THE BRIDGE TABLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19833, 31 December 1927, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE BRIDGE TABLE.

THE BIDDING COMPROMISE. • ■ ' ■'':?% ' * " - ..»• : • v • !?>. BX MAJOR TENACak Valuation bidding has retained, its position in the official laws of the Portland Club; but majority bidding is to be given a place in a special appendix as a permissible alternative for those who prefer it. That is the decision reached by the conference representing the principal London card-playing clubs, after being faced by an almost equal division of opinion, To be quite frank, I think it the worst decision that could possibly have been reached; and the best I can wish the unweildy hydra this decision creates is a short < life. In fairness, however, I do not know what; other decision the conference could have reached, in view of the close voting of the clubs not represented upon it and the sharp division of opinion in its own ranks. Let us see exactly what has happened. Wo played auction quite happily under the revised law* of the Portland Club from 1924 until the early months of this year. Then an English newspaper started &n agitation in favour r\ majority bidding; published the Amcri,n laws *s its own; and urged its readers adopt them in their entirety and abandon the laws Of the Portland Club. Process of Consultation. The agitation had two results. The Portland Club decided to revise the taws, to ts-ke a veto upon the more important changes proposed and leave the ultimate decision to a more widely representative tribunal All clubs of any standing throughout the country were asked to give their views on majority bidding, and the principal London clubs were invited to send representatives to a conference to consider these views and decide upon the changes. The clubs represented were Almack's, Bath, Baldwin, Caribou, Conservative, Devonshire, National Liberal, St. James', St. Stephen's, Turf, and White's. The Card Committee of tho Portland Club, which convened tho conference, I understand took no part in the decision on majority bidding. The first , vote resulted in a small majority in favour of the change, and the conference decided to adopt it. Then one of the clubs which had taken part in the conference and had been giving majority bidding an informal trial found that under majority bidding the rubbers were longer. It therefore asked that the system might he given a full and fair trial that a second vote should be taken on it before any change was made. To this the Bseond conference agreed, and the four months from the end of June to the end of October were fixed for the trial. The vote was taken at the end of this time, and the conference met again on November 7 to make its final decision. This is contained in the following resolution: "That this conference, having before it the voting by the London and provincial clubs on the question of majority calling, finds that, although there was a small majority of eight clubs in favour of majority calling, there was a majority of 243 individual votes against the change. The conference thereupon does not consider that there is any general desire for the adoption of majority calling in place of value calling. The conference accordingly decides to retain value calling in the j revised laws of auct ion bridge. " For the convenience of players who desire to play majority calling, an alternative rule will be printed a,i an appendix to the new bok of laws." No Change in Honours Scoring. The official report of the proceedings of ! the conference states that the new draft I rules were then taken in detail, the most 1 important point being that the scoring of honours will remain as heretofore. It is difficult to know what othfcr decision the conference could have reached, faced with such a division of opinion—a division, moreover, which was reflected in it 3 own ranks. Yet the decision is bad. Why ? Tha answer laises the question, What do we want in a code cf laws ? Do we want alternates and variants so that each player can have* the game he likes best; or do we want one recognised game legislated for in clear and unambiguous terras ? The question has only to be put for the answer to bo clear Tho code that admits Alternatives and variants is bcund to resn't in mit-unde"-etan-ling and confusion. The coda ihi lays do>?u org si3t of rules and sticks i»o them is open, as we know from expo?.en e, to the criticism of malcontents, but, i on the whole, it assures unity and underI standing. The wholG trouble has been that thm conference that met to decide the changes was not a judicial body. Its members were representatives of clubs, and had at least to bear in mind the views of those they represented. The inevitable result was a compromise. General Indifference, What of the future ? No doubt in those clubs where alii or, at any rate, the great majority of members agree upon either valuation or majority bidding, tha system v hub they favour will alone be played. But? what is to happen where there is no such unanimity ? Are members to settle tha point when forming a table ? And who is to settle their differences if they cannot agree ? These questions presupposa a depth of feeling which I have a suspicion, amounting almost to a certainty, exists nowhere but in the minds of those who organised the press campaign against tho Portland Club. . , It would be interesting to know how many individual votes were cast, and the total membership of the voting clubs. If the point could be settled I would be prepared to bet that not 10 por cent, of the members of the clubs took the trouble to vote. This, at any rate, I know; that the players, with whom I have tried to discuss the relative merits of majority and valuation bidding—not experts accustomed to deal with the finer points oi' the game, but s.verage club members who turn into the card room for a rubber a» a-relaxation from work or to fill an idle hour—have one and all shown a most profound indifference to the subject. I should not be at all surprised if they take the view that, the conference having decided against majority bidding, they will obey its decision and ignore appendices to the laws. It will certainly be the best possible outcome to an unfortunate and undignified controversy.