AUCTION BRIDGE

Evening Star, Issue 18033, 29 July 1922, Page 11

AUCTION BRIDGE

[Specially Written by Ernest Bergholt for the 'Evening Star.’] MORE ABOUT SHORT-SUIT CALLS. No. XII. I have received a long letter signed * “ Engineer,” the writer - of which, who is plainly a whole-hearted supporter of all the theories of Mr R. F. Fostercondemns my condemnation of an initial short-suit call in a minor suit, and endeavors to demonstrate that Milton C. Work's reasons against such a call are worthless. Now, _ although there is frothing whatever in this letter that is not a faithful reproduction of what I have already read (and carefully considered) in Foster’s own 'book, I propose to quote from it very extensively, in order that my readers may have a dear appreciation of everything that_ can be* said in praise of these initial short-suit declarations. It is honest policy to hear both sides of an argument, and 1 am the last person to wish to present this important fundamental question in an incomplete or biased manner. /‘Engineer” begins by saying, very wisely, that he will leave out of consideration the “ conventional _ call of one in a minor suit as an invitation to go No-trumps, and will confine himself to the honest call of one, upon which the declarer is prepared to_ play the hand if left in. The following hand_ Is one which, in his opinion, can bo justified as such a call : Hearts 8,6; Clubs A, K, 5; Diamonds 8,4, 5,2; Spades 9,7, 5, 3. Ho asserts that, on these cards, the declarer can reasonably expect to make four tricks if he is left to play the bund, and two tricks if ho has to play, on the defensive against a bid by the opixjucnts.” The latter part of the statement I can admit without difficulty; tout 1 aU'.v'ether deny the former part; and } ihink that I have shown very excellent i--!„.;ot;s in my recent articles why it is , “Few people will deny, he goes on. "that an aoa may bo con-derc-d as good for one trick, and that a 1.-ino- with others will take trick lust us often as it will be taken- wnether Li tacking or defending; but a great many pic do not realise their greatly m-t-H-ari-d value to the person who is playin-’ the two hands (his own_ and Dummy). To this player the aoe is worth two trickr not because it can take a trick twice but because of its power of prornothi'’ - a lower card; and, similarly, the v-iue°of the king is increased to one t ic:: instead of half a trick. Further, K the king is of the same suit as the i-ce it may he considered as good for a trick either in attack or defence, and it is therefore equal to the ace' in value. I have I hope, made it dear that the side"’which wields the "promoting power" is the side which has length m Vi imps as well as strength, and that it m-ik.ck no difference whether that side be the dedaring or the non-dedaring one. IVo have seen the dealer call one Diamond o i \ K, 7, 6 (supported -by Q, J, 10 and r „.*C r Heart), and we have seen the opponents win 7 or 9 tricks against him, 6,rpdv because one of them held five t-’-.i’in'i to the 10, and the other one three trumps to the Q, J. That this result was due to the tramp distribution was proved b v the fact that, as regards all the high cr.i 'ls, the hands were balanced with f-caft’ evenness. The notion that aces a-d kings take on a "greatly increased value” simply because the person playing E-cai has the Dummy band is a complete iibiutra. When any such increased value, H observable it is because, on that parti-r-bir occasion, the player of Dummy has V- newer to exhaust the adverse trumps, to ruff with his long trumps the high cm-ds of the enemy, and to take tricks with the small cards of his own estah-li-Vd Main suit. Whenever the opponr -;> <-f the declarer happen to hold the long trumps the balance of advantage immediately swings over to them, and it

is they who ruff the declarer’s cards and bring in their own plain suit. It is, however, perfectly true that, whenever high cards are in sequence, their trick-winning power is enhanced. But it must not be forgotten that this principle operates in favor of both sides ■ indiscriminately, according as the cards happen to have been dealt, and not solely in favor of the declarer. We are asked by “Engineer” to believe that the hand given above is worth 11 four tricks for attack.” Now, if Dummy, he says, "has at least an average hand—i.e., three trick values for attack (since the declarer holds four, there are only nine trick values left for the other three hands), the declarer will generally win the odd trick, or, at the worst, will not be put down more than one or two tricks. Of course, deals do occur in actual play in which the declarer is let in for heavy penalties, . . . but generally the result given above is what happens.” As is not uncommon when questions of probability are discussed by those who lack special training in that subject, the preceding statement is vitiated by more than one error. In the first place, I deny - that the ace, king, and one little trump are worth four tricks. Consequently there are more than “ nine tricks ” to be divided among the other three hands. In the second place, although a very irregular distribution is improbable, a perfectly regular distribution is not what “ generally happens ”; on the contrary, it is usually what seldom happens. Let mo try to make this clear by inquiring into the most probable distribution of the three Aces (Heart, Diamond, Spade) which are not included in the hand we are now considering. It can be easily calculated that in a thousand trials they will fall 3,0, 0 ninety-four times; 2,1, 0 666 times, and 1,1, 1 only 240 -times. That is to say, the odds are more than, three to one against each of the other players having his “ fair average share.” Suppose, again, that the dealer holds exactly four trumps. Is it " what generally liappons ” that each of the other players hold's three? By no means. In a thousand trials that will happen only 110 times. In other words, the odds are 89 to 11 against it. In the third place, even supposing that the dealer, declaring clubs on the above cards, were to make the odd trick as often as ho lost it (which, in point of fact, he certainly will not do), he will yet be points to the had. because when he wins the odd he will score only 6, and when he loses it the opponents will always score 50, and may (if they double) score 100. Finally, the test of direct experiment will easily convince an impartial investigator that the roseate anticipations of my friend “Engineer” are doomed to disappointment. Here, for instance, is a deal, taken at random, In which Y has an “average” hand (four “trick values,” according to my correspondent), but happens to he weak in the trump suit: Zt Hearts 8,6; Clubs A, K, 3; Diamonds 8,4, 3,2; Spades 9,7, 6, 3. A s Hearts J, 9. 3,2; Clubs Q, 9,5, 2; Diamonds Q; Spades A, K, 10. 8. Y s Hearts K, Q, 10, 5; Clubs J, 6; Diamonds A, 9,7, 5; Spades 5,4, 2. Bt Hearts A, 7. 4; Clubs 10, 8,7, 4; Diamonds K, J, 10, 6; Spades Q, J. Z declares One Qub. All pass. A will begin with Kof Spades; B will play the Knave. A, seeing that B can cold one more Spade at most, and not knowing whether it 5» the Queen or a small one, continues with the _Ace, followed at trick 3 with the 8, which B will ruff. This underplay (retaining the best Spade) seems A’s best course, seeing that he hotels four tramps to the Queen. 'At triok 4 B’s most hopeful lead is the 7 - of trumps, won by Z. At triok 5 Z leads a Heart, A plays the 2, and- Dummyls Queen is taken by the Ace. At trick 6 B again leads trump, won by Z. The declarer can now make his King of Hearts and Ace of Diamonds, and can ruff the third round of Hearts with his 3. But A will make Q, 9 of trumps, Knave of Hearts, and 10 ol Spades. The declarer makes five tricks in all, and is down 100, lees 12 honors. What has become of the eight “ trick values” that we were told to expect?