Really, though - as much as bridge players live, breathe, sleep and eat to win - it is not the only thing. Winning if you've done so under a cloud is a bad thing. Sometimes, though, players will attempt to win by doing something that is not totally above board.
Not the Baldersons.
Within the last few weeks, I have played against both Cindy and Bob Balderson when they took "active ethics" to the highest level. In each situation, a Balderson (not playing with one another) ended up in a position where they had "unauthorized information"** due to a hesitation by their partner. Some people might have acted on that information.
But Cindy first, and then Bob a couple of weeks later, both acted just as they were supposed to behave. Knowing that they were not ethically entitled to that information, they did what was contraindicated by the information. And yes; in both cases, it cost them to do so.
As everyone in Minnesota knows, Bob and Cindy are talented bridge players who win frequently in a variety of venues. Good to know that you can be ethical and talented! The Baldersons sure are.....
**"Unauthorized information" is information that you get in a manner which is disallowed by the laws of bridge. You are allowed to get information from your partners' bids, or card plays - and you are allowed to make deductions from hesitations or pauses from the opponents. You are not allowed to use the information that you might get from partner's hesitations, or statements, emotions or any other type of extraneous information from partner.
