|
|
|
||||||||
In a new series of articles, we plan to look at some situations which many players find baffling. Suppose partner were allowed to use every shrug and gesture you make to deduce things about your hand. The auction might commence - sniff, sniff, sniff, sniff (I have four points partner), scratch, scratch (two spades), tap the foot seven times (seven card heart suit), and so on, finally getting across to partner exactly what you have. Few people would want the game to be like this, and so there is a simple rule - you are only allowed to get information from legally made bids, and the play of the cards. Any other information from partner, such as sniffs, winces, alerts and so on, is unauthorised. If you use that information, the director may have to adjust the score (he lets the play continue, but may adjust at the end of the hand).
Let us look at a common problem sequence:
|
|||||||||||
Unopposed, you bid 1NT-2
-2
-3-P. It's clear
what went on in this auction - partner forgot you were playing
transfers. One can picture it at the table - partner woke up to
what was happening when you alerted 2,
and you realised because partner looked flustered, perhaps even
gasping when you alerted 2.
In this situation, both players are in possession of unauthorised information - you are not allowed to know that partner has forgotten the system, and partner is not allowed to know that you are playing transfers, unless it becomes absolutely clear from the bids alone.
Of course both of you do know what has happened, but
must carry on bidding as though you do not. You should imagine
that when you alerted 2, partner had
nodded, and said `that's right, we play transfers.' Your
partner should imagine that you had not alerted the bid, and
had explained that 2 was natural.
So what should have happened? Over 2, partner should have assumed that opener had opened 1NT
with a five card heart suit, and should have passed the 2 bid - why else would you remove 2? (If you had told opponents that 2 was a weak takeout in diamonds isn't that what
2 would mean?) Thus with three card
heart support it is quite clear to pass 2.
What should you do over 3? With
partner sagely nodding at every point, you would think it was
clear that he had hearts and diamonds. There is no way that
with three hearts and only two diamonds, you would let him play
in 3. You would probably jump to 4 to show an above minimum hand with three
card heart support.
The director should definitely adjust the score in this
situation. But what should he adjust it to? 2 or 4?
It might seem logical to say that partner should have passed
2, and so that is where you should
play. However, the rules are not so generous. The fact is that
partner did bid on over 2, and you are
not allowed to get a better result than you might do by using
unauthorised information. If partner had used the unauthorised
information and you had not, you would have played in 4. The correct decision is to look at both
options and award the worse one. So in this case, you must play
in 4, and the director must work out
how many tricks he thinks it would make, giving the benefit of
the doubt again to the defenders.
AQxx
KQxx