UNAUTHORISED

INFORMATION

One of the major causes of friction at the bridge table is the transmission
of unauthorised information, either during the auction or during the play.
Many players do not properly understand what is meant by the expression
and often have no conscious intent to pass information. Additionally,
many players (often good ones) do not understand the rules concerning
unauthorised information and make statements concerning it that are out
and out wrong. It might be useful, therefore, to look at the history of the
problem in order to combat it.
The first recognised form of transmitting unauthorised information
was known as ‘The French Defence’. Having played a lot of Bridge in
other countries, I consider this to be a slur on the honour of the French.
They are no more or less guilty of infractions at the bridge table than any
other nationality. In the early days of the ACOL weak no-trump opening,
however, it was averred that the French asked questions about the
strength of the opening 1NT bid, whenever they had values and did not
ask any questions whenever they had a weak hand and no interest in
competing. It was averred that this ‘defence’ became universal in France,
whenever the pesky Anglais invaded their bridge congresses. If it was
true that the question or lack of it made a statement about the merits of
their hand, then this was cheating.
A partnership may only transmit information about the merits of
their hand through the bids in the auction or the signals during the play.
Any other means imposes conditions on the partner of the player
concerned, whether the transmission of unauthorised information is
intentional or not. Examples of unauthorised or extraneous information
that may suggest a call or play to one’s partner are a remark; a question; a
reply to a question; an unexpected alert or failure to alert; unmistakable
hesitation; unwonted speed; special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or
mannerism. Whenever any of the above occurs, the partner may not
choose from among logical alternatives a call or action that could
demonstrably have been suggested by the extraneous information.
One often hears players remonstrating with others whenever they
ask a question and then ‘Pass’. It is completely wrong to say that one
shouldn’t ask questions and then ‘pass’. Any player has the right to ask
the opponents about any of their bids in the auction, when it is that
player’s turn to bid. Asking a question and then passing only becomes a
problem if the partner of the questioner then takes action that could have
been suggested by the question. The usual yardstick is for the director to
require that any action in the remaining auction or the subsequent play
taken by the partner of the questioner would also be taken by 70% of
players of an equivalent standard. Thus if partner asks the meaning of a
2response to an opening 1NT and you subsequently make the opening
lead of a , you could be on very sticky ground if this lead would not be
made by 70% of players of your standard. This is true even if partner’s
question was entirely innocent.
Another form of unauthorised information is to hesitate unduly
during the auction or the play. Once again this puts partner under the
obligation not to make any call or play that could have been suggested by
the hesitation. Taking the time to think in a difficult auction is entirely
understandable, but it can put a lot of pressure on partner to behave
completely ethically. Time and again there are borderline decisions to
make and if there has been an undue hesitation by partner at any moment
during the auction, then the player under the ethical obligation must err
on the side of caution. It is surprising how often a player takes the time
to consider whether he should ‘double’ or not during the auction without
appreciating that a subsequent ‘pass’ would put their partner under ethical
pressure. There is a simple rule of thumb in these circumstances – if you
have to think or hesitate during the auction then bid rather than pass.
Hesitating during the play occurs most often when a defender has
an Ace and is considering whether to play it when declarer leads up to an
honour or honours (particularly K J in the suit). If the defender elects to
duck after thinking for some time, he has passed unauthorised
information which puts partner under ethical pressure. It would be very
dubious if partner was on lead and returned the suit knowing that partner
had the Ace, if there was any other rational choice that could be made.
Hesitating when only a singleton is held is very naughty and should
not be done in any circumstances. Even if you are planning your discards
on subsequent rounds of the suit, do this after you have played your
singleton. The relevant law states:- A player may not attempt to mislead
an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a
call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in
which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct
procedure.
Unauthorised information can also be passed by facial expressions
of a player during the play (scowls, frowns, tutting etc. etc.) Often these
are inadvertent and no inference should be drawn. Indeed there have
been occasions when I have beed told that I have been frowning during
the play. This is not something that I am ever aware of – I am simply
trying to picture the distribution of the hand out in my head and probably
finding it hard work. There is no intent to suggest to partner that I am
unhappy with his line of play or want him to do something else, but there
certainly have been occasions when partner has believed this. If any
facial expression or tutting etc. is intended to suggest that partner is doing
something wrong during the play, then this would be cheating.

Frank Groome
(October 2009)