HINTS ON AUCTION BRIDGE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 857, 28 December 1929, Page 6

HINTS ON AUCTION BRIDGE

Conventiotis

( Written for THE 50. V by -Caliban."—Copyright in New Zealand .) Ihave been asked by a correspondent what my views are on the subject of bidding conventions. Controversy in regard to such conventions has again become acute with the growing popularity of Contract Bridge. What my correspondent wants to know, I gather, is not what znv opinion is in regard to this or that particular convention, but whether I regard the employment of such conventions as defensible at all. This is a very interesting subject upon which a good deal has already been written. The bidding conventions which are advocated in Contract Bridge like many of those invented in the old days of ’’straight” Bridge, are of a highly artificial character. That is to say, they are strictly conventions- thev* have a significance which can only be appreciated by those who have esoteric knowledge. Suppose (merely for purposes of illustration) that a convention exists, among a certain school of players, according to which an initial call of Two Clubs means that the declarer holds no Clubs, but is strong in the other three suits. A stranger sitting down to play in such companv would be quite unable to hold his own in it, although familiar with the rules. Hence there arise two questions, to which I will address myself —one, is recourse to such conventions reasonable? and two, is it fair? . ...... ... To take the question first, my own view is that there is nothing inherently unreasonable in bidding conventions, provided that their employment has secured a reasonable degree of acceptance. Any development of Bridge which, within the framework of its rules, adds interest and variety to the game is to be welcomed. And unquestionably such interest and variety are added whenevet the technique of bidding becomes more effee'ive. The pleasure which intelligent men and women derive from Bridge lies in the mastering of problems of two kinds: tho problem of arriving, in combination with one’s partner, at the declaration which gives one s combined hands the best chance; and the problem of working out how that hand should be played. Mow the trouble of the former class of problem is that one has far less accurate data to go upon than with the latter; declaring (save with the very best partners) is a hit or miss affair which seldom affords the intellectual satisfaction of which in theory it is capable. ■ Hence, let me once more repeat, if the tools arc at hand wherewith to fashion a more accurate system of declaring, why should we refuse to make use of them? , ~ The force of this argument is well illustrated, I think, by the convention of the double of one of a suit. This is a strictly conventional double; if one’s partner is ignorant of it, and leaves the double in, it may cost his aide many hundreds of points, and whoever makes use of the double is consciously running this risk. Nevertheless, the convention is widely used, and most good players are in favour of it, for it adds something to their calling equipment which without it would not be there, and so facilitates that teamwork between partners which is essential to a pleasurable game. Given, then, the general acceptance of a bidding convention—based, of course, on a general belief in its theoretical soundness—l would not condemn it as unreasonable merely on the ground that it is conventional. X would point out, however, that'a balance needs to be preserved between conventional and ’’straight” (or non-conventional) declarations, simply because the former, if there are too many of them, become an intolerable nuisance from the point of view of the average player. His point of view (and it is the right one) is that Bridge, though it calls for certain qualities of intellect, is still a recreation; he does not want to make a business of it. He is averse, therefore, to burdening his memory with a mass of data, the mastery , f which involves more application than the game itself is worth. It was this elaboration of conventions which in the end killed "Whist, and which threatened to kill Auction Bridge in its infancy before its suit values were revised. The safeguard against thi3 over-elaboration of conventions lies, however, not in the condemnation of conventions as such, but in an adjustment of the rules (e.g., in regard to suit values) whenever a situation arises which suggests that they lend themselves to abuse. Let us turn now to my second question: is the use of bidding conventions fair? Home American writers have characterised them as “unethical.” And manv players whom one meets with share this view. “If it is legitimate'” said one of them to me, “for me to call One Club to show that I hold the Ace of Spades, why should I not equally be allowed to show the Ace of Spades by placing my forefinger to my nose? The one thing is just as dishonest as the other.’’ The answer, I think, is that if four players agree among themselves that it is permissible to show the Ace of Spades in this manner, there is not, in fact, any ethical objection to their doing so; the true criticism of their innovation is that it is not within the framework of the rules of Bridge. Tho technique of Bridge is based upon the bidding of suits in a prescribed order of precedence, and the conventions which I am discussing conform to this technique; it is for this reason, and for this reason only, that they stand on a different footing from gestures, and so forth, for Which, of course, the rules make no provision. The true criterion of unfairness in a convention is a different one, and I have already implied what it is: it is that conventions should be used which are not understood by everyone playing at the table. If I make a private arrangement with my partner to scratch my left ear when I want him to go No Trumps, that isj obviously, cheating; and it will be generally agreed that it would be just as much cheating to arrange with him that particular calls shall have a significance known only to the two of os Hence, when four people sit down to play Bridge, there should at least be tacit agreement as to the conventions they are using—unless, of course, they like to agree explicitly that ZY shall use one system and AB another, both Bystems being known. And now we come to the present trouble with Contract. It is that there are so many bidding systems in existence (most of them highly artificial) that only intensive study will enablo a player to comprehend them all; and hence he can never be certain (unless he confines himself to n limited circle of players) that the bids which he hears his adversaries making will be intelligible to him. If they are being made on some system which is not known to him, they might as well be made in a foreign language. And this is clearly not ’ ‘ fair ’ ’ to the unfortunate individual in question, though it does not constitute conscious unfairness on anyone else-'s part. The rule which should apply, it seems to me, is the good old rule cf caveat emptor: the would-be player of Contract had better chose his company carefully.