Ethical problem

[Free]

Yesterday we had a board where following happened:

 

LHO opens 2♥ which shows a weak hand with 5♥ and 4+m (Muiderberg), partner bids 2♠ and RHO doubles. We were Vulnerable, opponents NV. I held:

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sjt2ha875dqc86432]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]

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.

me: What's the double?

LHO: Actually, I have no idea...

me: What would 2NT mean?

LHO: That would be a strong relay.

me: What would 3♣ mean?

LHO: P/C for the minor

me: So it's a penalty double?

LHO: Yes I think so...

So that ended the auction. Partner made 2♠*= for a top, and RHO meant his double as takeout.

 

Now I wonder if my behavior is allowed or not (probably an ethical thing)... Please be honest, I won't mind. ;)

[hrothgar]

Yesterday we had a board where following happened:

 

LHO opens 2♥ which shows a weak hand with 5♥ and 4+m (Muiderberg), partner bids 2♠ and RHO doubles.  We were Vulnerable, opponents NV.  I held:

Dealer: West Vul: N/S Scoring: MP

♠ JT2 ♥ A875 ♦ Q ♣ 86432

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.

me: What's the double?

LHO: Actually, I have no idea...

me: What would 2NT mean?

LHO: That would be a strong relay.

me: What would 3♣ mean?

LHO: P/C for the minor

me: So it's a penalty double?

LHO: Yes I think so...

So that ended the auction.  Partner made 2♠*= for a top, and RHO meant his double as takeout.

 

Now I wonder if my behavior is allowed or not (probably an ethical thing)...  Please be honest, I won't mind.  ;)

I'm not sure which Law forbids this sort of behaviour, but I'm sure that there is one...

 

You have the right to ask the opponent's questions in order to get information about their methods. I don't know anything rule that permits you to ask the opponents questions in order to confuse them about what they are playing.

 

Here, you are admitting that you did so deliberately, and with fore-thought.

 

This is completely unacceptable.

[paulg]

Tough one to combat ... but I hope that you were actually the victims rather than the perpetrators.

 

p

[mikeh]

I understand the temptation you felt: who hasn't felt the same way? And the fact that the opps had no idea what was going on would have compounded the frustration: it is remarkable how often such doubles are not left in... the opps profess to have no idea what the bid means and then bid as if they knew exactly what was going on, leaving you as the one guessing. It all seems so unfair when that happens.

 

But that is NO excuse for your conduct. By all means ask what the double meant, if you want... altho merely asking the question risks passing UA to partner. But to go beyond that is inexcusably poor ethics. Did you enjoy getting your good board that way? I guess not, at least not completely, else you wouldn't have posted this question. Shame on you for your conduct (if it was you and not an opponent)

[keylime]

Free,

 

I hope you and pard didn't do this...these kind of things cause committees to be formed for bad outcomes....

[Walddk]

Shame on you for your conduct

I think you're much too nice, Mike. I'm disgusted and sincerely hope that I will never have to play against the perpetrator.

 

Roland

[Guest Jlall]

dude that is seriously messed up.

[Ant590]

I guess for the price of one bad board you have helped the opps iron out an area of their system that they had not considered.... if only you did it by accident tho :(

[pclayton]

I hope this is just something you thought up, instead of trying this at the table. Its pretty serious.

[jikl]

This is terribly unethical.

 

It is almost as bad as the pro-client thing I once saw where the pro deliberately made an insufficient bid to bar partner from the rest of the auction so the client couldn't get it wrong.

 

Sean

[the hog]

Frederick, this is a joke? Right? I hope so, or I hope it happened to you.

[inquiry]

The ethical problem is that you have to ask if this is an ethical problem.

[bid_em_up]

My first instinct sided with everyone else. After a little more consideration, I am not so sure that I still do, even though I find what was done to be repulsive, IF the facts are as stated.

 

However, the further consideration also tells me that you may feel like you have a legitimate raise to 3S and why raise to 3S if the double is for penalty? If this is the case, I see no problem with asking what the meaning of the double is. I see no problem with asking the further questions, as such. It is only the last statement where you say "well, it must be a penalty double then" that is an issue. This statement was out of bounds, imo. You had enough information already, the final comment was totally unnecessary.

 

As far as you are concerned, the double should be penalty after the explanations you have been given. But you really need to let the opp reach that conclusion themselves.

[jikl]

It is only the last statement where you say "well, it must be a penalty double then" that is an issue.

 

I have far more issue with this comment as to what he was thinking:

 

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.

 

This is absolutely awful.

 

Sean

[EricK]

Whatever the ethics of it, I think it is an incredibly ingenious idea.

 

And I note that the fact that it worked was entirely the fault of the opposition. I mean who would play an opening bid and not discuss what a double meant after the cheapest possible overcall? Really they deserve to get a bad board for that alone.

 

And it's not even the case that the plan was risk free. Suppose RHO did have a penalty double and LHO was thinking of taking it out?

[Guest Jlall]

And I note that the fact that it worked was entirely the fault of the opposition. I mean who would play an opening bid and not discuss what a double meant after the cheapest possible overcall? Really they deserve to get a bad board for that alone.

Suppose you plan to commit a robbery, and do so by checking who has left their front doors open. You find some sucker and his front door is open, what an idiot. You go take his sh*t. Is what you did any less reprehensible because you did it to someone who was negligent?

[EricK]

And I note that the fact that it worked was entirely the fault of the opposition. I mean who would play an opening bid and not discuss what a double meant after the cheapest possible overcall? Really they deserve to get a bad board for that alone.

Suppose you plan to commit a robbery, and do so by checking who has left their front doors open. You find some sucker and his front door is open, what an idiot. You go take his sh*t. Is what you did any less reprehensible because you did it to someone who was negligent?

In your example, the fact that there may be a robbery is the fault of the robber. The fact that this particular person was the victim was his own fault. So however reprehensible Free's action was, I still maintain that it is his opponents' fault that they got a bad score.

[jillybean]

I find this a little hard to believe, perhaps there is more to the story. If it is accurate I think it will be a first and last time.

 

jb

[pclayton]

And I note that the fact that it worked was entirely the fault of the opposition. I mean who would play an opening bid and not discuss what a double meant after the cheapest possible overcall? Really they deserve to get a bad board for that alone.

Suppose you plan to commit a robbery, and do so by checking who has left their front doors open. You find some sucker and his front door is open, what an idiot. You go take his sh*t. Is what you did any less reprehensible because you did it to someone who was negligent?

In your example, the fact that there may be a robbery is the fault of the robber. The fact that this particular person was the victim was his own fault. So however reprehensible Free's action was, I still maintain that it is his opponents' fault that they got a bad score.

No, this is more like a con or a graft. Its like flashing a $20 bill in front of a cashier to pay for a $3 drink , replacing it with $10 and getting back $17.

[EricK]

No, this is more like a con or a graft. Its like flashing a $20 bill in front of a cashier to pay for a $3 drink , replacing it with $10 and getting back $17.

But how is it a con?

 

By the answers LHO gave to the questions it seems he really did think they were playing penalty doubles. he just didn't realise he thought that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if RHO would have given the same answers to the questions and so come to realise that he shouldn't have doubled.

[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]

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:

 

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]

This is the key line from the OP:

 

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.