Novel Features of Contract Bridge

The Question of Slams and Justifiable Over-Bidding Is Here Considered by an Expert

R. J. LEIBENDERFER

THE difference between the devotees of Auction and Contract Bridge is easy to define. Auction players will occasionally play Contract, but Contract players will not play Auction under any conditions. They claim it is a dull and stupid game, compared with Contract, and that they will not touch it. How times have changed! A few years ago Auction Bridge was hailed as the perfect game and now its former devotees call it "dull and stupid." "Le roi est mort; vive le roi." A new king has been crowned and his name is "Contract."

The fact that players, at contract, must bid for a game, if they wish to score it is undoubtedly the feature of Contract that most differentiates it from Auction. The bid for game forces every hand to its maximum contract and, as a result, you not only have the thrill of bidding up the hand but also the additional thrill of being forced to play your very best to make that maximum contract.

THE defense against high bids, in Contract Bridge, is frequently very interesting and offers many opportunities for clever play. The writer noticed two examples of this type in a recent game. The contracting side, without any opposition, had bid up to four odd in spades which their opponents doubled and defeated by one trick. In the other hand, also without opposition, the contracting side bid for a small slam in hearts which was doubled and defeated by one trick. If either of these hands had been played at Auction, there would have been no competitive bidding, no thrills and no opportunity for the losing side to protect its interests.

Here is still another hand where the contracting player had to do some quick and accurate thinking in order to make his contract:

No score, rubber game. Z dealt and bid three spades in the hope of shutting out an adverse heart bid and in order to warn his partner that his hand was worthless except at spades. A bid four hearts, Y bid four spades, B bid five hearts and Z bid five spades.

Now Z made this bid, not with the hope of making his bid but to prevent A B from scoring a sure game and rubber. On the bidding, and on his own hand, Z was quite certain that A B could score five hearts. All passed and A opened the trey of clubs. Z then took stock of his own hand and dummy's and saw that he could make five odd only by not losing a spade trick. There were only three spades missing, the king, jack and deuce. The lead of the trey of clubs undoubtedly indicated a singleton. Such a lead would hardly be made with only one trump so that A must hold at least two spades. He just as surely could not hold three spades for, if he did, he certainly would have doubled the five spade bid. It is also very unlikely that A holds the king and deuce of spades, for, if he did, he also would have doubled the five spade bid. Z figured this out very carefully and then played the nine of clubs from Y's hand. B played the jack and Z won the trick in his own hand with the queen. He then led the trey of spades and, when A played the deuce, he played the ace of spades from Y's hand, feeling sure that B held the singleton king.

HIS analysis was correct and his clever play was rewarded by game and rubber. It was a pretty hand, both as to bidding and play and a good illustration of how very important good play is at Contract. The ultimate trick is far more important at Contract than at Auction, so you must try to improve your play.

Another novel feature of Contract is justifiable over-bidding. This feature is not peculiar to Contract, for it also is an important feature of Auction, but its application to Contract, particularly in order to prevent a slam, is very different. The large premiums awarded to the side bidding, and making, a slam makes their prevention of extreme importance and one that most Contract players have so far overlooked. The reason for this seeming indifference is easy to understand. The penalties at Auction are usually easy to figure out in advance and are taken to save games only, so that the bidding rarely gets above four or five in such attempts.

On the other hand, players have not yet figured out with any degree of certainty what are, or are not, justifiable penalties for prevention of slams at Contract. The following example is a splendid one of justifiable overbidding to save what the player in question accurately figured a sure slam by his opponents.

No score, first game. Z dealt and bid one heart, A bid one spade and Y bid four hearts. B felt that he and his partner couldn't make four spades and yet he was very sure that Y Z could easily make four hearts, so, he correctly hid four spades. Z now hid six hearts, and A and Y passed. B was now confronted with two problems: first, was it a fair inference that Y Z could make six hearts? B's answer to this question was in the affirmative as he couldn't figure on a trick in his own hand and the fact that his partner had failed to double six hearts was a good indication that he couldn't take more than one trick. Second: if he should decide to bid six spades and so prevent the certain slam in hearts, how many tricks would he lose, and would the loss be a justifiable one? He should not lose more than one spade trick, one heart trick, one diamond and two club tricks or two diamond and one club tricks. If he should lose these five tricks, and take only eight, his contract of six spades would be defeated by four tricks, or a total of 600 points. On the other hand, if Y Z should make their little slam, they would score 500 points for the slam, 180 points for their twelve tricks and the estimated value of the first game or, roughly, 3oo points. In other words, B by bidding six spades would gamble a maximum loss of 600 points in order to save 980 points. After this analysis B's proper bid is undoubtedly six spades. Many a slam that is now being scored without much opposition at Contract will be blocked as soon as players realize the possible profit in this type of justifiable over-bidding.

THE feature of Contract that appeals most to many players, of course, is the bidding for slams. The thrill of making a single grand slam, after bidding it, more than compensates for an evening of otherwise worthless hands. Here is a hand which was recently played at one of the New York Clubs and handed the players the thrill in question:

No score, rubber game. Z dealt and bid two clubs, to show a strong all round hand of much greater strength than indicated by a bid of one club. A passed and Y bid two hearts, the proper bid with this hand, as he wanted to hold the bidding down low enough to show his diamond suit later. B passed and Z now bid four hearts to show his partner the sure game and still give him a chance to rebid hearts or show another suit. A passed and Y now bid five diamonds. When B passed, Z had the opportunity to indicate his spade ace, so he correctly bid five spades. When A passed, Y had a choice between bidding six or seven hearts and, as the bidding seemed to indicate all four aces, the bid of seven hearts was made. Needless to say, Y Z made the grand slam and ended the rubber in a blaze of glory. One or two hands of this type make enthusiastic converts to Contract, for they provide thrills, and thrills are what the majority of present day folks are looking for.