THE BRIDGE TABLE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20520, 22 March 1930, Page 5 (Supplement)

THE BRIDGE TABLE.

JO SAVE THE GAME,;

MA JOB TENA.C2.

It is a much debated question whether the stakes at a rubber of bridge have any influence on the quality of the play. Theoretically, of course, they should have none. The player who plays " for love" as it is called, should get just as much pleasure out of winning a grand slam, pulling off a delicate game, or saving the rubber, as if his fortune depended upon it—indeed, he should get more, because the thought of failure causes him no anxiety. My experience is that not all the good players aro at the high stakes tables, nor,.by any means, are all the bad ones at the low. If there is a difference, it is that the player who plays for anything higher than nominal stakes, plays to win game or save game; the player who plays " for love " plays for tricks only. This is easily understood. Stakes are" calculated acording to rubber points. If the stakes are worth considering, the player' plays for the rubber; ho never risks losing a game which he can win, nor does he risk giving away a game which he can save. Ho finds out at the end of each hand exactly how the score stands, and he bids and plays to it strictly. But the player who plays " for love" does not mind very much whether he wins or loses a rubber. Taking a Risk. He finds that winning a game is sometimes a dull business—merely a matter of dropping cards and gathering in tricks. If a chance, even a remote chance, of winning an overtrick presents itself he takes it for the sake of the thrill. It does not matter to him that, by taking the chance, he risks losing a certain game. Similarly saving the game is often not only dull, but unenterprising, for it means allowing the declarer to win tricks in excess of his contract. When there is a remote chance of defeating the contract, the player " for love" takes it even though it involves the risk of giving away the game. To illustrate: — | j j

Suppose Z bids one no trump, and all pass, and A lays down his four winning hearts. What should B discard on the fourth round ? Ask a player who plays " for love " this question and he will name a card without demanding any further information. But ask a player who is accustomed to play for stakes and he will promply want to know the state of the score, and he will be right. If Y and Z have no score, A and B need only five tricks to save the game, and B, on seeing his partner's fourth -heart, should drop the ace of spades wiihout hesitation in order to direct his partner to a certain game-saving lead on the fifth round. But if Y and Z are ten or more advanced toward game, B will need to make both the ace and the king of spades to save game, and he cannot afford to discard either. He must, therefore, throw a club and hope for the best. Playing to the Score. Here is another case:—

.At love score Y deals and bids one spade; B, no bid; Z, one no trump; and all pass. A leads the four of hearts, B wins with the king and returns the nine. Z plays the ten, A covers with the jack, and leads the aco to the third round. Since A's first lead of the four was his fourth best of the suit, B, seeing the three and two, knows that A led from only four cards. A's aco of hearts on the third round, therefore, is bound to take out Z's last heart. B's eight will then be the master card, and he must consider whether he should discard it on the ace or leavo A iu the lead. B's action should be governed entirely by the state of the score. Of course, if A wins the fourth heart round, lie should switch to spades, because Z's take-out of his partner's initial bid indicates fairly clearly that a spade lead will be through strength up to weakness. If, therefore, Y and Z require only two odd tricks for game, B should throw his eight of hearts under the ace and allow A to win the fourth heart round, so as to get a lead through Y's king of spades up to his ace-queen. ' But if Y and Z need three odd tricks for game, B should run no risk of his partner's making a mistake; he should keep his eight of hearts with which to win the fourth round, and on winning it, he should lay down the ace of spades to save the game. The player who plays " for love," I think, would always leave his partner in, hoping for a spade lead to the fifth trick, regardless of the state of the score.' The player for stakes would usually play to the score, unless he was very sure of his partner. Auction and Contract. I am not criticising the player who plays " for love." Bridge is a game, and we play it for the fun we get out of it. What I want to point out is that the mentality of the player who plays for love" is particularly, suited to contract bridge. Here game is never at stake without the contract, for game cannot be won unless the declarer bids for it. The player "who secures the contract, therefore, need never play for anything moie than his contract if it involves any risk; and the player " for love" at auction, though he will freely risk game for the sake of overtricks (because loss of game is not an immediate loss, but can be retrieved with luck), will never risk contract to win possible overtricks, because loss of contract is an immediate loss, marked down in the score sheet aii the end of tho hand.

At contract bridge, too, there is hever any need in defensive play to save game while allowing the opponents to fulfil their'contract and perhaps win overtricks. The defenders must always play for the maximum— to defeat contract or to keep the adverse score as low as possible. <Snd this is what the player who plays auction " for love " habitually does. At auction, however, the practice frequently involves heavy loss; at contract it is the winning policy. The player who plays auction " for love," therefore, should find that, once he has mastered contract bidding, he gets on better with the new game,, than he did with the old.