IS BRIDGE A GAME OF SKILL OR LUCK?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2185, 14 September 1907, Page 2 (Supplement)

IS BRIDGE A GAME OF SKILL OR LUCK?

Mr. .Dalton, says a writer in the Daily Mtiil, the leading bridge authority in England, remarks in one of his books that there is no game of cards in which skill meets with so sure and centaiin a reward as bridge, and no doubt Mr. Dalton’s views are shared by a number of players. A somewlmt extensive experience of bridge, however, at three of the most important card clubs in London—ifclio Portland, the Baldwin, and Almack’s —'has led me to draw a directly opposite conclusion. In the old days of scientific whist i.t used to be said that the best player had an advantage of about 10 per cent over the worst player; in other words, in ninety games or rubbers of every hundred the issue was decided not by the skill of the players, but by tho cards. Of course, a question of this nature can only bo definitely decided by dealing an enormous number of hands, say half a million, to four imaginary players, and ascertaining how often each of these players is dealt a hand which is either absolutely hopeless or strong enough to win by sheer brute force, hut up to the present no bridge statistician has been brave enough to undertake such a task.

It is perfectly obvious, however, that the “skill’ percentage' 16 lower at bridge than, at whist. According to the accepted figures, tho skilled whist player lias an advantage of 10 per cent over his less expert brother. At bridge I believe the accurate percentage is no more than 5, for the following reasons:- —At whist the reward for skilful play is the same no matter wli’it suit is trumps; if the whist expert scores five tricks by any hand, when a duffer would have to be content with two, he wills the game outright. Transfer this same player to the bridge table, and suppose he is the dealer anil that spades are trumps, the reward for his skill ■is merely ten points, or just a third of the game. It is manifestly absurd to include among contests of skill any game wherein tlie expert has only 5 per cent advantage over the iluffer. It ma3’ be freely admitted that many bridge players display powers of insight and close observation which are little short of marvellous, anil that so far they are as superior to the ordinary player as Mr. Victor Trumper is to the batsman of the village green. But whereas- Mr. Trumper reaps an instantaneous and constant reward for liis superiority, 3’our bridge genius has only one opportunity in 20 games for claiming superiority over the iluffer. It is true that here and there h e may save a few odd points, but unless lie holds the cards his skill cannot convert a losing account into a winning one. Wh'it is the use of being able to “place” the last five cards' in your opponents’ hands if these cards happen to be all winners? The most convincing proof, however, that witwing at bridge is a matter of luck rather than of skill is'provided b.v tho widespread popularity of the game. It would bo impossible for bridge to have attained its extraordinary bold over so many Englif' . en and Englishwomen unless it satisfied the Englishman’s gambling in.Hi net. Bridge could never have killed h-Kvara-t unless it had appealed to the ;i:ni ( . instiiicib —viz., the mv II: guess to stake certain sums of money on the mere accident of being dealt certain cards. Figures arc apt to be unconvincing, so lot me descend from the abstract to the concrete. At the Portland Club, tho headquarters of London bridge, there are some ten players who can show winning accounts every yea r. Of these ten onl3’ two are in the first-class; of the remaining eight five arc good, sound payers, and three are distinctly' below ■the average. At Almack’s, the largest mil most flourishing mixed card club in tiie world, every class of bridge player is to be met, from the very best to the very worst. It is notorious at Almack’s that with two exceptions all the regular winners are indifferent players, while one of tlie vor.y finest players in tlie club is a persistent and constant loser. I have not followed the figures so closely at the Baldwin, but two of the meirheirs of that club, who will with unvnt'3'iiig regularity, are certainly not in the first or even in the second class.

At every game of cards the players may be divided into two classes — good card holders and bad. Why •aces and kings should be dealt to one man and fives and sixes to another I do -not profess to explain. Probably if the holders of the fives aud sixes played long enough their turn would come for th e aces and kings, hut what is the period covered by “long enough?” Is it ten years, fifty, or a hundred?

I do not deny that the finest bridge players enjoy*lll intellectual pleasure quite apart from any material gain, lint everyone who embarks on a career of bridge playing ought to be prepared to pay for his pleasure, unless lie happens to be by nature a good card-holder. If he happens to be a real card genius plus a real card-holder, his lot is indeed enviable.