Deal Of The Week: November 14, 2024
RHO opens 1♣ as dealer and with favourable vulnerability you see no reason not to bid 2NT, showing the two lowest unbid suits, hearts and diamonds. Partner alerts (uh oh: unusual notrump is not alertable), LHO asks, and partner says 2NT shows "spades and another suit." Oh dear. What do you do in this situation?
Oh, and it gets worse. LHO passes and partner bids 3♠. RHO passes and it is your call. What's right?
The first thing to note is that when partner's explanation does not match your opinion of what your bid means, you must not correct partner or do anything to correct the error. Playing conventions comes with the cost of having to pay the price when you or partner forget. There are no do-overs in duplicate bridge, and nobody should expect the opponents to offer one when your side has forgotten a convention. So keep a poker face, act like you're trying for an Oscar and pretend partner's explanation is perfectly fine, and let the auction continue. Don't do anything that might wake partner up, such as:
Any of these and many more like them are liable to wake up partner to the problem. This might, and often does, happen, partner realizes "oh, I am confused, it should be hearts and diamonds, sorry." But you can't help make that happen in any way, and if it seems like you helped out in any way, the Director should rule against your side if there is a ruling to be made.
Here is the simple rule: when partner's explanation of your bid is mistaken, you cannot correct or indicate the error in any way, until the opening lead is faced if you are the declaring side, or, if you end up defending, until the cardplay has ended. Almost always you will need the Director, but whether the score will be adjusted or not will depend a lot on the specifics.
What actually happened on this one was that the player got up and walked over to where I was to have a chat. We talked about when to let the opponents know about the error and I warned the player that partner "may have picked up on the problem just based on you leaving the table to talk to me." "Can I bid one of my suits over 3♠?" asked the player. "Why would you want to do that when partner has chosen to bypass both your suits and bid spades?" I asked. "Well, because the explanation indicates that partner thinks I have spades." "But is the explanation partner made authorized information for you?" "I guess not." "And since there is no other reason to believe that partner doesn't have a long spade suit, what do you think is the proper call here?" Now the player slowly retreated back to the table, muttering something about "well, I think I have to do it anyway."
A few minutes later, the player called me over to the table. At the wrong time. The auction had taken an unexpected turn:
Having become defenders, partner STILL needed to be in the dark about the mistaken explanation until the end of the play. I told them to get a result and then we would discuss whether there was an adjustment needed and as they played the hand I took a quick peek at the hand records. Here was what declarer was up against:
I think North was trying to bail out in 4NT but South decided North had come alive and was shooting for slam. But with clubs breaking 2-2 and the A♦ located under the king-queen in dummy, declarer has four spade tricks, two hearts, five clubs, and two diamonds: twelve tricks! I returned to the table and watched declarer play tentatively, looking for alternate ways to play the hand and deciding finally that there was only the one hope, and making twelve tricks.
And by now the player who had bid 4♦ was aware that bidding on over 3♠ was not a lawful action. It's difficult for players to get this concept in competition. But 3♠ needs to be passed as though it is partner showing ♠AKJ75432 or somesuch, even when the explanation indicates otherwise. We can base our auction decisions on bids, and on the opponents' explanations of their bids, but not on partner's explanations, especially when they reveal something about partner's hand (that partner doesn't have the six or seven really good spades the 3♠ bid seems to indicate).
So, what would the ruling be? As often happens, no need for one. The non-offenders got to the best possible contract and made it. Nobody else bid the slam so they got a top for 1440. But....
If you want to be a stickler, there is a case for adjusting the score to 3♠ doubled, down seven, for 1700! West passes 3♠ and North, knowing the true meaning of 2NT, knows that there has been a problem and has an easy penalty double of 3♠. Had the slam been bid at another table, I would certainly have adjusted to 1700 for N-S. After all, the West player was told that bidding on over 3♠ was taking advantage of unauthorized information, and did so anyway. In 3♠ doubled, they get declarer's fifth spade and the A♦ and the opponents get the rest!
| Previous Deal | Deal Of The Week Index | Next Deal |