BRIDGE IN BRITAIN

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 23, 28 January 1928, Page 20

BRIDGE IN BRITAIN

MAJORITY CALLING DIBCON- ■■ TINUED. British bridge clubs have decided against majority bidding (states the London correspondent of the "Melbourne Argus"). They reverted to value bidding on 14th November. The London dubs voted by 38 to 31 against the introduction of the American system; the provincial clubs were in favour of the change by 55 to 40. The chief card clubs, which sent delegates to the final conference, opposed majority bidding by nine votes to three, one of the majority being the Portland Club itself. When the proposal was seriously made in Juno, London was in favour of majority calling by 35" votes to 20, but there was an adverse majority in the provinces. The four months' test of the American system has made London opinion veer round, doubtless because majority calling. makes a rubber longer, as it prolongs bidding. Many London card players visit their clubs after they finish business, and they like to. play a rubber or two before dinner. They found | that the time added to each rubber by the use of majority calling tended to make them late for the evening meal. In the alternative a player has had to wait longer before he can "cut in." Contract bridge has not found favour in London, though it is very popular in the United States for the same reason. Bubbers are apt to be too long, especially for those who are waiting to "cut in." Apparently, provincial players have more time on their hands, and they do not object to the additional complications which the Americans have introduced into bridge. Probably the provincial clubs include fewer card players of experience, and their, vote has been dictated by a relatively few leaders. At any rate, the Portland Club conference decided against - majority calling, in spite of the narrow adverse vote, though value bidding will not be the only possibility in English clubs in future, as an appendix to the Portland Club rules will allow any club to adopt majority bidding, if it desires. British card players are almost unanimously against the American penalty for a revoke, considering it unfair that a player should ever win a rubber after a revoke, and, perhaps, because of it. At the conference recently it was also proposed that, in the event of a declarer leading from the wrong hand, Britain should adopt the American penalty, compelling him to lead from the same suit from the correct hand. This was rejected as too severe a penalty, in view of the fact that the error gave information to nobody except the opponents.