a revoke become established?  Law 63  states that a revoke becomes estahlished when:

1. The offending side leaads or plays the the next trick.

2. A member of the offending side indicates a lead or play by designating a care

3. The offending side makes a claim or concesssion.

Law 64 gives the penalty procedures used after a revoke has been established. If the player (not the pair) that revoked won the revoke trick, then there is a 1 trick penalty.  If either player in the offending side wins a trick after the revoke trick, then a trick conceded.  So, by default, following a revoke there may be none, 1 or 2 tricks lost.  However, at times these standards may not be sufficient due to the non-offending side playing badly because of the now assumed bad-break, or they lost access to a long running suit – so the Director may at the end of the session, re-assess and concede additional tricks to the non-offending side.

Law 64 B addresses when a penalty for an established revoke does not apply.  If the offending side failed to win the revoke trick or any subsequent tricks then a penalty will not be assessed.  A second revoke in THE SAME SUIT by the same player results in a tongue lashing from the player's partner, but no penalty assesmsent by the director.  After the non-offending side calls to the next deal there will not be a penalty assessment.  There is no penalty assessment for revokes by dummy. There is no penalty assessment after the round has ended.  There is no penalty adjustment for revokes occurring on the 12th trick.

Looking forward to our face-to-face games on Monday, July 19th.  I am hoping for a "revokeless" game.  Pam
This site is built with BridgeWebs, the easy web solution.