3 schools of negotiation ethics

When reading over the three schools of ethics I felt that I associated into the "its all a game poker ethics school". Before I began this course I thought that I would never have fell into this school. I fell  that I would fall into the "do the right thing school". During my first negotiation, I felt that if I did not get the exact deal that I wanted I lost. This was a bit of a rush, playing the negotiation as a game. When using this school, deception is key in order to gain the best possible outcome. When reading the synopsis of this school it is mentioned that bluffing is a part of this game. It is also mentioned that both sides may very well use this ideology. When I am in a negotiation I have the tendency to think that the other side is bluffing. This can either harm or help my negotiation. If I assume that everyone is bluffing I may be able to catch my opponent off guard and be able to find a more favorable deal. On the other hand, if I continue to try and catch people in a bluff I may miss out on key areas of the negotiation.
Like the poker school, I believe in the rule of law. I would not find it ethical to lie about things that may cause my counterpart harm. I find it perfectly ethical to bluff about price and other aspects in this regard. If it was something that may cause my counterpart physical or emotional harm I would be truthful. This school of ethics makes the negotiation more fun in my opinion and may lead to better results. I feel that this is the most useful as well in terms of the real world. I think that i will continue to use this approach in my future negotiations in both class, and the real world.