BRIDGE IN BRITAIN

Evening Star, Issue 19791, 15 February 1928, Page 13

BRIDGE IN BRITAIN

MAJORITY OAILIHG D!BCOKriHJt3

British bridge dubs have decided against majority bidding (stales the London correspondent ol the Melbourne ‘Armis’). Tlicv reverted to value bidding on November 14. The London clubs voted by to dl ilio introdnetion of tho American system; the provincial dubs were in favor of the diauge by 55 to 40. The chief card dubs, which sent delegates to the final conference, opposed majority hidding by 9 votes to 3, one of the majority being Hie Portland Club itself. When the proposal was seriously made in June London was in favor ol majority calling by 35 votes to 20, but there was an adverse majority in tho provinces. The four months’ test of Hie American system has made London opinion veer round, doubtless because majority calling makes a rubber longer, ns it prolongs bidding Many London card players visit their dubs alter they finish business, and they like to play a rubber or two before dinner. They found that t!ie time added to each rubber by the use of majority calling tended to make them late for the evening meal. In the alternative, a player has had to wait longer before he can “ cut in.” Contract bridge has not found favor in London, though it is very popular in the United States, for the same reason. Rubbers arc apt to he too long, especially for those who are waiting to “cut in.” Apparently provincial players have more time on their hands, and they do not object to the. additional complications which the Americans have introduced into bridge. Probably the provincial chibs include fewer card players of experience, and their vote has been dictated by a relatively few loaders. At any rate, tho Portland Club conference decided against majority calling, in spite of the narrow adverse vote, though value bidding will not be tho only possibility in English Hubs in future, as an appendix to the Portland Club rules will allow any club io adopt majority bidding if it desires. British card players are almost unanimously against the American penalty for a revoke, considering it unfair that a player .should ever win a rubber after a revoke, and, perhaps, because of it. At the conference recently it was also proposed that, in the event of a. declarer leading from the wrong hand, Britain should adopt the American penalty, compelling him to lead from the same suit from tho correct hand. This was rejected ns too severe a penalty, in view of the fact that, the error gave information to nobody except the opponents.