AUCTION BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 96, 24 April 1931, Page 8

AUCTION BRIDGE.

BLAMING ONE'S PARTNER. (By A. E. MANNING FOSTER.) It is always the partner who has done the wrong thing, and is the cause of all the trouble. The partner, the partner -ill the time. Before me I have several letters dealing with disasters. It may be true that we take a malicious pleasure in the misfortunes of our friends, but most of these letters, coming from the victims, express anything but pleasure. Here is an example:—

Score, love all. Z deals and bids one no trump; A, two Hearts; Y, two Spades; B, three Diamonds; Z, three no trumps; A, double; Y and B, no bid; Z, re-double; all pass. The hands of A and B are not given by my correspondent, but it is easy to construct them in all essential particulars on the bidding and the doubling. Anyhow, the writer states that Z was six down on his contract, making only his two Aces and one Heart. Personally. I do not see how this result was attained. Whether A opened a Heart or a Diamond is not recorded, but whichever A opened, Z mua; get in on first or second trick and then should play Ace, followed by Queen of Clubs. Presuming that A holds K 10 x x of Clubs, Z should make at least four tricks. However, I give the result as stated. But that is not the point. It is with the bidding I am asked to deal. I am told that Z blamed Y in no measured terms, and held that he was wholly and entirely responsible for the disaster. I cannot admit this for a moment. While Y's bid of two Spades over A's two Hearts was very bad indeed, nothing could justify Z in his subsequent bidding. His initial no trump was sound. Y should, of course, never have spoken at all. His bid of two Spades was not a take-out. A had called two Hearts. When Y bid two Spades Z was entitled to place him with strength and length in the suit, and not to suppose he had made so bad a bid. All the same, with the two suits shown against him by A and B, Z was entirely wrong to bid three no trumps. He had only a single guard in Diamonds. He had no assurance of solid Spades, His Clubs were not established. He had only one sure trick in Heart!;. If he had been wise he would have left the three Diamonds bid alone, or, if he must bid, his right bid would have been four Clubs. This would not have shut out Y from bidding three Spades if Y had been able to do so. The bid of three no trumps was distinctly bad. It was taking a chance when the saving of the game looked assured against the adversaries. But, having -allel three no trumps, and A having doubled, what is to be said of Z's redouble? How could he expect to make nine tricks? Even if Y had long Spades headed by A Q or K Q, or even A K, it was a pure gamble. A and B must be able to establish one of their suits. Nor could the redouble be justified on the grounds that it might frighten the opponents into bidding four Hearts or five Diamonds. No, it was very bad bidding. Y was culpable certainly. But Z himself was respon-ibie for the major disaster, and instead of blamin-/ his partner should have admitted the fact at once.