THE BRIDGE TABLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19798, 19 November 1927, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE BRIDGE TABLE.

DUPLICATE AUCTION TRIAL.

Br MAJOR TEN ACE.

To amuse a holiday party of keen' bridge players kept indoors by an after-

noon of rain I recently organised a team match at duplicate auction after the stylo of the American game. There were 16 players—enough for four tables. I divided them into four teams, and gave each player of each team one of the letters 1 use in my diagrams of hands. I then dealt a pack in the ordinary way, duplicated the deal with three more packs, and distributed the packs at the tables, giving Z at each table the dealer's hand, and the others theirs in order. Tbus each member of each team played a different hand of the samo deal. Each player kept his own score, plus representing points won and minus, points lost. There were no lubbers, but 125 was awarded for game. At the end the scores of each team were added up, and the team with the highest number of points was accounted tin winner.

It was quito good fun, and though perforce a spectator, 1 found it very interesting. I would never have believed that the samo deal at four tables could have produced such a variety of bidding and play, and such a variety of results. The winning hands at one table were often the losers at tho next, and the difference between winners and losers holding tho samo hands was sometimes as much as five tricks. Only one deal yielded a freak hand, and tho bidding on it was worthy of note. Hero is tho deal:

Afc ono table Z opened the bidding with three diamonds " for the i-ake of his honour points'." A bid three hearts and Y passed, showing onco more that an initial bid of three of a minor suit is not pre-emptive except against partner. Z went to four diamonds and was left in to make his contract; but ho missed game. At another table Z opened with one diamond; A bid one heart; Y, one spade. Z then supported his partner who finally secured the declaration at three spades and went gamo. At the other two tables 'L opened with one no trump. At one A bid two hearts; Y two spades; A three hearts; Z three spades; and all passed. Y made game. At the fourth table, A left Z's one no tramp severely alone; Y and B also passed, and Z just made his contract.

Three Questions Kaised. This variety of bidding and result 1 raises three interesting questions: 1. What is Z's best initial bid 1 2. If he bids ono no-trump, should A overcall ? 3. If he bids one no-trump and A passes, should Y take out to spades. Holding Z's hand and knowing nothing of the distribution of the rest of the pack, I should always open with one no-trump. Contract is certain, and game more than probable. I have no doubt also that I should overcall one no-trump on my right if I held A's hand. With normal distribution of the suits (and A has no reason to assume that abnormal hands are out), he can set the contract or save game at any adverse suit bid; and with very little "support from his partner he can go game in hearts. It is the third question that presents the difficulty. The advocates of the no-trump take out on weakness, with Mr. R. F. Foster at their head, would answer without hesitation in the affirmative; the rest of us would be in some doubt. My general rule is to leave in my partner's no-trump unless my hand is good enough for an original bid in a major suit. If I did take out here it would not be on account of the general weakness of Y's hand, but because it has some strength in spades, and, more important, # two worthless doubletons. The fear that my partner might be looking to me to stop one of these suits might tempt: me to take out, but I am afraid that much would depend on my mood afc the moment, and the way the luck had been running. The only lessons to be drawn from the deal are, do not preempt in a minor suit unless you have at least eight with top honours and cannot support a major bid; and beware of overbidding one no-trump as second hand. Counting the Losers.

The following no-trump hand which I saw played has points of interest:

Z was the declarer, and A. led the two of clubs. Z played the three from dummy; Ji, his nine; and Z won with the ten in his own hand. Z could count three certain losers, the ace-king of hearts, and the ace of diamonds. The king and the queen of spades were also out against him, and if they both made game would be lost. His best hope was to find one of them at least on his right, and trap it with his ace. Meanwhile, A r s lead of the two marked him with four clubs, and B's nine must bo a singleton. By finessing the jack he could catch A's queen, and by running the suit he could force some informative discards from B. He led the six of clubs, finessed the jack, led the king, and followed with a small spade, iinessing the ten. The play gave him an easy game. I have always found it bettor, when planning the play of a hand, instead of counting the winners, to begin at the other end and count the losers. It is the best corrective of undue optimism that I know.