CONTRACT BRIDGE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 284, 1 December 1933, Page 6

CONTRACT BRIDGE.

effects of opening psychics.

(By ELY OULBERTSON.)

Opening psychics in the first seat are usually absurd bids which result only in undermining partner's confidence. Like all bad bids, however, they occasionally accomplish rather extraordinary things, particularly when the opponents are not sufficiently wide awake to apply the rule of) eight.

Mr. Joseph E. Cain, of Indianapolis won the American Whist League pair championship in Cleveland last June. In that event he was paired with Mr. Walter J. Pray, a pla/ei with a deci'ded aversion to unsound bids, and Mr. Cain, a distinctly imaginative player, was obliged to play through the entire tournamentwithout using a single psychic. It is possible that the strain was too much for him, as, shortly afterwards, he turned into one of the most frequent bidders of every known form of psychic, and, when not playing with Mr. Pray, obtained a reputation for bizarre results.

On a' recent visit to New York, Mr. Cain found himself in a rubber game at Crockford's. He began experiencing a run of adverse cards, and, growing tired of continually passing, he finally decided in favour of an aggressive campaign of psychics, which resulted in a saving of several thousand points. The following is an example, which, strange as it may seem, was not even one of his best results: North dealer. East-West vulnerable. Mr, Cain. A-Q 6 v—9 7 5 KJB 4 2 *—9 4 3 —A J 7 | Si 10 3 2 V—J 10 43 2 L E V—A K 8 6 J_9 5 W c ♦ —A Q 3 X—A 1o 8 I 5 #-K 7 6 —K 98 5 4 V —Q ♦—10 7 6 •V —Q J 5 2 The Bidding. North East South West INT Dbl. Pass 2 V Pass 3 ¥ Pass 4 V Pass Pass Pass

The bidding does not call for much com' ment, the only feature being the opening notrump bid by "North* The play, however, was quite interesting. Mr. Cain, pursuing his policy of the unusual, opened the Spade Queen. Declarer allowed this card to hold, South making the encouraging play of the 9-spot. Thfc suit was continued, and the second round won with the Ace. The declarer now led the Heart Knave, and, without an instant's hesitation, finessed. South, of course, won with the singleton Queen and returned a Spade, which Mr. Cain ruffed. Afterwards the declarer^ was unable to avoid the loss of a club trick, and a vulnerable game was saved through this astonishing bidding and defence.

Actually, if declarer had stopped to think, the opening psychic would not have proved effective. The East-West hands, between them, held 04 honour tricks, which made it almost impossible for North to 'have an opening bid. Even if the no trump had been a legitimate bid, one round of Hearts should have been taken first in order to provide for the singleton Queen. However, since _ the declarer did none of these things, Mr. Cain is to be congratulated on the result —particularly as shortly afterwards he was able to bid and :nake an apparently unmakable small slam.

A Question of Ethics. I am in receipt of a letter from a news 4 ' paper in' Abilene, Texas. Tliis letter takes up the question of passing or bidding in accordance with the ethics of the game, and asks which of the following two procedures is the better from the standpoint of bridge etiquette: The first procedure is to carefully peruse the hand before passing the bidding, and the second is to glance at the hand and immediately say, "Bidding" (if one* intends to make some call other than a pass), or 'No bid" (if one sees that the hand is not strong enough for -a bid), afterwards weighing the possibilities of the hand and calling whatever bid one desires to make.

Naturally' both of the above suggestions were made with the idea of eliminating the inferences which are available when players take longer to make some bid than they do usually. Unquestionably this is a very important point, as there are many players who take advantage of the fact that they can convey a certain amount of information to partner. Other players do this more or less subconsciously, but the evil is there just the same. Personally, I think the second method entirely too drastic. The first method would unquestionably be. the correct solutiau if it were possible to regulate the time limit. However, the adoption of any law to this effect is quite impossible, and as the matter stands now it must be left a question of the average- person's honesty. An attempt to enforce penalties for such violations would not meet with success. .