HINTS ON AUCTION BRIDGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 834, 30 November 1929, Page 28

HINTS ON AUCTION BRIDGE

A Deplorable Affair

{Written far Tilt SUS by ” Calibuii — Copyriylu in Sew Zealand.) Even tbc most experienced Bridge players are capable of making quite extraordinary mistakes, as the hand which follows—which is taken from actual play—well exemplifies. A, whose play, it will be agreed, U open to tbc severest criticism, has an acute - card sense,, and has played Bridge almost daily for 2U years. Yet, as 1 shall shqw, he made a complete bash of a hand which, seen in retrospect, does not look particularly difficult. But it is easy to be wise after the event. I should like my readers to ask themselves how they, iu A’s place, would have played the hand before they ioiu with me in .denouncing his ineptitude.

The score was Love-all in the Rubber Game, and the calling was as follows: Z, One No-Trump; A, Two Hearts; Y, Three Diamonds; B, No Bid; Z, Three No-Trumps; A, No Bid; Y, No Bid; B, Double; all pass. A note on the extraordinary calling is called for. Z’s opening bid of One No-Trump seems to me quite indefensible. Mis proper bid is One Spade, to be followed, if an opportunity presents itself, by Two Hearts. If his partner can support him in either major suit, he has a -good chance of game. To call No-Trumps is to court disaster, as if AB hold the Diamonds strongly, and have a card of entry or two, they may easily def the contract. A’s bid of Two Hearts is almost equally bad. With two entry cards he can save the game if B has anything in Hearts at all, while he has next to no chance of making it and may easily end by being doubled. Nor (I must apologise for appearing so censorious) do I much like Y’s Three Diamonds. It may easily mislead Z, it prevents Vis calling Two No-Trumps, and it is very unlikely to be a game-winning call. B did well, 1 think, to pass this call, as there was next to no chanle of game in Hearts, and Y’s Three Diamonds were certain to go down handsomely. He was right also to double Z > reckless call of Three No-Trumps, which—he assumed—was based partly upon Y 7 s apparent strength in Diamonds. Unfortunately, the fact that B had doubled Three No-Trumps but did. not double Diamonds was misunderstood by A, who was obsessed by the idea that B had doubled on the strength of Lis (A ? s) Hearts. The spectacular failure of the double arose from this misconception. . Now for the play. The fall of the cards was as under:— The cß*l underlined takes the trick.

And Z takes ihe remaining three tricks with his Spades. 1 Y* Z thus made Four No-Trumps doubled— contract aud one over-trick—-when they ought to have been at least two tricks down. Where did A B go astray? The answer is, l think, at flick 5. B had played the King of Hearts at ihe first trick, and, on getting iu at trick 3 with the King of Clubs, returned the 6. This should have made it perfectly clear to A that the Knave, 8, of Hearts—the major tenace—were in Z’s hand. A can only establish a Heart, therefore, by leading up to Z’s katfff twice—the heroic, but foolish, course of action upon which, .at trick 5, he embarked He ought, therefore, to have asked himself: wherein does the strength o* B*s hand lie? B has passed Y’s call of Three Diamonds, whereas Z proci eded from Three Diamonds to Three No-Trumps. This ought to have suggested to A that Z is not quite happy about the Diamonds. More significant still, Z has already taken ou< Y*s only card of entry At trick 5, therefore—risky as it may have seemed —A should have led out the Ace of Diamonds. This would have exposed si once the hollow pretence of Z ’s impertinent call. However. A missed his opportunity—an oversight with which one can readily sympathise. But the incomprehensible thing about the hand is that lie missed it again at trick 10. By this time there ought not to have be«« the slightest doubt as to the position. B had discarded his four Spades one after the other, so that it ought to have been obvnus to A that Z’s remain ing cards were three established. Spades aud the Knave of Hearts; that, therefore, he was void of Diamonds: a.od that tie lead of the Ace ef Diamonds, follow ed the 8, must give A B three tricks. Looked at iu the cold light of analysis, A’s lapse is quite mnaccountable—but, as I ttij before, it is easy to be wise after the erest.

Trick il A 1 B Z il 1 Hearts 5 Hearts 4 Hearts K Hearts A. 2 j; Clubs 2 Clubs A Clubs Clubs <5 3 |i Clubs Clubs j Clubs K Clubs 9 4 |[ Hearts Heart a T Hearts Hearts JO 3 Hearts X Die.. 2 Spades 11 carts s 5 jj Clubs 5 Clubs ‘1 Spades 5 Clubs Q 7 ji Clubs $ Din. 3 Spades 8 Clubs 10 8 Spades Q Spades c Spades 10 Spades A 9 I' Spades K Spades 9 Dia. 4 Spades el 10 i; Hearts 9 l>ia. 6 Dir. 7 Hearts el