BRIDGE NOTES

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21288, 6 October 1934, Page 20

BRIDGE NOTES

"MAJORITY OK VALUE BIDDING, ETC." (,SrJ£OlAt,t/I WRITTEN FOE TUB i'RESSJ [By -WILLIAM SHACKLE) A correspondent under the norn de plume of "Beginner" raises two very interesting questions in a letter to the Editor this week. Number one is:— In Auction Bridge, which is correct, majority or value bidding? The other is:—Suppose "A" the dealer bids one spade, "Y" double, "B" no bid, "Z" one diamond (an underbid) and "Y" immediately corrects him, saying two diamonds. "A" now claims to stop the bidding at one spade doubled, then he re-doubles. Would the re-double re-open the bidding? As this is rather involved the second query is answered before number one. "Z" of course made an underbid and had he realised it as he spoke—which of course is a very common occurrence—he could have himself corrected it by saying—one diamonds—two diamonds in the same breath "A" was quite offside when he claimed his penalty, not for claiming a penalty u fo V" omin , atin g a particular pena%, J 1 } 6 only words that " A " was entitled to say were:—insufficient bid then if his partner asked he could name the rules, but the choice of which Wl 1 ? t0 enforce must be left to B the opponent on the right hand ?V h «w efeu . 1 I t , er -, " B ". co "ld then say: £°^ < T. W1 " Pk»y it in one spade doubled" or (b) "Please increase your bid to the required number of tricks " or (c) "Leave the bid in and carr'v . on with the bidding." "A" by naming a penalty nullified 8 «BV right to £! flict any penalty whatsoever, and therefore "Zs" bid stood at one diamond and the bidding goes on as if : he had not actually underbid Suppose, however, "A" had called attention to the insufficiency of "Z's" . bid of one diamond and "B" had ' T id i ,"£? j doubled," the bidding is closed In- . cidentally he must not ask his part : ner which penalty he would like en- ; forced. If, however, he said: "We will re-double one spade," he was claim- ■ ing a penalty to which he had no i right, and again the one diamond bid > would stand. Suppose he asked "Z" to increase ■ his bid to two diamonds, either "A" . or "B" could double, but the bidding - would continue till there had been 5 three consecutive "no bids." In the t case under review "A" was not en- - titled to (a) name the penalty, (b) 1 £. lo fe the bidding, (c) re-double. Even ' £. a ,j been ent itled to re-double that would rank as a bid and the bidding

would automatically continue nor* i mally. Now for the ruling re majority ot value bidding. Value bidding is w* • only legal system, though strange)? enough the great majority of plan's * in New Zealand do not use it. A' 18 ' I reason being that the rule has beei altered on several occasion?, snd U most people play to enjoy themselves they object to periodical changes, ana therefore play in accordance witn j,;: their own wishes. jfi . The history of the changes is » ,6 follows. Before 1928 Europe play" h value and America majority bidding | Then the Portlaiui Club made both | legal, so one plaved whichever one | preferred. When" in 1932 new inter* | national laws were promulgated, tW» * alternative was again withdrawn, ana now value bidding is the only system officially recognised both at Home ana in the United States to-day. \> : - I