Systems of bidding at contract

R. J. LEIBENDERFER

In which an expert compares the merits of the Vanderbilt Club System as against the English and Culbertson Systems

The bidding, and play at the recent AngloMnerican Duplicate Contract Bridge Tournament, in London, was most illuminating. As Vanity Fair's readers already know, the American team, captained by Ely Culbertson (and using the Culbertson system) defeated the English team, captained by Lieutenant Colonel Buller, by 4845 points in a match of 200 hands. Mr. A. E. Whitelaw, one of the best known English writers on Contract, said, in writing of that tournament:

"On examining the 200 hands played at this International Bridge test. I find that, if the Vanderbilt Club Convention had been used by the English players, it would have resulted in the defeat of the American team by over 2.000 points."

This was such a sweeping statement that I decided to give the hands a pretty close analysis. Mr. Whitelaw agreed that, in 185 of the hands, the results were more or less even, but lie also cited fifteen pivotal handon which lie claimed that the English team, if it had been using the Vanderbilt Club Convention, on those hands alone, would have scored 7215 points more than it did with its own system. After a careful examination of those fifteen hands, I can only find a gain of 5890 points in favor of the Vanderbilt versus the English bidding. Sufficient, however, to have won the match for England. Eight of those fifteen hands were particularly interesting. A comparison of the actual bidding of them, under tinEnglish system, the actual Culbertson bidding of them and the (theoretical I Vanderbilt Club bidding of them will prove instructive to Contract players, irrespective of the systems they follow.

In making these comparisons of the eight hands in question, I am not attempting to prove the superiority of am one system over another. An English authority has made a statement, and l have checked it. It should also he realized that the scores of the English and Culbertson teams were made under the stress of actual competition, while the scores credited by me to the users of the Vanderbilt Club are theoretical. I feel, however, and Mr. Vanderbilt has agreed with me, that the bidding indicated would be the natural bidding under the Vanderbilt Convention and, therefore, indicative of the probable results.

As the Culbertson System and the Vanderbilt Club Convention are so well known to readers of this magazine, no summary of the systems will be necessary, in either case. The system used by the English team also requires very little comment. Lieutenant Colonel Buller is a believer in common sense bidding, and he and his team refused to adopt or follow any definite system. As he himself said:

"If I hid 'Two Spades' over an adversary's 'One Spade', or if I bid a weak 'One No-Trump' over my partner's suit call (to show that I have not normal support in his suit) I object to being told that I am playing the 'Culbertson System' or any other system. I am merely playing cards. The suggestion is that my team lost the match because we were not playing 'Culbertson.' We were. But Mr. Culbertson and his team were also playing 'B idler.' "

Here follows an analysis of eight of the pivotal hands. Readers may care to analyze them for themselves. This is hand No. 11.

Dealer—North. Vest and East are Vulnerable.

The English bidding of the East and West hands was as follows:

(North and South never bid at all)—East —one spade—West—four spades, and all passed. The Culbertson team bid the same hands as follows:

East—one spade—West—three clubs (a forcing bid)—East—six clubs. Result—7 spades by the English team and 7 clubs by the American team.

The proper bidding, by a pair using the Vanderbilt Club, would be:

(North and South never bid I East—one club—-West—two clubs (showing two or more quick tricks)—East—three clubs—West— three hearts—East—three spades—West— four clubs—East—four hearts—West—five spades—East—six clubs, and all pass. Result: six clubs can be made against any opening, and seven clubs, if diamonds are not opened.

(It should be explained that, in scoring this 200 hand duplicate match, winners of a game were credited with 300 points, if not vulnerable, and with 500 points, if vulnerable. Slams were counted in the usual way.)

The resultant scores of the three teams on the foregoing hand, therefore, were:

English Team: 770 points: (120 for trick-, 500 for game, 150 for 3 extra tricks).

Culbertson Team: 1420 points: (120 for tricks, 500 for game, 750 for slam and 50 for extra trick).

Vanderbilt Club: 1370 points: (120 for tricks, 500 for game, 750 for slam, and no extra trick, if diamonds are opened).

Hand 20. Dealer—East. Both Vulnerable. East and West never bid. English: South— one diamond—North—two diamonds—South —three no trump.

Culbertson: South—one diamond -North— two no trump—South—three clubs—North— three diamonds—South—three no trump.

Each team made a little slam.

Vanderbilt Club: South—one club—North —two no trump—South—three diamonds North—three no trump—South—four clubs -North—five diamonds—South—six diamonds.

Resultant scores:

English Team: 755 points: (105 for tricks, 500 for game, 150 for 3 extra tricks).

Culbertson Team: 755 points: (Same as English team).

Vanderbilt Club: 1370 points: (120 for tricks, 500 for game, 750 for slam).

(Continued on page 86)

(Continued from page 76)

Hand No. 22. Dealer—West. South and North Vulnerable.

English Bidding: (North and South never bid). West—two diamonds— East—four no trump.

Culbertson: West—one diamond— East three no trump—West—four diamondsEast—six diamonds. Each team made a little slam.

Vanderbilt Club: West—one no trump (showing a stopper in four .suits) — East—four no trump—West— fix e diamonds East—six diamonds. Result: six diamonds against any opening.

Resultant scores:

English Team: 540 points: (140 for tricks, 300 for game, 100 for 2 extra tricks).

Culbertson Team: 920 points.

Vanderbilt Club: 920 points.

HAND NO. 126

Dealer—West. South and North Vulnerable.

English: West—two no trump and all pass. Mr. Lightner, silting North, made the very clever opening of the queen of clubs, and West only took two tricks, due to bad discarding.

Culbertson: West—one spade— North and East—pass—South—two clubs—West—double—North—pass— East—two spades—South—pass—West —three hearts—North-—pass—East— four hearts and all passed.

Result: down two.

Vanderbilt Club: West—one club— North—pass—East—one diamond (less than two quick tricks)—South—two clubs — West—two spades—North — three clubs—East—pass—South—pass —West— three hearts—North—pass— East—three spades, and all pass.

Result: down one.

Resultant scores:

English Team: minus 300 points: a six-trick penalty at 50 per trick, not vulnerable.

Culbertson Team: minus 100 points: a two-trick penalty, not vulnerable.

Vanderbilt Club: minus 50 points: a one-trick penalty.

In the next issue of Vanity Fair, four more of these interesting hands in Contract Bridge will be published as a separate article.