Ethical problem

[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]

<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:

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.

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.

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.

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.org/aboutrotary/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.

[Guest Jlall]

It is scary that the fact that the TD cannot bust free on this would make it "ok" since intentions can't be known. There a million things that you can do in bridge with impure intentions and get away with but I hope that people are not doing them. The fact is Free deliberately set out to deceive and confuse the opponents with his questions in an attempt to gain advantage. That is not the purpose of full disclosure and questions being allowed and as far as I know the game is not poker. In bridge you can purposely deceive with your bids or plays but not with what you say and what kind of questions and answers you give. It really saddens me that this has been called ingenious and essentially ok since intentions can't be known. Was it ingenious when people figured out to signal for the leads with their pencils? No, it was just sad.

[Guest Jlall]

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.

[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.

[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. :P

[neilkaz]

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

 

.. neilkaz ..

[EricK]

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. :P

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]

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. :P

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]

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]

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.