[helene_t]

From the international bridge laws in Dutch (NBB site)

73.D.2 (page 90): "Een speler mag niet proberen een tegenstander te misleiden
door woord of gebaar [.....]" (A player is not allowed to try to mislead an opponent by means of word, facial expression etc.)

The kind of misleading thought of here is usually misleading with respect to the player's own holding. But I see no reason why it can't be used here.

I might be wrong, but as others have noted, there must be some law that disallows this kind of behavior. I certainly hope it's a joke.

[1eyedjack]

I am surprised by the level of feeling that the OP has generated against the action taken.

When he first asked for the meaning of the double he was in doubt about whether to raise. If the answer to that question was irrelevant to the actions that he had in mind, then I would tend to concur that it is inadvisable to enquire. But that is not the case. If you are considering raising Spades then you would certainly be minded to pass if you are advised that the double is penalties - and there is plenty of scope for that possibility.

I know that I have been caught out in the past when I have raised partner after an "obvious" takeout double turned out to be penalty at the level below. Yes, you may have some protection from the alerting regulations (depending on how they operate in the particular jurisdiction), but I do not like to earn a reputation as a barrack-room lawyer to rely overly on correct alerting when a simple question can clarify it.

When he first raised the question, he had no reason to suspect that the response would be "don't know" (indeed that response must have come as something of a surprise). This is I believe a subtly different situation from "no agreement". They are playing an artificial convention in which an agreement is to be expected, and the doubler (at the time of doubling) would certainly have expected his partner to interpret the double correctly.

Just because opener doesn't know the meaning of the double, does not mean that it can no longer be for penalty. 4th seat has some protection from misinformation in these cases, but that protection might be limited if he deliberately takes (from among alternatives) a course of action that relies solely on that protection. It is I think reasonable for him to try to work out whether the double is likely to be takeout or penalty based on the totality of the partnership methods.

So, in my opinion, the subsequent questions are relevant to the bridge actions that 4th seat might make, even if part of the motivation may have been gamesmanship.

It is also far from clear to me that the additional questions are likely to influence opener in favour of passing a take-out double. Assuming honest motives on the part of 4th seat enquirer, the actions of 4th seat appear to depend on opening side's methods. That would seem to indicate that at least one of the possible actions that 4th seat is considering is OTHER than Pass. Those other actions might include: to raise overcaller, if the double is for takeout, or to rescue to another suit if the double is penalty. I don't see that the asking of the further questions is much help in resolving those options in the mind of opener.

So, if unethical, I would rate it the equivalent of doing 80 in a 70 zone on a clear motorway.

[jikl]

Quote

When he first asked for the meaning of the double he was in doubt about whether to raise. If the answer to that question was irrelevant to the actions that he had in mind, then I would tend to concur that it is inadvisable to enquire. But that is not the case. If you are considering raising Spades then you would certainly be minded to pass if you are advised that the double is penalties - and there is plenty of scope for that possibility.

This is the key line from the OP:

Quote

I was thinking of raising until I found a better idea. I started to ask some questions, with the intention to convince LHO that this is a penalty double.

How are people getting past this line? It is clearly stated by the OP the intentions of his actions; this is highly unethical. Forget 80 in a 70 zone, try 180.

Sean

[1eyedjack]

jikl, on Nov 14 2006, 09:22 AM, said:

This is the key line from the OP:

Quote

I was thinking of raising until I found a better idea. I started to ask some questions, with the intention to convince LHO that this is a penalty double.

Point taken. Even though, whatever his motives, the questions may have had the opposite effect. Not relevant, though I agree.

This does bring into focus one curious point about the order of the original posting.

He says that he was minded to convince the opponents that it was a penalty double before even asking the first question, and therefore before any question of doubt about the double's meaning (in the mind of opener) became apparent. This shows remarkable insight by 4th seat, both in predicting that the double was in fact take-out as opposed to penalty, and in anticipating any doubt in the mind of opener. It causes me to wonder whether the events and their ordering are precisely as stated.

[Miron]

I don't understand the position of the majority of you.

Say it is unethical (I don't say yes or no, just assume it is unethical).
If Free opens this topic he obviously had not done this as intentional break of rules (ethical or the rule book). I don't think that you should blame him the way you did. Everyone can make mistake and if he's willing to accept it and teach from it, I see NO reason to write "I hope I will never play against him".

Second, I think that you are not allowed to lay questions to opponents to misguide them. There is a paragraph in the rules about this, but it was ment rather to other occassions*. In this case you cannot say if the result was a discovery way to know, what is the double or intentional conversation in order to misguide opponents. (Unless Free says he did it).
And by the way, isn't the liability of each pair to know their system (so they shouldn't be misguided).

* In common, rules solves things that can be solved, not some hypothethical possibilities. It is highly unusual that someone will call TD on himself for misguiding opps (in this case this law would apply).

I understand that some of you won't accept my view but I hope that at least some of you stop blaming Free. IMHO the situation is not that clear is you may be think.

Some final words:
You shouldn't intentionally misguide opps, but the opps should be able to protect themself (unless some beginners). So no harm done, but I agree that Free has commited unethethical action.

[paulg]

Of course it is the intent behind this line of question that makes this case obnoxious (for many of us).

However suppose that there was no intent. How bad is this questioning then? Perhaps, as others have said, it is only imposing your conclusion on the opposition when they have said no idea/agreement.

And how would you feel if you asked these questions, in good faith, and then get accused of appalling ethics.

So I think it is an interesting case without the stated intent.

p

[Free]

Apparently many of you wonder if it really happened the way I described. I held the hand, the auction was the same, and I asked all those questions. However, my intent to convince LHO of passing came up right before the last question as I remember correctly.

First I really wanted to know that I wouldn't raise partner when he was penalty doubled at the 2-level (V vs NV it can be costly), and since LHO didn't know, I wanted to have some certainty of what kind of double it was (I already thought it was penalty since most play it this way over here, but that's not a certainty). Problem is that the questions I ask at that point actually 'help' LHO follow a thinking process to figure out if this Dbl was takeout or penalty. However I admit that the last question is certainly over the top, since that one was indeed intended to actually make LHO pass. I'm certainly not proud of it. That's why I wanted to know, because, like Jilly points out, it was the first and last time. Like Miron said: I'm willing to learn from this. I hope you guys know me well enough to realize this is not something I do every day, not even once a year...

[Codo]

I think most of the comments mixed two issues:

1. How do we feeal about this behaviour? Ok, this is easy, we don´t like this.
For me, there are much worse scenarios then Frees. And hiding the own agreement f.e. is much worse, but okay, we all dislike his behaviour.

But there had been just few comments about the real question:

2. Is this forbidden and which § does this ruling? Just Helene had something avaiable, but I am not sure if just asking really fits into this scheme. And, to make things worse, if the offender simple states, that he just asked to clarify the bidding, there will be no way to make him pay for his "bad" thoughts"

As they say: All Thoughts are FREE.

[P_Marlowe]

Codo, on Nov 14 2006, 08:54 AM, said:

<snip>
2. Is this forbidden and which § does this ruling? Just Helene had something avaiable, but I am not sure if just asking really fits into this scheme. And, to make things worse, if the offender simple states, that he just asked to clarify the bidding, there will be no way to make him pay for his "bad" thoughts"
<snip>

Hi,

there are laws applying.
You have the right to ask, but you should
not bully the guy you are asking.
The bulling falls under "Zero Tolerance"
Wheter this already happend is a judgment call.

The point is:
He asked about the meaning, he got an answer.
He could have asked about further agreements
applying in the given sceanrio, and about the
special meaning of given bids.
He has the right to draw his own conclusion,
what the call of interest means, but at his own risk.

After the bord was finished, he could have called
the TD and he could ask for an adjustment, if he
thought there was UI involved, or he was damaged
due to missing explanation.

In the described scenario he did something different,
with the final question he did present a conclusion,
and asked, if the conclusion was correct.
The answer was "I think so", and the final result was
great for him.

Suppose in a different sceanrio the final sceanrio would
have been worse, he could have called the TD, complaining
the opponents did not know their system.
Should the TD correct the result?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[blackshoe]

I am pleased that no one voted "yes" on this poll. I am less pleased that some 9% voted "don't know, but I think yes".

The ethics of a game are defined by its laws. Is there a law that specifically prohibits this behavior? No, not that I can find. OTOH, there's no law that specifically allows it, either. Law 20 allows the asking of questions, but does not address intent.

The closest law I can find is 73E:

Quote

A player may appropriately attempt to deceive an opponent through a call or play

. Asking questions is not "a call or play". On the theory "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden", I'd say asking with the intent to deceive or confuse is not legal, and hence not ethical within the context of the laws of bridge.

[hotShot]

Questions always produce UI for partner, so you should only ask, if the answer really matters. Before raising a suit, knowing if the double was penalty is relevant, so it is ok to ask.

Quote

me: What's the double?
LHO: Actually, I have no idea...

Now this is a familiar scenario, LHO is unable to disclose the agreement.
But he does not say, that there is none! So it is ok to continue to investigate.

Quote

me: What would 2NT mean?
LHO: That would be a strong relay.
me: What would 3♣ mean?
LHO: P/C for the minor

Note that each question has been of the type:
What would XXX mean?
Up to here everything is fine.

The following question is suggesting a meaning, and it suggests to partner that you want to play 2♠, if it's a penalty double.

Quote

me: So it's a penalty double?
LHO: Yes I think so...

[pclayton]

Others around here give me guff about belonging to the Rotary Club. Believe it or not, I did, about 10 years ago. RC has a "4 way test" for business ethical situations.

http://www.rotary.or...otary/4way.html

1. Is it the truth?

A: I suppose this person wasn't lying, so check.

2. Is it fair to all concerned?

Absolutely not.

3. Will it build goodwill and better friendships?

No.

4. Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

No.


SO throw this player out on his ear, and keep his musk-hat and pledge pin!

[Codo]

Maybe I overlooked something, but there is still no law against bad intentions.
And this is because you have nearly no possibility to find out about the real intentions someone has.

And you are absolutely allowed to let the opponents believe something wrong.
The easiest examples in bridge are false carding or psyching.

If the opponents take wrong interferences from your questions, it is their fault, not yours. You made no improper statement. You made no statement at all, you just asked. Yes I know, that you can influence people just by asking the right questions. But again, there is no law against questions. (You have to be carefull because of possible UIs, but this was not the case here)

So I still believe, that there is no way, that you can stop the behavoiur, that Free pointed out by laws.

Of course I would hate people who behave in this way but I would find no way in the bridge laws to stop it. So it is not ethical for sure, but where is it forbidden?

[Gerben42]

So what if Free would not have written that one line and instead wrote:

"Since it was essential for my bid I helped opponent reach a conclusion about what he was really playing."

Then it would be okay, right? It is hard as a TD to find out which intention he had since both intentions fit the facts.

BTW, these Rotary rules don't really work in some situations. Sometimes you have to take unpopular decisions. You are allowed to feel bad about them, though.

[pclayton]

I think its still nefarious what was suggested. However, there's an outside chance with JTx or trump that the double really IS penalty, especially if the Muiderberg opener is looking at a spade void. 2♠ X'd may not be an appetizing contract.

If the subject hand have 5 trump, and made the same line of questioning, I think the jury would vote for a life sentence with no possibility of parole.

[akhare]

Looks like a blatant attempt to engineer the result by unethical means.

Why not just raise in tempo and hope to get a good result from the resulting X (if any)? Alternatively you can simply pass in tempo and hope that the X is left in.

[Vilgan]

This has been pulled on me before... and is probably one of the angriest times of my bridge career. Playing with a C partner who I was sort of mentoring (not that I'm a major veteran myself) I made a bid that he initially thought he knew until undergoing the 3rd degree from LHO who seemed doubtful (even though they knew it was correct). Then somewhat flustered he just lost his mind and made a wretched bid that gave away the board. It was hard to call the TD on (I chose not to), but it made me lose all respect for the opp who knowingly did this.

Also had people try it on me.. 2 NT p 5NT, rho says "oh, so that's invitational to 6 if you have a max?". From a top flight player? Come on.

Anyways, I agree that its unethical.. but its also one of the things that seriously pisses me off more than anything else. If people don't know their own agreements.. let them make the mistakes on their own. Knowingly nudging them in the wrong direction is one of the most inappropriate things that can be done imo... especially to newer players that are trying to remember enough as it is.

Eric

[EricK]

What Free did was unethical, but somebody needs to take a stand against pairs who don't know their own methods, especially in contested auctions.

Let's face it, his opponents placed him in a virtually impossible situation:
If his LHO was going to take the double as penalty he wants to pass, but if his LHO was going to take it as take out he wants to raise.

Most examples of opponents not knowing their system are bad enough, but when it is a double that they don't know the meaning of it is particularly pernicious because the two likely meanings are directly opposite to each other.