Evolution in Auction Bridge

R. F. FOSTER

Five Different Present Systems of Bidding, and the Five Reasons for Them

WHILE it is true that the game of auction bridge seems to be rapidly approaching its peak of popularity, it is also true that it is rapidly receding from any possibility of uniformity in the methods of bidding and play, especially in the bidding. In this respect history is simply repeating itself.

Old whist players will recall the days of the long-suiters and the short-suiters, when the dispute was carried on with all the frenzy of religious fanaticism. The long-suiters had the prestige of 150 years tradition, backed up by the greatest array of writers the world has ever known; "Cavendish", Clay, Pole, in England; G. W. P., Hamilton, Coffin, and Bunn, in America. The protests of the short-suiters, "Pembridge", "Mogul", and Mossup were eclipsed by the blaze of authority and tradition.

It was not until the American Whist League introduced duplicate, and published all the deals played at the annual congresses for the championships, that one could get at the facts. The published analysis of the results of slavishly following the long-suit theory ruthlessly exposed its fallacy, and the short-suiters came into their own by going to the A.W.L. congresses and winning the championships with the biggest scores ever made at those meetings.

It is difference of opinion that makes horse races. We seem to have arrived at a somewhat similar cleavage in the game of auction bridge, except that instead of two diametrically opposed systems, we have five, which have evolved from earlier forms. Two of these are concerned chiefly with the major suits, hearts and spades, two with the minor suits, clubs and diamonds, while the fifth is a compromise, aiming to bring together into one system what is lacking in some one of the others.

The first of these five systems is this: In the major suits, original bids shall be normally on five cards, and shall convey two kinds of information to the partner: First, that the suit named would be a desirable one for the trump. Second, that the hand contains at least two sure tricks, at least one of them in the suit named, which may be depended upon for defensive purposes if the other side get the contract.

THE second is: In the major suits, bids shall convey only one kind of information; that the suit named normally contains at least five cards, with a minimum of two sure tricks in the hand somewhere or other. This is to allow bidding long weak major suits when the rest of the hand is too strong to pass; but if there is no trick in the suit named, there must be a minimum of three tricks in the other suits. This is an important condition.

System number three demands that, in the minor suits, original bids shall show at least four cards in the suit named, at least one sure trick in that suit and a minimum of two sure tricks in the hand for assisting or defensive purposes; but the bidder is not anxious for the minor suit to be the trump if the partner can suggest anything better.

The fourth system is: In the major suits, original bids show nothing but the two sure tricks in the hand, at least one of them in the

suit named. There is no guarantee of any length in the suit named, and it is not wanted for the trump if the partner can do anything better. The important thing is the immediate showing of assisting or defensive strength, and indicating a lead.

The fifth is: Bids in any suit, major or minor, convey no information except that there are at least four cards in the suit named, and two sure tricks somewhere in the hand. As every hand must contain some suit of four cards, every hand that contains two sure tricks must have a bid. If the hand contains two suits of equal length, the higher rank is selected, regardless of its strength.

Taking these five systems in order, it will readily be seen that each presents opportunities for bids which others do not, and that with the exception of No. 5, there are many hands containing two or more sure tricks which cannot be shown under any of the first four systems.

If we take a few examples from the works of our best known writers on the game, it will be seen that all systems agree on simple hands, but the difficulties increase as the hand becomes more complex. For instance, in these two:

All five systems agree upon these. In A , the two sure tricks and the length in cards are in the same suit. In "B", at least one of the two sure tricks is in the suit named, which is also the longest suit. But take the following, from Whitehead, page 27:

In "C", Whitehead adopts the No. 2 system, and bids a heart. If the partner imagines it is a No. 1 system bid, and leads a heart as the best defence if the adversaries get the contract, he is deceived, as there is no defensive strength in hearts. The same is true of "D", and if adversaries get the contract in spades, there is no defence in either major suit.

Neither of these will permit a bid under systems No. 1 or 3, but No. 4, which cares nothing about length in minor suits, has a strong diamond bid on "C", and a strong club bid on "D". System No. 5 will bid a heart on either. The advocates of the No. 4 system, to which William Dalton .of England is thoroughly converted, regard these as a species of "approaching bids", making it easy for any player to overcall them, and so locate either partner's or opposing strength.

It is when we come to the dividing line between length combined with strength in minor suits and strength alone that the Whitehead system fails us. He tells us there is no bid even for the second hand, dealer having passed, on these hands:

"E" is not a heart bid, because there are not three sure tricks in the hand to compensate for the weakness in the suit named. In "F" there is not length enough in any suit to bid.

IN "E", there arc five tricks on the double valuation system of counting, that might be useful to the partner if he knew he would find them in his dummy. Without this knowledge, if there were three passes, he would require a very strong hand, or more nerve than good j udgment, to open the bidding. Fourth hand might do it in a radio game, with eleven losing cards in his hand knowing the hand was fixed up to come out all right in the end, but not otherwise.

"E" is not a bid under systems 1, 2, or 3, but is a club bid under system 4, and a heart bid under system 5.

"F" is not a bid under any system but No. 3, because the strength is in the short suits and they are neither of them minor suits. The minor suit systems confine themselves to suits that are not wanted for the trump. Any player using either No. 3 or 4 who names a major suit shows both length and strength, and is bidding the No. 1 system always in major suits. It is in hands of the "F" type that Ellis Jones meets conditions that no other system meets, as explained in the January number.

Here are two types of hands, which, if uncommon, still should be provided for, if a player is to have a system, and wants one that will win oftener than it will lose.

(Continued on Page 104)

(Continued from page 75)

"G" is a heart bid under systems No. 2 and 5. There is no bid under No. 3 system, as the minor suit is too short. It is a club bid under No. 4, as an approaching bid. Players who adopt this system go on the principle that one should never pass up a hand with four, five, or six tricks in it, at double value, if there is any way to show them, as passing leaves the partner under an entirely mistaken impression. He imagines or fears weakness where there is actually strength of considerable value.

"H" is a heart bid under No. 5 system; a club bid under No. 4. This call may astonish some players, but it has what H. H. Ward calls the greatest advantage possible in the game: hearing what all the others have to say before making a final decision. Some players call it "Bidding a club and listening in".

The "H" hand came up in a game on the Pacific Coast last year and the opening bid by the dealer of "One Club" gave rise to considerable discussion. The hand was held out and the remaining thirty-nine cards distributed to the three other hands, to see the result of the club bid, transposing the hands so as to give the dealer each of three in turn as his partner's. Some three hundred trials made by a class in Pasadena failed to find anything wrong with the club bid. Here is the original distribution, which developed some rather interesting points.

The dealer bid a club; second hand, no trumps, taken out by fourth hand with two spades. The dealer laid down his ace of clubs, following the rule that if you do not lead the suit you bid, the card led (in any of the other suits) is a singleton. Winning that trick, he went through dummy's diamonds. His partner won the trick and returned the club, which the dealer trumped. Now the ace of trumps saves the game.

Here is a deal that came up in the first large duplicate game played in California:

According to systems 1, 2, 3, or 4, he bids a diamond, as the No. 1 and 2 major-suit systems include the No. 3 system for miner suits, as a rule, four cards being enough. Under No. 5 system, this is a spade bid, the higher ranking of two four-card suits. Second hand bids two hearts. If left in, he goes down one, with eighty honours, 80—50=30.

If the dealer starts with a spade, his partner goes to two over the hearts, and can make two if left in. If they go on with the hearts the contract is set. Played at spades a heart is led and the club queen comes through. The third round of clubs is trumped. The third heart is trumped with the nine of spades, both dealer and partner discarding diamonds. The rest is obvious, as the clubs force the last trump after the trump finesse wins.

Played at hearts, the third club is trumped. The ace of trumps is held up until the second round. The fourth club is trumped and the diamonds cleared, but two spades make.

The player who uses the "club, and listen in, system" on this hand bid a club, instead of a diamond. Second hand bid two hearts and third hand two no-trumps, on the chance that his partner held ace king of clubs. It is a game hand at no-trump, with 40 aces, as five clubs, two spades, a heart and a diamond make. This means a difference of nearly 300 points between that and only setting A and B one trick at hearts.

ANSWER TO THE JANUARY PROBLEM

This was the distribution in Problem XCI:

Hearts are trumps and Z leads. Y and Z want six tricks. This is how they get them:

Z starts with the three of clubs and Y passes it up, allowing the queen to win. If B now leads a spade, Z trumps it, leads the ace of diamonds and follows with a trump.

If A discards a diamond, Y can get in on the club and lead through B's diamonds. If A discards a club, both Y's clubs are good. If A discards the spade king, Y sheds a club and B a spade. The club puts Y in, forcing B to give up the best spade or unguard the diamonds.

If B leads a diamond instead of a spade at the second trick, Z wins with the jack and leads the trump. Then all three players will discard spades. Z leads another trump, and the same position arises as when B led a spade and Z trumped it.