All News

2NT Opening: 20-22 or for the Minors.

Today, we have something a little different. The article has been submitted by one of our top players and directors, Patrick Carter. He picks up a theme which is very relevant to our game, that of when you and your partner are on different wavelengths as to the meaning of a bid…and you gather this is the case by either an alert when one was not required or a failure to alert when one was required. Interesting reading....

Patrick highlights 3 separate incidents from one recent night at Auckland/Northland Inter-Club.

“Some people who play a Multi 2 use the 2NT opening for a weak hand with at least 5-5 in the minors. They can do that because the 20-22 balanced hand is included in the multi. That idea is certainly not my cup of tea, but if you are going to play it:

1)            Make sure you remember your system

2)            If you partner’s alert or lack of alert makes you aware that they think you have a different hand,  do not try to take advantage of that information. Seeing partner’s alert or hearing their explanation are things that happen, but they are called unauthorised information. That means you do not let them affect your bidding. You have to continue as though you did not know anything about them.

It turned out there was a theme to Auckland Interclub in the Intermediate section. The first instance was board 6:

  

 

 

North opened 2NT in 4^th position and realised they were having a misunderstanding when partner alerted it. South bid their better minor – 3. North should have treated that as a transfer because it was unauthorised how South was treating their bid, but as directors have seen many times before, they unashamedly tried to tell partner what they had by bidding 3NT. (North should have alerted 3 as being a transfer.)

This board was nothing to worry about because if North had ethically accepted what should have been a transfer by bidding 3, South would surely have woken up. There could be no other explanation for the 3 bid than partner had a normal 2NT opening. In that case South would surely have bid 3NT and North would have been very relieved to pass. Note that if North had 3 or 4 hearts they would have been ethically required to convert 3NT to 4 because the only reason they would have known 3 was not really showing a 5 card heart suit was from the alert and explanation. North was so lucky that they only had 2 hearts.

But we were not finished. This was "lucky" board 13 in a different match:

 

 

North opened 2NT, but this time South thought it was the strong hand (no alert), East overcalled 3. South was not interested in penaties and bid 4 which West was happy to double. Once again the 2NT opener had unauthorised information. If their partner had alerted their 2NT bid and described it as the minors they would have thought their partner had a truckload of hearts and would have passed. But this North also rushed to try to take advantage of unauthorised information (no alert of 2NT) by bidding 5. This reminded South of their agreement and they converted to 5. The opponents decided not to double this, but instead went on to a failing 5 contract. At the end of the bidding, North explained to their opponents what 2NT showed. This in itself was an infraction since North -South were the defending side and no correction to what their opponents believed could be made until the end of the play. 

This time the director had to make an adjustment. If North had done the ethical thing and passed 4 that would have been the final contract. (Had North passed 4x in tempo, South still had the possibility of remembering their system, perhaps calling the director over their failure to alert 2NT and then bid a minor.) Perfect defence would beat 4x by 6 tricks, but the director thought it likely that it would only be down 5 and therefore adjusted the board to give E/W 1400.

Finally, at another table in a completely different match we had Board 27:

 

 

This time it was South who opened 2NT and North who alerted it. North bid 3 and once again the 2NT opener couldn’t wait to try to take advantage of the unauthorised information by bidding 3NT. When that rolled around to East, they counted their 15 points and decided to double. Not very successfully when South made an overtrick. This time the director had to say that if South had ethically treated 3 as a transfer and bid 3 that North would have been delighted to pass. The result of 3NT doubled with an overtrick for 650 points was therefore adjusted to 140 points for 3 making 3. It appears East was aware that North thought 2NT showed the minors before they doubled 3NT. It is unclear why, presuming their partner had 20-22, or even 5-5 in the minors, North did not run to 4 of either red suit. 

How do you get it through to an average player that when they obtain information from hearing an explanation or seeing an alert that they are not  allowed to take advantage of it?

It is easy to teach a soccer player that they are not allowed to pick up the ball. Why is it so difficult to teach bridge players that they cannot act on unauthorised information?

Having asked the question I will attempt an answer. It is because they are panicking. The question “What are my ethical responsibilites ?” is nowhere to be heard. Their brain is screaming at them “This has gone wrong. How do I fix it?” Subtle rules are just swept aside when you are panicking.”

Thus, a couple of major penalties coming because of actions taken at the table through alerts or failure to alert. Picking up the ball in football, in the penalty area, is very expensive, other than for a goalkeeper. It seems there can be similarly expensive penalties at the bridge table. 

Thanks, Patrick.

Richard Solomon

 

 

Go Back View All News Items