HINTS ON AUCTION BRIDGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 886, 1 February 1930, Page 6

HINTS ON AUCTION BRIDGE

Post Mor terns Written for TUB SUN by "Caliban." — Copyright in New Zealand.) The game of Bridge is governed, sot only by the rules which the Portland Club, in conjunction with other bodies, from time to time reyi»«6, but also by a code of etiquette which is less clearly defined. Every Bridge player knows that it is contrary to the spirit of the game to convey information (whether by implication or otherwise) as to the contents of hi* hand, to irritate his adversaries by endeavouring to disturb their harmonious relations, or to allow his equanimity to bo ruffled by his emotional reactions to the various incidents of the game. Every player, I say, is aware of these things, though he is a fortunate man indeed who can assert that his behaviour at the card table has never fallen short of his highest ideals. I often think that we might, with advantage, pay more attention than we do to the etiquette of the Post Mortem—that interval of discussion, sometimes friendly, occasionally acrimonious, which normally follows the play of the hand. There are those who hold the view' that it would b© in the best interests of the game to abolish the Post Mortem altogether. Bridge, they maintain, should be played —as hair should be cut —in silence. But this seems to me to bo taking too drastic a view. Bridge is not a business, but a recreation: and to lay down tho hard-and-fast rule that conversation is unseemly between the conclusion of one hand and the com D en erne it of the next, would be to deprive it of a part of its appeal. Moreover, tho friendly discussion of an interesting or novel situation, when such arises, is attractive in itself to those who are skilled in the niceties of play. Card games, to my mind, servo three purpose*. First, they provide an acceptable framework for social intercourse. Secondly, they are a valuable antidote to the cares of business or of affairs—they allow for that release of the libido- which, psychologists tell us, ic a fundamental need. But, tairdly, they can supply, to those endowed H r ith the “card '•ense," a genuine intellectual interest. I have read, in the works of Mr Wells and other social critics, passages dismissing the problems of the card table a- beneath ai intelligent man's contempt. X differ profoundly from such criticisms. A difficult hand at Bridge may demand the application, simultaneously, not >nly of the skilled card player's memory and powers of deduction, but also of a knowledge of the theory of of insight into human psychology. For these reasons, an intelligently-conducted Post Mortem may be of tho greatest interest and value. A long experience of Post Mortems at the card table has, however, convinced me that, on the whole, they are not intelligently conducted. The following observations, based on personal experience, will meet, I do not doubt, with a sympathetic reception at the hands of many of my readers. To begin with, tho Post Mortem is frequently conducted before there is, properly speaking, any corpse, i.e., as soon as Dummy's hand goes down It too often happens that the player who eventually becomes Dummy, finding hia ealliug at cross-purposes with that of his partner, initiates a discussion as to what should or should not have been done before the play of the hand begins. This is quite improper. It may be argued that it does no harm,, since the declarer is entitled under the Rules to give away to any extent hv like* the contents of his hand; but apart from the fact that his doing st upoils the game, the adversaries may well get dragged into the discussion and inadvertently disclose what is in their hands. It should be a serupulously observed rule that no comment is made on the calling until after the hand has been played. The next point—a minor one. yet perhaps worth mentioning—is that, at the end of the hand, the score should be agreed and recorded before any discussion begins. Every day one listens to hectic arguments about thft play of the hand, at the end of which there is some quite unnecessary dispute as to the distribution and -ralue of the honours. Finally, the technique of the Post Mortem itself —assuming that it in generally desired that there should be one—is worth a little thought. My own experience is that far too much time is wasted in discussions of tw* kinds. First, there are discissions which concern themselves with th# elaboration of the obvious. “I had to take you out, partner, as I had eight Hearts to four honours." “I thought I had better double, as I had tJ*# Ace, Queen, Knave of their suit." Such remarks as these are simply idiotic, yet one seldom sees a hand played after which none of tb-* four participants delivers himself of some similar pronouncement. But these comments, if silly, aro harmless; the really objectionable contribution to the Post Mortem is the cross-examination, by peeved partner, of the player who has blundered. “Why did you not go on with the Diamonds?" * ‘ Whatever made you trump my Heart?" and so forth Questions like these, to which the only accurate answer would be: Imperfect observation, partner"; “Momentary aberration"; or “Back of skill" —questions like these ought never to be* asked. They merely irritate one'ft partner, embitter one's relationship with him, and tend to lack of confident:# and further errors in the future. If one's partner has made an obvious blunder, he is either aware of the fact or he is not. In the former c#se f there is no point in mentioning it; in the latter case, it is a waste of timft to attempt to instruct him during the cross-talk which follows the play of th* hand—unless, of course, he regards himself as definitely under instruction. Tn short, criticism, in my opinion, should always be confined to cases where the critic is himself hoping to learn something* from the answers to the questions that he raises. Spleen, didacticism, and a sense of superiority, a,e ou t* °f place at the card table, and tho Post Mortem is only acceptable to the connoisseur of Bridge where non* of these elements enters into it.