BRIDGE NOTES

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 21034, 9 December 1933, Page 9

BRIDGE NOTES

"ILLEGAL BIDS?" (SPECIALLT WaiTTß* FOR THE PBESS.) ' [By WILLIAM SHACKLE.] For some time there has been considerable controversy regarding alleged illegal bids, both at Home and in Europe generally, the idea being to make a call which is purely informatory illegal, if by that call one is purely stating that one holds certain specific cards. A serious attempt is being made to influence the various ruling authorities to alter the laws so that no bid can be made unless the bidder is prepared to play the hand in the declaration he names; ace showing especially is in this category of so-called illegal bids. Another stage in the campaign has now been reached, for a ruling has just been given by the British authorities, the Portland Club, to the effect that if certain cards are "named" in the course of the bidding such cards can be treated as "exposed cards," and a new deal may, note may, not must, be claimed by an opponent. The actual Question, together with the Portland Club ruling, is as follows: Law 43—Q. —If the players on one side have announced that they are using a convention under which a particular bid is to be taken to mean that the bidder holds some nameable card or cards, can the making of this bid be held to constitute a card exposure during the auction? A.—Yes, provided that under the agreed arrangement it constitutes a definite indication and not merely a probability (no matter how strong) that such a card or cards are held. It should be noted that the above reply is very carefully worded and one must not read into it more than is actually stated. Stress must be laid on the word "definitely," for that is the all-important point. "Cue" bidding may, for instance, indicate that a player holds such and such a card, yet it may not be possible for the opponent on the left of the bidder to know conclusively that the declarer does actually hold the card that the opponent imagines. For instance, one may bid. say, five spades over five hearts, after an opponent has bid four spades. This may seem to imply that ace of spades is hold, yet it may on the other hand, and it probably does, imply that one is bare-suited.

The Portland Club decision, therefore can apply only to situations which arise when there is no element of doubt in the minds of the opponents as to the specific cards named. In practice it will be found that such instances are very few and far between, and even when one seems perfectly positive that a bid "names" certain cards, it rests with the opponent on the left to ask for the enforcement of the penalty. Imagine sitting in to a game with a very respected member of one's club who has been dealt a "sitter" grand slam and who calls seven no trumps or seven of a particular suit as his initial bid and then meekly claiming a new deal as you were certain he held all four aces if he bid the no trump, or the ace of trumps if he had named a suit? To my mind it would be tantamount to either a declaration of war or suicide. It is probably an excellent, thing that these points are being raised, for every month such a crop of new conventional bids is being brought forward that unless the matter is taken in hand the game will lose its charm.