[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:

Scoring: MP

---

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]

Free, on Nov 14 2006, 12:57 AM, said:

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]

mikeh, on Nov 14 2006, 12:04 AM, said:

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

[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]

Quote

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:

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.

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?

[EricK]

Jlall, on Nov 14 2006, 05:06 AM, said:

EricK, on Nov 13 2006, 11:32 PM, said:

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]

EricK, on Nov 13 2006, 10:31 PM, said:

Jlall, on Nov 14 2006, 05:06 AM, said:

EricK, on Nov 13 2006, 11:32 PM, said:

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]

pclayton, on Nov 14 2006, 06:34 AM, said:

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.