AUCTION BRIDGE

Evening Star, Issue 18093, 7 October 1922, Page 10

AUCTION BRIDGE

[Specially Written by Ernest Bergeolt for tho ‘Evening Star.’]

No. XXII.

AMERICAN CONVENTIONAL

DOUBLES,

(Continued.)

Wo have already seen what difference of opinion exists among the Americans as to tho typo of band upon which one Notaimro ought to be “conventionally” doubled. There is an equally marked divergence of view as to what should bo denohy tho partner of the No-trump bidder. Florence Irwin says: “As partner of the bidder, and! adversary of tho doubler, always pass. No matter what you hold, pass. Pass if you have eight Spades with all five honors. Pass with a hundred aces. Pass if you have nothing, and pass if you have everything. To pass is not to lose your hand. You’ve bound to have another chance. The partner of the one-doublcr as forced to bid, and after ho does you still may. Or you may have the incredible joy of hearing him bid your own very best suit. Tho poor wretch may have been obliged to bid it on four cards with a seven-spot high—such things have 'happened'.”—(‘ Master Auction,’ p. 56.) This agrees in part with the dictum I have previously quoted from H. P. Clark’s ‘Modem Auction Bridge’—that the make of tho doubler’s partner is a compulsory one. In spite of this, however, Mr Clark has told us that in mnnv cases the partner of tho No-trump caller ought to redouble. Again, a direct conflict of testimony !

Milton 0. Work, who is said to have travelled 1 all over the American continent and to have familiarised 1 himself with every system of play in vogue from east to west, agrees that “ tho informatovy doubler forces his partner to bid 1 ” (‘Auction Methods Up To Date,’ p.- 127), but says that a redouble by the next player is always wrong. “A plan advanced as a defence against these doubles,” he writes, .“is a redouble by the partner of tho initial bidder, when ho has better than average strength. Tho advocates of such redoubles fail to realise that when' tho cards justify a bid, a double, and a redouble by tho first three bidders, tho fourth hand (the hand compelled to bid) must be very weak. Forcing him to bid places him in a most embarrassing position. Why relievo him from such a dilemma by redoubling? Doing so allows him to pass (Mark this statement well.— E. 8.), and by exposing the situation to the doubler permits that player to tako himself out. It is much more effective, under such conditions, for the partner of the initial bidder to mask his strength and await developments. H, however, he have a hand with winch, regardless of what ‘may happen, he intends sooner or later to advance his partner’s bid-, ho should do so at once, and thus probably prevent tho indication, by the bid of his left-hand adversary, of tho suit which it would bo most advantageous for tho right-hand adversary to open.'' —(Op. cit.. p. 128.) That is to say (as is further explained by Work on the following page), it is the duty of tho partner of Tho player who has been doubled to bid two No-trumps on a hand which makes it important to shut out adverse bidding. Note tho two points here insisted upon. First, declarer’s partner must not redouble, because that would l Blow tho doubler’s partner to pass. Secondly, declarer’s partner, with a strong hand, ought to bid two No-tramps. Now turn to Mr B. F. Foster and see what he says: “If tho dealer bids No-trump and is doubled by the second hand, the only way the third hand can show that he lias more than average assistance for the Notrumper, without increasing the contract, is to redouble. To bid two No-trumps would bo folly. .Why play for three odd at 10 a trick"when one can play,for one odd at 40 a trick, with the same result so far as going game is concerned?”—(‘Foster on Auction,’ p. 209), We are also told, on page 208 of the same book, that the declarer’s partner, if he bids at all ? ought to redouble, because that “makes it absolutely certain that tho fourth hand will bid.” According to modern practice (says Mr Foster), fourth hand need not answer the double if there is an intervening bid, but must answer it if .a redouble intervenes.

Can anything lie more confusing? If I sit down to play with a stranger I not only have to find out whether ho understands and practises the “ conventional double,” but whether he follows tho Irwin system or the Work system orJJio Foster system. And how many players of average calibre do you suppose there are who are capable of keeping dearly in mind three contradictory systems, and of adapting themselves smoothly and amiably to the varying idiosyncrasies of each now partner with whom they may happen to cut in? Is it not obvious that there must bo something rotten about tiro convention when, after to many years (Clark’s book is dated 1916), tho most experienced authorities are still quarrelling over the proper way of carrying it out? Hera is another point: Florence Irwin, you may have noticed, speaks of tho conventional double (whether of No tramps or of a suit) as the “one double”—he., tho double of a bid of one. Both these doubles, says Clark, are “ only used against a bid of one trick.’’ Mr Foster concurs. “As no modern player now uses a onc-trick double with any idea of defeating the contract, that declaration was left lying round loam. . . . As a forc-

ing bid it lias been brought into the game again” ('Foster on. Auction,’ p. 20/). But wo are now told by Milton Work that “ informstory doubles . . . are limited to tho double of adverse bids of one or two. ... If tho bid be three or more

tho double comos within the business classification ” (‘Auction Methods Up to Date,’ pp. 121 and 122). Since it in certain that (as Work himself points out) “ there must be a definite rule to determine) what size bid permits an informatory double,” and that “ any doubt upon this point in the mind of cither the. doubler or his partner would bo fatal,” is it not a deplorable thing that eminent American writers who advocate these doubles should so flatly contradict one another? Note carefully the insidiousness of this poison which 'has begun to lower the vitality of the game; sea bow it grows upon one, like tho habit of cocaine or heroin. “Originally informatory doubles were limited to- bids of one. Experience has demonstrated that they may safely bo employed against bids of two, out that against bids of three or more they are dangerous ” (Work, Op. cit., p. 123). Now perhaps yon all think that this time you have got it fired up right, and that two is the final limit. Not a bit of it. Look on page 62 of Wilbur C. Whitehead's verv newest book, ‘ Auction Bridge Standards' (March, 1922). that are clearly, or by reason of common practice . . . negative (or informatory) doubles (are): Any double of an adverse suit bid of one, two, or three . . . provided made at first opportunity, and partner of doubler has not as yet bid or doubled.” This, it is 'true, docs not refer to the doubler of No-trumps,_ which Whitehead still confines to a one bid. Still wo clearly perceive tho tendency. We cannot fall to see. how increase of appetite has grown by what it fed on.