[blackshoe]

Perhaps we should require pairs to take a written exam on their system before each game. If they don't both get a perfect score, they can't play.

[neilkaz]

This sounds very unethical to me, to put it mildly.

.. neilkaz ..

[EricK]

blackshoe, on Nov 16 2006, 01:34 AM, said:

Perhaps we should require pairs to take a written exam on their system before each game. If they don't both get a perfect score, they can't play.

A bloody good idea.

Even if it just had one question on it, "When is double penalty and when is it take out?", it would be worth introducing.

[cherdano]

EricK, on Nov 16 2006, 05:23 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Nov 16 2006, 01:34 AM, said:

Perhaps we should require pairs to take a written exam on their system before each game. If they don't both get a perfect score, they can't play.

A bloody good idea.

Even if it just had one question on it, "When is double penalty and when is it take out?", it would be worth introducing.

Tell me when you find a pair that will get this question 100% right in all circumstances.

[the hog]

One interesting point about this. I do believe that Free has every right to ask about the MEANING of the X. After all, if it IS penalty, then he would be insane to raise to 3S. So I disagree with the poster, Phil I think, who said this might be passing UI. It is silly to bend ove backwards to be ethical if this results in a disaster for your side. Not that in no way do I condone the rest of the questioning.

[glen]

The_Hog, on Nov 16 2006, 04:22 AM, said:

One interesting point about this. I do believe that Free has every right to ask about the MEANING of the X. After all, if it IS penalty, then he would be insane to raise to 3S. So I disagree with the poster, Phil I think, who said this might be passing UI. It is silly to bend ove backwards to be ethical if this results in a disaster for your side. Not that in no way do I condone the rest of the questioning.

Imo, Free was also okay to ask about the meaning of what 2NT and 3♣ would have been, once the person had "no idea" what the double was, since the person had additional information relating to the possible meaning of the double (knowledge of the 2NT and 3♣ meanings, plus previous partnership experience and any meta-agreements that the partnership may have had) that Free was entitled to before having to act. Of course it would have better for the player to offer up whatever he could to help Free, instead of just "no idea", but given that the player did not do this, Free was within his rights to ask the necessary questions to obtain the information.

However the suggestive "so it must be a penalty double" crossed the line from asking to get information to asking to produce a result.

[Codo]

Jlall, on Nov 16 2006, 02:41 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 15 2006, 02:18 AM, said:

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

No, falsecarding and pysching are not analagous. A better example would be if the opps ask you about your carding and you said standard when you play upside down. Would that be ok?

I know there is a law that questions must be relevant to your bid/play/bridge/etc. If your intent is simply to confuse the opponents and gain advantage by that then your questions are illegal. Others may not know your intent but you do, and that should be enough.

Right Justin, this is enough to make it unethical, I agree.
But unluckily, this is not enough to make it forbidden.

In any part of live there are possibilities, which are legal but not ethical. As long as noone can proofe which law Free broke, his behaviour was legal and unethical.

If you read frees story, and just change the end to:
I tried to help him to understand their own partnership bidding. I saved him from taking out the penalty double and they score a juicy 500 and a top. Yes, I received no good score but I helped them to improve their game and made them happy.

Won`t you applaude and say: Hey Free must be the son of Mother Theresa?

And if he tells you the same story, but the finish is: I just asked to get to know their agreements, yes maybe my last question did suggest that the double was penalty, but what else could it be? And I still asked them, I di not tell them that it was a penalty double. I am really sorry, but it surely is not my fault, that they don`t know what a double in this common situation is.

Do you have any tool as a TD to penalisze him for this?

No way. OF course, the last question was suggestive. But otoh, what could double be as you have a strong and a weak take out and some kind of Heart raises?

So in the given story you can call him unethical, give him names and throw sand in his face. I agree with all this. But you cannot penalisze him.