Last night, we played Risk 2210. My initial plan was to go into the water, so my starting units were spread out across the world. The idea behind this strategy is that you grab a Naval Commander and as many Naval Command Cards as you can to start the game and hope to get Hidden Energy. Then, because you're poised to enter all the water areas, you can get a bunch of free energy, and you can then bid higher to go first on Year 2, so you still control all those Water Territories, and you theoretically have a huge advantage right at the beginning of the game. The reason this works (when it does) is that Risk 2210 only goes for five years, so people don't necessarily have time to catch back up with you.
Now, when I laid my initial units out, I was necessarily spread all over the place. And the person who started in Australia was worried about what looked like a mass of armies just off her borders. So I assured her I had no designs on the land; I just wanted the water.
And then the people who went before me took some of the water territories and generally obliterated my forces on the Americas.
So now I didn't have position to reach all water territories, and I had to come up with a new plan. That plan turned out to be "take Australia, which I had claimed I had no designs on".
Now, I think this is relatively above-board. Risk is pretty much like Diplomacy, where you always have to assume everyone will do whatever's in their best interests regardless of what they've told you. But the person I backstabbed was annoyed about it. She sounded a bit like those dopes on Survivor who are always going on about how they play "with honor" and that's why they lost.
So, my question: do different games have different standards? Is it okay to deceive someone in poker but not in Risk?