My son had a problem recently with a classmate who was acting very aggressively when they played tag. Whenever it was this little boy’s turn to chase the kids, he always ran after my son to tag him out first.

“It really hurts my feelings,” my 8-year-old son said.

“Well, son, tell that kid you won’t play with him anymore if he continues to come after you all the time,” my husband said while trying to console our son.

“Why doesn’t he play fair, dad?” my son kept asking with watery eyes. “It’s just not right.”

“Son,” my husband said firmly. “Some people won’t play nice, and when they don’t, you just shouldn’t play with them.”

“OK, dad,” my son said. He stopped playing tag with that little boy.

If only adults could follow the advice my husband gave our son. We often can be complicit with companies that don’t treat us fairly. For example, credit card companies often don’t play nice when you hit a financial rough time.

Actually, they frequently don’t play fair even when we do everything according to their terms. Take “universal default,” for instance. It’s an industry practice in which the credit card issuer reserves the right to hike your interest rate if you are late or overextended on another credit account.

Then there is the practice of two-cycle billing. Under this method, the interest is calculated on the balance you carry over the previous two months. In a simplified example, let’s say you start the first billing cycle with a zero balance and then charge $1,000. You make a payment of $900, leaving you with a balance of $100. You would expect to pay interest only on that remaining balance. However, with a two-month billing cycle, you pay interest not only on the $100 balance, but also on the $900 from the first month. Even though this is unfair, many consumers carry cards that bill them this way. Why?

Most recently the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations took a look at certain credit card industry practices. Executives from several credit card companies were summoned to Congress in January and again for the subcommittee hearing this month to defend outrageous fees and interest rates.

The subcommittee panel brought in one consumer, Wesley Wannemacher of Lima, Ohio, who testified that he got a Chase credit card in 2001 to help pay for wedding expenses. His limit on the card was $3,000. He charged $3,200.

Eventually, Chase charged Wannemacher $4,900 in interest, $1,100 in late fees, and $1,500 in over-limit fees. He was hit 47 times with over-limit fees, although he only went over his limit three times. After making $6,300 in payments since 2001, he still owed $4,400 as of last month.

Just before the hearing in which Wannemacher was to testify, Chase decided to forgive his remaining $4,400 in debt. Why did it take so long for someone at the company to see that the methods that resulted in the charges and fees imposed on his account were abusive?

“We blew it,” testified Richard J. Srednicki, chief executive of Chase’s card services division. “Our policies and procedures failed, and we deeply regret it.”

It’s great that Wannemacher’s remaining debt is going to be wiped away. But what about other consumers who have been similarly overcharged? Will Chase – and other issuers – also wipe out the excessive fees imposed on other customers?

“We look at any situation in which we have made a mistake,” said Paul Hartwick, a spokesman for Chase. “We think that we are pretty fair and responsible in the way we deal with our customers.”

Some credit issuers say they are ready to change some of the practices that have been criticized. Citigroup has announced it will get rid of its universal default practice. Chase Card Services has promised to eliminate excessive over-limit fees. The company will stop over-limit fees at 90 days. These changes are good, but they’re not enough. Part of the problem is that far too many consumers won’t be able to play the credit game wisely because the rules are convoluted. In a report released last year, the Government Accountability Office found that while millions of consumers use credit cards, many are confused by their own credit card agreements.

“I don’t believe that the average consumer understands it, believes it, thinks it’s fair, and I don’t either,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Granted, Wannemacher should have paid his bill and should not have gone over his limit. Clearly, as he even admitted, he wasn’t prepared to handle the downside of the credit game.

Just as with tag, if playing the game means you have to subject yourself to unfair and excessive treatment, it’s time to stop playing.