Ethics of Preference (Appendix to the Code)

5.1. The ethics of preference has undergone many changes in the long history of this game. Strictly speaking, one can not talk about a single ethic of preference. The history has kept the information about salon noble-raznochinsky ethics of the last century. Almost all modern books on preference or rewrite pages dedicated to this topic from M. Shevlyakovskiy, V. Bakhirev, F. Poltavtsev, G. Kohlearius and other best editions about card games of the last century. Meanwhile, Soviet history has developed a completely new ethic of this game, which can be called the ethic of Soviet employees. In addition, a professional game environment in which preference, by the way, is not a common game, has developed a completely different system of concepts, which can also be called ethics with good reason. Given the general criminalization of public consciousness, the penetration and consolidation of "thieves '" concepts in everyday life (and expressing their vocabulary - in modern language), it is simply impossible to ignore the values ​​of "thieves' ethics" in modern gambling norms. Moreover, they are just most often based on common sense and the notion of justice, and, moreover, are best developed by practice.
5.2. This annex to the Code aims to classify and consolidate some set of conventions, moral norms and specific rules, and, possibly, will undergo some changes in the future, will be corrected and supplemented. In the meantime, we not only can not talk about the final formulations or unambiguous interpretations of certain rules, but also did not reveal the whole set of the rules themselves.
5.3. First of all, the classifier (78) proposes to divide the rules of behavior pertaining to the players themselves and the rules of behavior of those present in the game of people: fans, lobsters, simply observing. Thus, there are 2 sections: Player ethics and the kibitzer Ethics (79).

5.4. Ethics of the player

5.4.1. What is called "etiquette" in the hostel is based on the general laws of politeness and delicacy, which are obligatory for every well-bred person. This side of the game should be given priority attention precisely because its neglect usually happens at the expense of its own dignity and belittles the dignity of the game. Let's enumerate some basic and previously formulated other laws of game ethics, which players adhered to already 100-150 years ago.
5.4.2. Any quarrel at the card table is undesirable (80).
5.4.3. Everyone has the right to refuse to participate in the game and, moreover, without any obligation to give anyone a report - why or why (81); But since he refused, he can sit down to play with another person only under the following conditions:
A) if he had previously apologized for the fact that the players of that party who had invited him before that were not in his power;
B) if he, out of courtesy, assumes the role of the missing fourth or third partner;
C) if he frankly declares that because of the fervor of one of the partners, he is afraid of a collision.
In all other cases, a game after failure is considered an insult (82).
5.4.4. The cost of the whist, the length of the bullet, the number of bullets or batches, and sometimes additional conditions (for example, the end time) must be determined before the game starts (83).
5.4.5. Sit down for the game, not having money with him, is not accepted: however, if there is a defect, the partners are obliged to believe on the floor to a person who does not enjoy the reputation of a hopeless debtor. But the loan is determined by a deadline of 24 hours, and a business card with an inscription in which the amount of the loss is indicated is issued in the certificate. This is for the decent people the same bill, without paying which the player can forever lose confidence. Pay immediately after the game ends, without making a reminder (84).
5.4.6. In a private house, the owner or mistress is always moral guarantors for the trustworthiness and good manners of their guests (85).
5.4.7. To sit down to play instead of someone is possible only with the permission of the other participants in the game (86).
5.4.8. During the trade (negotiations), the player should be limited only to generally accepted formulas, that is, to make bids in a strictly established form and strictly in turn. In the rest of the time he must observe silence (87).
5.4.9. In the process of drawing you can ask to see the last closed bribe (rule 3.9.8), but only one. After the current bribe is closed, you can not look at the previous one. If the player wants to see the last bribe, which he did not take, but someone from the partners, he should ask to show this bribe to its owner, and not take the cards themselves. If the player wants to see his bribe, he must warn the partners about it, stressing that he wants to see the latter, which has a legal right. Naturally, all that concerns the right to see a closed bribe, applies only to the participants of the game. The observer not only has no right to touch the cards with his hands, but even to ask him to show him a bribe is considered indecent (88).
5.4.10. The player can ask a question about the last demolition of any of the partners, that is, he can not only see the cards in a bribe, but also specify which card to which belonged.
5.4.11. Any remark or reminder during the game (regardless of whether it was done before or after the demolition) can be an illegal way of transmitting information (and therefore be punished). It is strictly forbidden to remind you of the course of the trade or the suit of purchase, etc. Even the expression of vexation or displeasure with the course or demolition of a partner is considered an act of dishonesty or at least unethical, as it aims to adjust the game of the partner, prompt him to correct the move or demolition. If the game goes to interest, then prompt, in an explicit or not explicit form, is the same as cheating.
5.4.12. Not only a word, but a gesture, as well as actions committed at the wrong time can be a way of transferring illegal information, and for this reason are recognized as unethical. For example, you can not prepare a card for bribing in advance. This movement can serve as information to the partner that, say, I beat this card, and affect its demolition. Also, you can not prepare a card for the next move, because the partner will conclude that you know that this bribe will be yours, that is, you have the senior in this suit. There can be a lot of such situations. For example, one of the whistlers hit the trio playing the trump card. Since this vigilant, a man of old age, constantly complains about bad memory, he immediately puts one card on the table in private, explaining this action as a mnemonic technique (so as not to forget what to walk when the turn comes). His actions contain a whole stream of illegal information. Firstly, it is known that he has a club. Secondly, it is clear that he is going to get a move, that is, to take a bribe in one of the suits, etc.
5.4.13. Even the way a card is put in a bribe can be a source of information (89). If the player does not want to be suspected of unfair partnership, he needs to get used to putting the card on the table always with the same movement.
5.4.14. The player must remember that any action that benefits one party inevitably causes damage to the other side. Therefore, illegal gain is, in the strict sense, a fraud in relation to the other side. And if you do not allow thought to climb into the opponent's pockets, you should closely follow the game for your words, movements and even facial expressions, so as not to commit fraud involuntarily.
5.4.15. The only exception to the rule on the inadmissibility of any comments or questions in the process of the rally is the request to confirm the refund. If the partner blows off not in suit, let's ask him if he really does not have the cards of the required suit. This exception is explained, firstly, by a large fine for falsehood, and secondly, by the inability to restore the normal course of the game after several moves following the false leg. Naturally, a mistake of this kind can be corrected only immediately, before the bribe was closed and the next move was made. A card that is mistakenly discarded by a player during a false leg is left on the table and is considered "open" or "tabletop" in the subsequent game. This means that the moment when this card is to go, the enemy will determine. Of course, the course of an open card must, even on demand, be made according to the rules of the game, that is, the card must be played in suit, etc. If the player has put the card after having made a falsehood, which was noticed on time, then he is allowed to take it off the table and put the other one after having made a falsehood correct his mistake.
5.4.16. Each player has the right to request a change of deck of cards for a new one, but not before the end of the bullet (party), if he, of course, does not have any claims to cards that can not be ignored. Such claims include: a lack of cards in the deck, the ability to distinguish at least one card on the shirt or the presence on the cards of other defects, as well as illegibility of characters on the front side. Each of these circumstances, of course, is the basis for changing the deck at any time of the game, except for the situation when you need to finish the change. The player who requires new cards must pay for their cost. Changing cards to new ones after the end of the pulses (games) is the inalienable right of each player. Moreover, the partners can not prevent him from doing so, nor ask for explanations for the reasons (90).
5.4.17. For the rest of the game, ethics prescribe to treat with respect or at least condescendingly even the partner's prejudices relating to the change of the deck (91).
5.4.18. Playing in a private house, paying for cards is not accepted. But for the required new deck should pay its price to the owner. Pays or demanded, or the winner, or all equally divided by common consent. In a gambling establishment or club, you do not need to pay for cards, since the cost of cards is usually included in the fee for a visit or in the amount of membership fees, or the cost of purchasing cards is paid off from the profit of the institution.
5.4.19. To give up an underreached bullet is allowed only in extreme circumstances of insuperable force, which can be considered force majeure: a natural disaster - fire, flood, entry into the city of the enemy's army (92), sudden need for departure, sudden deterioration of health (fainting, heart attack, sudden death) (93 ) etc. In this case the bullet is painted or postponed - by the general agreement of the company. Any of the participants in the game can insist on immediate scheduling of the pulque and the calculation between the players. You can not decide anything by voting: the winning (as well as the losing one) has the right to demand an immediate settlement of financial relations (94). Early termination of the game in cases not related to force majeure circumstances is considered extremely undemocratic. Thus, either insolvency is recognized in the future, or there is a reluctance to play with such opponents. This action can be regarded in some cases as an insult. The best way out of the situation for a player who for some reason wished to finish the game could be a substitute, to which, of course, the partners can agree or disagree, at their discretion.
5.4.20. The wrangling between partners, especially in elevated tones. As well as swearing in a whisper through clenched teeth, are not accepted in a good society. Concerning the same edification and mentoring, it should be noted that, no matter how helpful mentoring and whatever noble and altruistic goals it pursues, if advice is not desired, then they should not be given. By the reaction of the same partner and the expression of his face, it is always easy to determine his attitude to the advice and lessons he hears.
5.4.21. Any kind of familiarity, caressing, pejorative or contemptuous expressions towards a partner expose bad taste and plebeian upbringing. Therefore, a self-respecting player will avoid replicas or appeals to a partner expressed in a tone like this:
"My sweetheart, you've finally gone to the peak!"
- Clever, torn off the tambourine from the surf!
- Well, now, my dear fellow, go with the clubs (letting in the end of the enemy and forcing an ace with the lady to play in the club).
As well as common phrases-hints:
"The colonel would have been pretty good with ... and threw on three aces."
- The head of the station Zhmerynka in this situation behaved differently.
- I carry a peak, and the dead man is a peak.
5.4.22. A knock on the table, stomping with a foot, slamming cards on the table and menacing looks only threatening the hostess (and that - for the integrity of dishes and furniture), and nervous women, not accustomed to peasant havens.
5.4.23. Card ethics venerate the principle of irreversibility of the player's actions. Any move, any bribe can not be taken back: "What happened to the cart dropped, then disappeared," which is said, it is said that it is played, it is played. An erroneously made assignment goes into the account and must be carried out. An erroneously played card remains on the table (see Open Card, Rule 3.9.14). The exception is the time noticed falsehood (rule 3.9.16.).
5.4.24. If such importance is attached to non-game gestures and replicas in which partners can perceive an insult or an illegal exchange of information, then the player must be treated with double attention to his handling of cards. It is not appropriate to collect cards from the shuffle table face up. Since the sharpshooter thus performs the "joke" jumper reception, you may be wondering what is going on.
5.4.25. Do not shuffle the deck below the table. You may be asked to shuffle over, not under the table. When asked, it will be already uncomfortable: the remark is just.
5.4.26. None of the players can pass cards for another, if it does not get the consent of all the other players in the game.
5.4.27. During the surrender, it is not necessary to raise your cards, in order to avoid disputes and misunderstandings in case of incorrect delivery (see rule 3.2).

5.5. Ethics of Kibitzer

5.5.1. Unauthorized persons have no right to make any comments, let alone give anyone advice and instructions, and not only with a word, but even with a sign or facial expression (95).
5.5.2. It's not allowed to talk loudly about the game of anybody from the players or discuss the nuances of the game, just as it's just not allowed to conduct a loud conversation. The slightest remark of any of the players in this situation is indisputable and can be considered a warning.
5.5.3. Entertaining is forbidden by anyone. Even the lobster or financier of one of the players must comply with this rule and immediately comply with the request of any of those participating in the game, if he asks not to be distracted.
5.5.4. It is not customary to walk around the table and look at the cards of more than one of the players, and then not otherwise than with the consent of the one to whom they look, and in the absence of objections from other participants in the game. If, however, observation of the game is undesirable for at least one of the players, the outside observer is obliged to immediately withdraw and without the slightest remarks and expressions of displeasure (96). The observer should not only express, but even feel displeasure (97).
5.5.5. Kibitser should remember that his interference in the game can cause the player direct damage that can be recovered from it. Rule 3.4.12, for example, reads: "The advice of an outsider to change the suit of a trump, raise or lower the order of the game deprives the rights of both, and for the other." And rule 3.9.20: "The advice of an outsider from where to go, gives the right to the nearest enemy to assign a move or demolition at his own discretion."

Footnotes
77. Hereinafter all replicas from the first person belong to Dmitry Lesnoy.
79. "Kibitzer" is an observer (for an explanation of the term, see the Glossary of Terms).
80. "... when talking about outbreaks that occur between partners, it should be remembered that this is straw fire: nowhere is it so hotly scolded and quarrels as with cards (the late Shchedrin, for example, according to AY Panayeva, simply Out of himself, distributing his partner as if he had done something terrible), but this quarrel is just as easy to forget - unless it reaches the limits beyond which there is only one fistfight or duel to which the cards have repeatedly brought people who have received bad Education".
81. Once they asked the priest for such explanations: "Father, why do not you play cards?" "My son," the priest replied, "there are eleven reasons." The first is a complete lack of money. ". But the questioner had enough and the first reason.
82. Oh and our ancestors were good! To offend each other were afraid. It's so cute, but so far from current concepts today! I've witnessed a lot of refusals with the following wording: "I'll look for someone who is more" (a hint of a partner's strength) or "Do you have money?" (And the answer is "Yes" - incredulous "Show!"). Sometimes it sounded contemptuous: "What's the point of playing with a pacifier?" Or "Do not want to run from me? Go on, untwist on the bar!". Sometimes it's even purer: "Do you want to play? As always, under ...?" - "Firstly, not under ж ... but under the debt!" (And it's not in the sec, but in the preference!). Sometimes the refusal was motivated by such a reason, which in former times would have led to a duel: "To play? With whom !? With you, dirty installers?".
83. In a professional game environment, the number of parties is to be considered a "Lohov" condition. According to unwritten gambling laws, any person has the right to quit (to stop the game) at any time after the finished batch (pelki). Arguments like "Let me recoup," "It's so bad - to win a little and jump off" - not accepted. Not that they were considered indecent. All players know the psychology of the loser (a condition known as "putty"), and many try to extract the maximum benefit from this enemy position: to impose their conditions, etc. But no one has the obligation to continue the game, unless a special condition has been stipulated in advance, for example: we play ten games, play a complex - a party in a tertz, a party in a debertz. With such a pre-agreed condition, the game is considered unfinished until all parts of the game are played by condition.
84. The fine rule given in the source of the last century, today operates only in part. All this is true if you play in the company of friends or close acquaintances. But God forbid you lead yourself in accordance with these rules in a society of strangers, especially if they are professional players. It is not at all necessary that you be "punched" or hurt, but you should know that you have violated the main commandment recognized by the people of this circle unconditionally: you lost more than you can pay. That is, speaking in their language, they moved bullshit. If you are completely unwilling or unable to pay in cash immediately in the event of a loss, you should state before the game that you want to play for such a number or "to the house" or whatever else ... But you need to say this before The way they sat down to play. Your partner can agree on a deferred payment condition or refuse the game - at his discretion. In any case, the game for all participants must be equal, including the terms of payment. If one person plays cash and the other plays at the end of the year, the first person could get a big handicap for it, a handicap, compensation (and that would be fair, as interest in the bank). In addition, in such a situation there is always a risk of non-payment (for various reasons, not necessarily because of dishonesty of one of the partners). Therefore, all the money that is lost without agreeing on the terms of payment in the environment of professional players is unconditionally considered to be cash and must be paid "from the pocket," that is, immediately after the game is over. So it was always, and in the conditions of inflation this rule becomes especially actual. Even if you did not have an absolutely insignificant amount, it will be considered that you "played", which is perceived as dishonesty. When you sit down to play, you need to know exactly how much you are able to pay, and in case your loss, in the most incredible confluence of circumstances, can exceed this amount, you must notify the partner (or partners) about it. Even if you play a "harmless" intellectual game, such as a preference, and want to state a minus one, you must estimate whether you will have enough money to pay off if the balance is the worst of the theoretically possible and the number of bribes will be the maximum. If suddenly you find that money may not be enough, you need to say that you have so much in your pocket and that if you lose a larger amount you are going to pay then. If no one objects, you can play the game as you like. If there are objections, you have only two choices: immediately find money (for example, lend) or refuse to play a game fraught with such consequences. As a rule, the very setting of this issue to partners is a pledge that you will not be denied, since you demonstrate such scrupulousness in matters of payment, show your own serious attitude towards your obligations, which is a guarantee that you will pay on time. In my practice, there were many cases when, playing for cash, you had to make reservations about deferred payment, the amount that will exceed the amount of cash. Believe me, all partners, without exception, not only agreed to a request for a postponement (if it was expressed in a timely manner), but they also offered to lend a small sum after the end of the game, realizing that the person was left without money. In the circle of close friends, in my opinion, it is also not unreasonable to behave as correctly and attentively in such an important issue as the payment of card debts. Therefore, even if you know for sure that they will not refuse you in a postponement and are even likely to be surprised by the very statement of the question, your request for a postponement will be pleasant to the partners, for it always shows your respect for them. A lesson on this topic life presented me in my early youth - even in my student years. Somehow I lost a considerable amount for a certain number. By the time of payment, I was not able to collect the entire amount, but about two-thirds was available. I was going to carry what I have, and ask to postpone the missing amount for a week. One of my friends (whom I am extremely grateful today for advice) said that I am doing wrong, because I put the creditor before the fact of lack of money. He advised to borrow money for one day, present the entire amount to the creditor, but ask to return the part that is borrowed for a day. I did so, and the man, without a single word of reproach or discontent, went to meet me and agreed to wait "for at least a week, at least two." My reputation was not only not affected, but also significantly strengthened.
85. This is a very wise and pretty rule today is not always respected. Morally developed people submit to it intuitively, but in their homes, companies of players who do not know each other and play games without the participation of owners are not so often formed. In practice (the 70s - 80s of the 20th century), it was more often necessary to observe the hosts, in which the players gathered because the hosts themselves were playing regular games, or those who "kept Katran" (the entrance was paid but was There you can have as many as you want, play with anyone). Naturally, if the owner takes money from the visitor for entry or a share from the game, he can not dictate to him the rules of behavior. It is difficult even to "abandon the house" to a person whose behavior or manner of play is not liked by the master. Accordingly, no responsibility, no moral, no material for the guest host did not carry. The owners of the club or gambling establishment, most likely, should be moral guarantors for the trustworthiness and good manners of the guests. But this is more true of the reputation of the institution itself: if it is a "gentleman's meeting", then it must expel members from its ranks who have been caught in fraud or involved in scandals, or "unethical" themselves leading, for example, allowing themselves abusive language, if this "Crimson raspberry", then there will only be heard abusive language, which in itself is considered the norm, as well as not every card fraud is considered in this circle as baseness, and those expelled from such a house can only be those who violated the code of thieves' honor , For example, were involved in cooperation with the police. The latter circumstance, understandably, can not serve as an excuse for expulsion from the house where police officers gather.
86. This requirement for a large game is understandable, because the replacement of one of the players in the game can be a way to bring in the game of a professional or a sharper. Thus, one day managed to achieve a "summary" (that is, to be reduced to play, by the way, in preference) in a small city in Central Asia. Small town, everyone knows each other, play with each other large (and very weakly!). A stranger in his circle will not be taken, but they will not play for sure. The professional had to come as a "classmate" of one of the weak (and most drink) players. At first he attended friendly meetings and drinking, but did not join the game, referring to "not a high class to play at such rates." Then a friend of his during one of the bullets got drunk to such an extent that it became impossible to play with him: he dropped the cards under the table, then fell himself. I had to "help my classmate" - he sat down to finish the bullet ...
87. The name of one of the oldest commercial games - whist - is derived from the requirement of silence: "whist" in English means "shh!", "Quiet!", "Silent!".
88. The general rule for kibitzer: they must be not only inaudible, but also invisible and always remember that the game is not for their pleasure and that they are only tolerated near the table.
89. By the way, this is the way in some pairs of professional "installers" the main means of conveying information on the number of cards in the suit: whether the card is horizontally thrown, by moving the brush parallel to the table, or vertically from above; With or without a word - there are four different types of trashing cards that allow you to identify each movement with one of the numbers: 1, 2, 3 and 4, corresponding to the number of cards in the stroke suit.
90. The right to this is due to the possibility of a mystical attitude of the players to the subjects of the game (for example, a man explained his bad luck by the fact that in his former deck there was an "unfortunate retinue" for him, and patiently waited for the end of the pellet to try his luck again.
91. If they themselves are deprived of prejudice, then they should not object to the change of the deck, as they are not convinced that there is any happiness in this or that pack, and new cards for playing are always preferable to playing cards. If one of the opponents himself holds the opinion that the deck influences the course of the game and that the former turned out to be happy for him, he should give way to the unfortunate opponent for reasons of nobility. Do not adhere to such simple ethical rules can only bile inhabitants of gloomy "cathars", but a person who is denied the change of the deck, there are two completely unpretentious ways out of an unpleasant situation: first, he can stop the game, which looks like the wisest decision, and Secondly, if he wants to continue to fight such an uncompromising and indecisive partner, he can "tug" one of the cards of a "happy" deck for a rival, crumple a card in his fist or even bite off a piece of the card, explaining his actions by the diffusion of the nervous System, in a word, it is in its power at any moment to make the cards unfit for the game and to be replaced. Generally speaking, personally I would be alarmed by the irresistible reluctance of a partner to change the deck. And I would, by force of character, check my assumptions in the second way. If the partner was very upset, and even tried to claim compensation for the loss, which he would appreciate many times more than the cost of an ordinary deck of cards, I would conclude that a spoiled deck brought happiness to its owner in some way known to him.
92. And that, surrender is necessary to finish playing under any circumstances. Remember, MA. Bulgakov in the "White Guard": "Gentlemen, Cards are surrendered!".
93. So, for example, happened in the story of Leonid Andreev's "Grand Slam", when the hero died of excitement, buying the right ace.
94. In general, according to the gambling laws, if one of the partners wants to postpone an under-played game (and does not want to admit to being defeated), he can do it at any time, leaving the partner with a security equal to the price of the undrawn lot (kush) or the value of his maximum Theoretical loss (if play preference "with a miscalculation", then the amount from the calculation). The duty to organize the game is on the initiator of the postponement. The opponent should not refuse to play out without sufficient motivation, which can serve: lack of time, mood, etc.
95. A player's request is mandatory for any observers, including a request not to look at the cards or even completely retire from the room. If the request is not fulfilled, the player can stop participating in the game, and the game will be thus upset. The player is not obliged to explain the motives of his request, but must express it in a respectful manner. In a professional game environment, in such cases, if the observer asks for explanations, it is enough to say: "In the opinion of".
96. The player, in turn, should not abuse his right to expel the kibitsers. He should be aware that the request to retire, unless, of course, the observer does not violate the rules of presence behind the player's back, borders on an insult: a person in an implicit form is shown distrust. The reasons why a player can demand removal of a kibitzer are as follows:
- Suspicion of the transfer of illegal information (in the lighthouse);
- Suspicion of secret participation in the game;
- expectation of a trick and unanticipated prompts for the player;
- hostile personal attitude.
The player banishing the kibitzer must expect a return charge in a dishonest game (which the kibitzer could expose, which, according to the kibitzer, is just the player's fear).
97. It is enough to enter the position of a player who may have nerves tense (it is possible that under the influence of a loss) to forgive him scrupulous quibbles, his suspiciousness or even inexplicable quirks (maybe it seems to the person that your presence is failing him , That you have a "bad eye"). Here the observer needs to show a certain indulgence and not to irritate the player even more. For anyone who understands in the game a colleague with cards in his hands is a "sacred cow", a taboo animal. "Regarding the same quirks, nehudo mention the prejudice concerning the" evil eye ": many people believe in the absurdity of this very seriously, and L. Mary wrote about this an extensive humorous article in the gambling magazine" Le Palamede "(1846), under the title" Comets "To fight such prejudices is completely in vain, and it is positively ridiculous to take offense at them."

Backward