Systems of bidding at contract

R. J. LEIBENDERFER

A further discussion of the relative merits of the Vanderbilt Club System and the English and Culbertson Systems

In the December issue of Vanity Fair I offered a few very interesting hands from the recent Contract Bridge tournament in London. As Vanity Fair's readers know the American team, captained by Ely Culbertson, defeated the English team in that tournament by 4,845 points in a match of 200 hands. I showed in the December issue that if the English team had used the Vanderbilt Club System of bidding they would have won the tournament. I think it will be interesting to add four more hands from the tournament as they are curious and intriguing, and to append an analysis of the actual results of those hands, as bid and played, and the theoretical results if the hands had been bid by the Vanderbilt Club System. Bridge experts will be glad, I think, of the opportunity of comparing the English, Culbertson and the Vanderbilt Systems of bidding as applied to these four hands. They are as follows:

HAND NO. 142

Dealer—West. South and North vulnerable.

English: (North and South never bid) West —two no trump—East—three clubs—West— five clubs. Result: 6 clubs. (South opened a heart.)

Culbertson: West—one spade—East—two clubs—West—five clubs—East—six clubs. Result: seven clubs. (South opened a diamond.)

Vanderbilt Club: West—one club—East— one diamond—West—two spades (a forcing bid, showing great strength)—East—three clubs—West—four clubs—East—six clubs. Result: six clubs.

Resultant scores:

English Team: 450 points: (100 for tricks, 300 for the game, and 50 for the extra trick).

Culbertson Team: 970 points: (120 for tricks, 300 for game, 500 for slam, 50 for extra trick);

Vanderbilt Club: 920 points: (120 for tricks, 300 for game, 500 for the slam).

HAND NO. 148

Dealer—East. Both vulnerable.

English: (North and South never bid). East—two clubs—West—three no trump— East—four no trump—West—five diamonds —East—six no trump. Result: down one trick.

Culbertson: East—one club—West—one diamond—East—one spade—West—two no trump—East—three no trump—West—four spades—East—four no trump—West—five diamonds — East — five spades — West — six spades. Result: down three tricks. This is one of the few hands where the Culbertson System got bad results, but the players, rather than the System, are to blame. A slam was contracted for after a series of minimum bids that showed optimism, rather than adherence to the System.

Vanderbilt Club: East—one club—West— two diamonds—East—three clubs—West— four no trump—East—five no trump. Result: five no trump against any opening. It may seem strange that neither East nor West should contract for a slam in this hand, but their reasoning is easy to follow. East refuses to help diamonds and West refuses to help clubs and each should conclude, therefore, that a slam is not possible without help in his long suit by partner. The bidding in this hand is very close, and I am glad to say that Mr. Vanderbilt approved of my analysis.

Resultant scores:

English Team: minus 100 points: (1 trick penalty, vulnerable).

Culbertson Team: minus 500 points: (3 trick penalty, vulnerable).

Vanderbilt Club: 675 points: (175 for tricks, 500 for game).

This was one of the hands in the tournament which resulted in a favorable "swing" for the British team, the Culbertson forces going on the rocks with a slam bid that was based a little too much on hope.

HAND NO. 155

Dealer—North. West and East vulnerable.

English: (North and South never bid). East—three hearts and all pass. Result: four odd in hearts; six of clubs opened.

Culbertson: East—one heart—South—one spade—West and North pass—East—four hearts. Result: five odd in hearts, with the jack of hearts opened. If South had not bid one spade in this hand, it is doubtful if West would have bid (only possible bid is one no trump), thus resulting in a loss of game.

Vanderbilt Club: (North and South never bid). East—one club—West—one diamond— East—two hearts (a forcing bid and showing a big hand)—West—two no trump (the minimum response)—East—three hearts—West— four hearts (game bid—forced by East). Result: four or five hearts, depending on the opening.

Resultant scores:

English Team: 140 points: (90 for tricks, 50 for extra trick).

Culbertson Team: 670 points: (120 for tricks, 500 for game, 50 for extra trick).

Vanderbilt Club: 620 points: (120 for tricks, 500 for game. An extra trick can be made if the opening is favorable).

HAND No. 174

(Continued on page 78)

(Continued from page 60)

Dealer—West. South and North vulnerable.

English: (North and South never bid). West—one spade—East—one no trump—West—two no trump. Result: three no trump.

Culbertson: West—one spade—East —two no trump—West—three no trump. Result: down one—due to an error in play.

Vanderbilt Club: West—one club— East—one diamond—West—one spade —East—two no trump (East has very close to 2½ honour tricks and, therefore, much more than West can count upon)—West—three no trump. Result: three no trump.

Resultant scores:

English Team: 120 points: (70 for tricks, 50 for extra trick).

Culbertson Team: minus 50 points: (one trick penalty, not vulnerable).

Vanderbilt Club: 405 points: (105 for tricks, 300 for game).