Unauthorised information problems as a player

Dealing with unauthorised information, at the table, as a player, can be very difficult. It is good for a TD to be reminded of this from time to time when playing, so we continue to treat with sympathy the ordinary player who fails to cope with unfamiliar unauthorised information problems.

Ordinary hesitation problems are not usually so difficult: usually the auction makes sense and so the logical alternatives are obvious. If you can not work out what is suggested by the unauthorised information, just bidding what you would have done without the hesitation will not be a disaster even if the TD subsequently adjusts the score. But if partner misexplains your bid, then you have unauthorised information (regardless of who has got the system right or wrong) and the auction is likely to get in to unfamiliar territory. Now it can be very difficult to determine what are logical alternatives, especially when you know why partner is bidding strangely. Now, anything you do could be a disaster: either because it is a silly contract or the TD has to adjust to some result that may be very favourable to the other side.

An example was the ruling last month where an opening Benji 2♦ was announced by partner as a weak two and raised to 5♦: opener was now in a position of trying to decide how to bid in a position that may not exist for this partnership, and also trying to decide how his peers would bid in a position where opinions may vary wildly. As a player you want to avoid a bad result, but you also want to avoid appearing to have taken advantage.

A hand from a match played privately

We played a very pleasant match half-way across the county yesterday. There was a delay at the start, so recognising me as a National TD, there was some discussion of the perennial topics such as psychic bidding and “the extended rule of 25”.

Early in the match, I was last to speak, vulnerable against not vulnerable, holding: ♠A ♥K ♦AQxxx ♣AQJxxx. The auction started 1♥ Pass 2♥, and I tried 2NT, assuming this showed a minor two-suiter. But partner did not alert and bid 3♥ (with the opponents wisely remaining silent for the rest of the auction). It seemed very likely that partner was transfering to spades opposite a natural 2NT bid, but opposite a minor two-suiter, 3♥ was probably a NT probe asking for something in hearts. So what were my logical alternatives? Possibilities were 3NT, 4♣, 4NT and 5♣. Crucially, was 3NT a logical alternative? If it was, I should bid it and it was likely to be a disaster. I decided stiff King could not what partner was looking for (I am not so sure now) and that only 5♣ fitted my hand. I was concious that 5♣ looked like “unauthorised panic” (following a call that partner has misunderstood with a call that repeats or reinforces the meaning of the earlier call) but I had convinced myself there was no alternative.

Now partner bid 5♠, so clearly he had spades and despite the unauthorised panic in 5♣, he had not woken up to the intended meaning of 2NT. But what was I allowed to think of 5♠? If was a control bid agreeing clubs, it could not be showing the Ace or a void; so it must be a spade suit. I thought that if Pass was a logical alternative, then I should pass because bidding was suggested by partner having misunderstood 2NT; unless I should interpret partner's auction as a slam try in spades, in which case 6♠ was a logical alternative that I should bid. 6♣ could still be a making contract and I wanted to avoid bidding it if that would look like “using” unauthorised information. But if I passed, and 5♠ was the last making contract, that might also look suspicious.

So I passed 5♠ and explained that I not intended 2NT as natural; the opponents seemed to say they had thought 2NT was a two-suiter. 5♠ drifted −2; partner and I muttered apologies and the opponents were content. Nobody seemed aware of the inner turmoil I had gone through during the auction.

At the end of the match, I told the auction to a team-mate; after thinking about the bridge problems, he said “and you were under some constraint”. I agreed.