AUCTION BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 9, 11 January 1929, Page 6

AUCTION BRIDGE.

BIDDING WITHOUT TOP HONOURS. (By A. E. MANNING FOSTER.) The one point on which all authorities in England and the United States agree is that an initial bid of one of a suit should not be made without top honours, viz., Ace, King, or King, Queen. The exception is when holding a suit of five or six headed by Queen, Jack, provided there are two outside quick.tricks (e.g., two Ai-es or one Ace and a King, Queen, or two suits headed by King, Queen). That is clear enough. But doubtful cases arise where it is difficult or impossible to lay down the law and to state with certainty what is or what is not the "correct" initial bid.

A correspondent asks my opinion of the following hand held by dealer at love score: S—K, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 4, 2; H—K, 10; D—None; C —A, J, 8. He made the favourite bid of "Two Spades" on it, a bid which my regular readers will know I dislike because it is so ambiguous, and usually does not give partner a true picture of the hand. All the same, I am not prepared to say that a bid of two Spades is wrong. It says, if it says anything, that Declarer wants to play the haud in Spades, which undoubtedly he does. But why, I ask, "Two Spades ?" If adversaries bid, or if partner bids, what is Dealer going to do? Iβ he not going to three Spades? Mo-st certainly he is. Therefore, why not pre-empt properly at the start and make the bid "Three Spades ?" With eight spades and anything but an abnormally unfortunate distribution, he is goingto make three Spades, and with any assistance from his partner make the game in Spades. The "Two Spades" bid seems to me neither one thing nor the other. I would prefer to bid either one or three with such a holding.

My correspondent, although he made five by cards on his hand, was taken to task by his partner and told he should not have made an initial bid at all on his hand. Well, there is no pleasing some people, and I suppose the critic was impressed by the sound theory that an initial bid should show at least two tricks, however the bidding goes. Theoretically the hand was worth only one and a-half tricks. But eight of a suit makes all the difference. Eight of a suit, headed by King, 10, will win six tricks 90 times out of 100, and, allowing for the guarded King of Hearts and Ace of Clubs, the hand was worth a very probable eight tricks if Spades were trumps.

As for passing on such a hand, I should never dream of it. To hold eight cards of a major suit with some outside strength is not an everyday experience. There are several dangers in passing:—(1) The hands may be all thrown in; (2) adversaries may bid high in Hearts and put up the contract. An initial bid of "Three Spades" necessitates a bid of "Four Hearts," which is unlikely unless all the Hearts are massed in one hand. Or a bid of "Three No Trumps," which is also unlikely against Dealer's hand. Suppose, at worst, that Dealer finds a worthless Dummy, he has done little harm. If adversaries have all the Hearts and Diamonds, he has saved the game at small cost. I find that in criticising bidding many people are apt to go on the theory that Declarer must find a blank Dummy. This is, of course, absurd. All bidding is based on the probability that Dummy may be able to take a trick or so. There are exceptions, then, to the top honours theory. Supposing you were lucky enough to hold eleven Spades, headed by King, Jack. You have not a single quick trick in your hand. What are you going to bid on it? You can bid with certainty "Three Spades." But why should you? Why not start with one and go up to three, and perhaps be doubled? But if you hold eleven Hearts to King, Jack, I should advise starting the bidding with "Four Hearts," because there is all the difference between pre-empting in Hearts and in Spades.