There is no escaping death and taxes, however, death is pretty well a cut and dried affair, whereas tax laws are subject to interpretation. Recently when I discussed estate planning my lawyer commented, ‘you just want to escape paying taxes.’ I replied, ‘no, I just don’t want to pay more than I have to.’ I have a new lawyer now. It is not a crime to ask questions and take advantage of loopholes that have been provided for the friends of lawmakers. The same applies to bridge laws. Why be a chump?
I am happy to pay my fair share of taxes, and I am also happy to follow the rules laid down by the bridge authorities with respect to full disclosure of my partnership bidding practices, but I don’t see why I should provide more than what is required by law, unless I choose to do so at my own risk. A bidding system is an imperfect set of guidelines. It is not defined by sharp boarders; there is redundancy and overlap. A good hand for a bidding quiz is one that offers 3 possible bids, all within legal bounds. A system is defined for the normal circumstances that arise most frequently, so a player may make an unusual choice when he feels the obvious bid is inadequate for the purposes at hand – in the same way for good reason he may choose an unusual lead.
We have to state the obvious again because of the Vanderbilt affair where the champions won a match on an appeal citing misinformation. This case is very interesting and significant, but before we get to that here is a problem hand from my local club.
Partner opens 1NT (15-17 HCP) and you hold: ♠ QT3 ♥ J ♦ KT652 ♣ Q842. How can you use the 2/1 system to explore the possibility of 3NT, when 2♠ is a transfer to clubs and 2NT is a transfer to diamonds? Most pairs were stuck in 1NT making 9 or 10 tricks. Those playing a weak NT could open a ‘natural’ 1♣, after which the path to 3 NT is cleared marked after responder bids 1♦ – there would be no need to distort the auction.
My partner suggested he should have bid 2♣ and followed with 2NT, invitational. Invite with a singleton heart? I do not like inviting without attempting to reveal the nature of the hand so that partner can make an informed choice. Here is my suggestion.
What are we trying to do? Reach 3NT. So, it is important for responder to reveal his minor suit orientation. This enables the opening bidder to show his major suit stoppers. As responder has help in both majors, he can pass 3NT. Lucky perhaps, but, as Jeff Meckstroth says, there is a bonus for making game. The players at the table rejected my suggestion on the grounds that the diamonds are longer than the clubs, however, I feel the minor suit concentration was the essential feature of the responder’s hand, the relative length of the suits being a minor consideration in a limited context.
Our 2/1 bidding system was an imperfect mechanism for arriving at the optimal contract. No system is perfect. It isn’t reasonable to consider system rules as inviolable and to adhere to system guidelines in the strictest sense under all circumstances. So, one may use Stayman without a 4-card major, or transfer into a 4-card suit, canapé style. Also, one may respond with a 3-card major, prefer a short major to a long minor, bid NT without a stopper, and so on. The point is that a player can bid around the system, as long as the opponents are aware of the uncertainties involved. It can be a mistake to claim, ‘we never do this’, or ‘we always do that’, when adaptability is the keyword. Such broad statements may punish partner for his initiative. An auction is not a simple game of show and tell. The purpose is to arrive at a good contract with all participants duly informed.
The Auken-Welland Appeal
During the 2013 Vanderbilt Roy Welland won an appeal on the grounds of misinformation. This turned a loss into a win, and the Auken-Welland team went on to win the event. The details are of interest to us non-experts, as there are many implications with regard as to how to play the game properly according to the regulations. Let the experts be our guides. Here are the hands for that famous deal.
The Norwegians employ a largely natural bidding system which to me implies a good deal of judgment and flexibility is involved. Helness held the type of hand I dread when playing 2/1, nonetheless a rebid of 2NT shows a flat hand featuring diamonds and the requisite number of HCPs leaving partner in charge of the auction. Helgemo was able to transfer to 3♥ to show length in the suit, and Helness interpreted this as a forcing bid denying 4 spades. He signed off in 3NT missing the 4-4 fit. Helgemo for his part thought Helness had denied 4 spades. He later admitted this was wrong. Bearing in mind that Helgemo might hold 4 spades while wishing to emphasize his hearts, Helness might have said that 3♦ usually denies 4 spades. That would leave left him with the freedom to bid 3NT if his judgment led him to do so. He could still bid 3♠ to show 4 spades if his holdings pointed in that direction.
There are combinations where playing in 3NT is better than playing in 4♠. For example, suppose Helness held ♠ xxxx ♥ Kx ♦ AKQJ ♣ KQJ. There are 4 inescapable losers off the top, and 9 winners, but if Helness must bid 3♠ because he has 4 spades, the pair will reach a bad game. The characteristic of this hand is that the concentration of HCP does not match the distribution: too much in the minors, not enough in spades. On the basis of probability Helgemo would rightfully expect better spades for a 3♠ bid. I suggest 3NT is a reasonable choice even when holding 4 spades. It could turn out badly, but freedom of choice is the fundamental virtue of a natural system.
Welland’s primary grounds for appeal was that he would have led a heart through the long suit in the dummy if he had been properly informed. There are two questions possible with quite different implications.
Question 1: Did the misinformation unduly affect the choice between reasonable alternatives?
Question 2: Given the correct explanations would the majority of experts have led a heart?
The committee asked itself Question 2 and rejected the appeal on the grounds that most experts would not lead a heart. This brings up an interesting point: a player is protected if the action taken is what the majority would do, but he is not protected if he uses his judgment to go against the majority, even if he is right and the majority are wrong, as they often are. This is largely a matter of judicial convenience which favors conventional behavior. Original thought is ever suspect notwithstanding that today’s blasphemy is tomorrow’s sermon.
Let’s consider the subsequent play. Auken won the first trick with the ♠A and advanced the ♦8. She had a second entry to her hand, so we may take it that this play was an attempt to obtain some indication from partner as to the best continuation after winning the ♥K. Welland’s play of the ♦6 was described by him as being encouraging in diamonds. He would have discouraged with the ♦T if he had known declarer could have held 4 spades. As it was he feared Auken would not switch to clubs, the suit he wanted.
If we apply the majority criteria to this explanation, would most experts given the correct information have encouraged in diamonds? No. Given a discouraging signal in diamonds, would the majority of experts with the North cards switch to clubs rather than persist in spades? I strongly feel I would have discouraged in diamonds and my partner would have switched to the ♣J, but, then, we are not experts.
Although the explanation of the bidding after 2NT was inaccurate the bidding was sufficiently informative that given a discouraging signal in diamonds, I feel Auken would have switched to clubs. She had available at the time a view of the cards in the dummy, so there was much more information to guide her than Welland had had on the opening lead. Given the encouraging signal she continued diamonds later which showed a lamentable faith in her partner’s signals. To encourage a hopeless continuation when you really want a switch doesn’t seem to me to provide sufficient grounds for complaint. Contrary to the committee opinion, I think Welland had a better claim for damage through influence on the opening lead. I like his choice, but the law doesn’t work that way. Maybe, in years to come after exhaustive computer study, a 3-card heart lead will become the universally accepted recommendation against 3NT.
All That the Law Allows
Auken-Welland have had a fabulous run recently in high profile international events, topped by their win in the 2013 European Open Pairs. It is fair to say that their success is due partly to their unusually aggressive bidding style in which many bids have meanings quite different from normal expectations. Opponents must be prepared to study the small print on their convention cards. Conservative commentators may be appalled but the law allows it. Here is an amusing example from Slutspil DM Hold 2013 reported on BBO where the opposition could claim to have suffered as a result of misinformation.
The opening 1♠ bid promised a distributional hand, and 1NT was a nebulous game force (according to their WBF convention card.) The saying goes, ‘come alive with 6 and 5’, but the lively Welland doesn’t have need for even that degree of encouragement. His hand is worth 27 Zar Points, so those who place great emphasis on distribution would not find his action in the least alarming. The red tens make this 6-loser especially attractive.
2♦ was a transfer to hearts, but Auken forgot this agreement and did not alert. Rather than reveal his fine diamond suit in an exploration of 6♦, Welland made the practical bid of 3NT. According to the BBO broadcast before the lead this information was offered.
Welland: I showed hearts Auken: I didn’t know that. Sorry.
A diamond was led and the heart finesse lost to the ♥Q. The contract can be defeated with a switch to a low club, which would be rather obvious if the defender had known the red-suited nature of Welland’s hand. Instead, diamonds were continued twice (Welland ducking once, ha-ha), so 3NT made comfortably with 2 overtricks. One might argue that Welland had obtained unauthorized information when Auken failed to alert and bid 2NT, showing a heart stopper and a lack of support for diamonds.
Income taxes are not always fair, nor are bridge laws. Bidding 1NT, then 3NT on 1=5=6=1 is unusual. Welland was not required to reveal his holding more than he had, but if Auken had known that 2♦ showed hearts, the subsequent auction would have been much different and it is most likely that more information about the 1NT response would have been forthcoming. Likely, but not proved. Nevertheless, saying you’re sorry doesn’t seem to cover it fully, does it?
PS I just witnessed this action on Board 30 of the USBF Women’s Final. After the auction 1NT (weak) – 3NT, Beth Palmer led the ♥4 from ♠ 9652 ♥ K54 ♦ A4 ♣ KJ72. She gained 11 IMPs for finding the killing lead from her 3-card heart suit. At the other table the ♠6 was led and declarer, given the timing, made 2 overtricks.