AUCTION BRIDGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18887, 11 October 1929, Page 5

AUCTION BRIDGE.

TAKING OUT HINTS.

(By

A. E. MANNING FOSTER.

One often hears partners bidding against each other. Each has a good hand and each wants to play it in a certain declaration. Obstinacy and pigheadedness come in, and also sometimes selfishness. I remember a case where, in the rubber game, two partners were bidding against one another in Spades and Hearts. “Four Spades,” said Y, at last. “Five Hearts!” snapped Z. Y gave in and Z went one down on his contract. This is very human and very natural, but is bad bridge. There are occasions when you must take out your partner once, and there are occasions when you must take him out twice. But, having given him what you intend as two warnings, you are not justified in giving him more. You must take it that he knows what he is about. In the case mentioned both partners were wrong, Y to keep on bidding Spades when his partner had called Hearts four times, and Z to persist in Hearts after his partner had declared game in Spades. The take out of No Trumps into a suit is a fruitful source of error. How often does one see game missed in a suit when it might have been made in No Trumps! The argument of the persistent taker out is this, “If my partner does not like my take out he can Always go back to No Trumps.” But can he ? Supposing he has called a bare, average No Trumper and you take him out in two Hearts, he may have little or no support in Hearts, but he cannot go back to “Two No Trumps,” as, for all he knows, your hand may be good only if played in Hearts. Here is a case: Game all. Z bids “One No Trump,” holding S.—A, 4,3; H.—J, 2; D—K, J., 4; C.—-A, Q, J, 5, 3. A “No bid.” Y “Two Hearts,” holding 5. J, 9, 21 H.—K, Q, 10, 9,6; D.—Q, 8,2; C.—K, 6. Z is not strong enough to bid “Two No Trumps. The game is played in Hearts, and Y loses two Spades, one Heart and a Diamond. In No Trumps Z would have gone game. Y’s bid was, in my opinion, undoubtedly wrong. He had good support for a No Trumper, and there was no necessity for him to bid Hearts. The position that justifies or demands a take out from No Trumps into a major suit is when you hold a suit of six or more (especially if without top honours) and are weak or bare in one or two outside suits. The take out of a No Trumper into a minor suit should only be made from weakness except in those rare cases when you have a practically certain game in the minor suit. The weakness should be a minor suit of at least six, with little or no outside assistance. I do not agree with taking out on a worthless hand w r ith a suit of five only. The great objection, and it is a very real one, to taking out a No Trumper from weakness is that it reopens the bidding. A No Trumper may be left in when the opponents see a chance of saving the game, or even defeating the contract. But if the partner takes out in two Diamonds or two Clubs it makes them sit up and take notice. Here is a case from play: Score game all. Z dealt and bid “One No Trump,” holding S.—A, 5,2; H.—A, 6,3; D.—A, Q, J, 2; C.—6, 5, 4. A passed, and Y bid “Two Clubs,” holding six to jack and not a court card outside. B passed on a fair hand, thinking the two Clubs bid innocuous. Z could not, of course, go on or switch, but A, who had been sitting tight over the No Trumper, called “Two No Trumps,” and made game. He held S.—K, Q, J; H.—K, J, 5,2; D.—K, 6,4; C.—A, K, Q. Now mark the difference. If Y had not make his weak take out the game would have been ■ played in one No Trump. Z would have lost 100 or 150 points less 30 for his aces, and would have saved the game and rubber at comparatively small expense. In fact the take out cost Y and Z the rubber.