CONTRACT BRIDGE Complex Systems Of National Teams

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31087, 16 June 1966, Page 12

CONTRACT BRIDGE Complex Systems Of National Teams

[Contributed by J.B.WJ Contract bridge has now become a fully international game. Every four years a world bridge Olympiad is held, and in New York in 1964 29 nations were represented, including North and South America, Europe, South Africa, Poland. Thailand, China, Australia, Bermuda and The Philippines. At such a gathering of the nations some politics was perhaps inevitable, as when the United Arab Republic, on the orders of its Government, refused to play against Israel or the Lebanon. It was also reported that only white South Africans were eligible to represent their country, because national bridge tournaments were held in hotels and licensed premises where the law prohibited the mixing of white and coloured peoples. In years when there is no Olympiad, there is a world championship, at which the champions of North America, South America and Europe battle for supremacy. With effect this year, to this trio will be added the winners of the Far Eastern zone, which consists of the Pacific countries, including Australia and New Zealand. The world champions for an unprecedented eight years have been the Italians, whose record is unlikely to be equalled. International bridge is a different game, in which stamina and temperament are at least as important as ability. It is normal for the players to be actually at the table for eight to 10 hours a day for nine or 10 days. Their concentration must not lapse for one mistake may cost the match. In these circumstances nerves are tense and tempers frayed. Accusations of cheating are regrettably not uncommon, though usually unfounded. The bidding systems favoured by the experts are often so complex that it is not surprising they give rise to dark murmurings about cheating. British teams usually favour Acol, a simple system with few conventions. American teams generally use Standard American, a development of the Culbertson of the thirties, as refined by Goren, and embellished with numerous expert ad hoc conventions and artificialities. But ever since the Italians won the world title with two artificial systems, many challengers have tried to do the same. The Roman Club system sets out to describe the distribution of the hand: S—B 5—KJ107532 H—KJ 7 3 ll—lo

D—AK3 2 D—Q9 C—Q J 8 5 C—lo 9 3 2 C 2 N.T. 3 S No. The two-club bid denotes a hand with three four-card suits and 12 to 15 points. Two no-trumps asks which is the short suit, and when the opener indicates spades he becomes declarer. The French answer to this was the Monaco Relay, a sort Of question and answer routine: S—Q J 3 S—A KlO 2 H—A J 8 7 H—9 D—AQ4 D—KJ 52 C—9 6 2 C—A KQ J IC. ID. (a) IH. (b) 2D. (c) 2N.T. (d) 3 C. (e) 4 C. (f) 4D. (g) 4 S. (h) 4N.T. (i) 5 S.(j) 7 N.T. (a) A relay bid, requesting more information. (b) Natural. (c) Forcing to game. (d) Flat hand with 13-15 points. (e) How many apes have you? (f) Two, either both red or both black. (g) How many kings? (h) Either three or none. (i) How many queens? (j) Two, either clubs and hearts, or spades and diamonds.

After one such long and very slow auction, an American player asked to have the bidding repeated, adding sadly “I was a young man when it started.”

Tired of competing against this sort of thing, some British players devised the Little Major, an attempt to be “the most” in artificiality. S_2 S—K QJB 6 4 H—lo 5 H—AKQ63 D—KJ 10 7 2 D—3 C—AKIO 9 5 C—2 IS. (a) 2D. (b) 2S. 2N.T. (c) 3N.T. (d) 4S. (e) SC. (f) No. (a) An opening bid based on the minor suits. (b) Asks for the shortest suit. (c) Asks for the distribution of the minor suits. (d) Shows five diamonds and five clubs. (e) Intended to be the final contract. (f> A mistake! As these examples show, one needs to be an expert with the memory of an elephant to play such systems, and it is reassuring to lesser mortals that the majority of top class players still use more simple methods.