Neglected points of auction bridge

IX. Miscellaneous

=;8

I. Controlling Adversary's Lead . .

S8

0^

3. Postponing Trump Lead

4. Taking Out Opponents* Entry . .

Appendix. The Laws of Auction

(By courtesy of the Whist Club, New York City)

PAGE

Cutting Out 74

Right of Entry 74

Shuffling 75

The Deal 75

A New Deal 76

The Declaration 78

Doubling and Redoubling 82

Cards Exposed before Play 85

Cards Exposed during Play 86

Leads Out of Turn 88

Cards Played in Error 89

The Revoke 90

General Laws 93

New Cards 94

Bystanders 94

Etiquette of Auction 94

Preface

The bridge literature of to-day is commonly unacceptable to experienced players because it deals principally with fundamentals rather than with subtleties, and because it cannot be read without setting up a bridge-table, laboriously sorting a pack of cards, and laying out the hands in the diagrams.

The subtleties which are most frequently neglected both by bridge players and bridge editors are here set forth and fully analyzed, and the way, not merely a way, of playing certain situations is shown.

To follow the play it will not be necessary to turn to a pack of cards except, possibly, in the last chapter, in which the most complex situations are dealt with.

The rules used are those of the New York Whist Club of June, 19 15. Among other changes, these abolished the bid of the low spade, allowing the dealer to pass, and making all spade bids worth nine; and provided that a bid of a greater number of tricks {e,g., three clubs) was higher than any bid of a lower number of tricks {e. g., two no-trumps).

October^ 1Q15.

NEGLECTED POINTS

OF

AUCTION BRIDGE

NEGLECTED POINTS

OF

AUCTION BRIDGE

I

INFERENCES

To play a first-class game it is essential not only that you can draw correct and subtle inferences, but that you actually do so, play after play. If, for instance, in a trump hand, dummy at your left has a side suit of several small cards and leads one of them, your partner plays low, declarant takes with the ace, while you hold king and others, then you must place the queen in 3'our partner's hand. If the declarant had ace and queen, would he not ordinarily have finessed ?

To make a list of all inferences is impossible, since the}^ are innumerable, each hand presenting many possibilities. There are, however, several

underlying principles which should be mastered:

I

1. You shotild infer, rather than remember. Do not merely see, or even remember, the four cards of a trick, but also infer from each one of them. If, in the illustration just given, you had merely remembered the fotu* cards and then, at the end of the game, tried to remember" the queen, yon would probabl}^ fail. But if you picture the queen in 3'our partner's hand it will be eas}' enough later to ''remember" where the queen is. Observation, rather than memory, makes good pla\^ers.

2. Consider not onl}^ what is done, but what is left undone. Suppose against a declared trump you lead the king, then ace, from ace, king, and two small ones ; dumim^^ has four small ones ; 3^our partner plays the 2 and the 3, and declarant the 10 and jack: that is, the play is as follows:

Opening lead king, then ace (x X remaining)

DIAGRAM I X X

(x X remaining)

Dummv

You

Your Partner

2, then 3

10, then jack (x means a card smaller than the 10)

Your partner's two, three, is not so important as the negative fact that he did not play the three, two, and thus echo. He must have another, which is obvioush' the queen.

In this connection it may be noted that, according to the better usage, the echo should not be used with the queen and two others, but only to show the ability" to ruil the third round of the suit.

Suppose, against a trump make, you open a jack suit witn your fourth best; dummy has several small ones, and 3^our partner takes with the king, declarant playing low. While declarant might be holding off Vvith the ace, it is highly probable that your partner has it. What 3-0U can be quite sure of, however, is that your partner does not hold the queen.

Or, again, suppose the dealer bids a no-trump and all pass. You open with a small heart, and dumm\'^ lays down this hand:

A,K of hearts

Q, J, 10, X, X, X of diamonds X, X, X of clubs X, X of spades.

You hold K, X, X in diamonds. Dummy necessarily takes the first heart trick, and then leads a small club, which declarant finesses, and you take. The positive inference, that declarant is strong in clubs, is obvious. The negative inference from his leaving the diamonds untouched is equally important. Why doesn't declarant establish dummy's diamonds while the ace of hearts is still in dummy's hand? Does the declarant lack the ace of diamonds? Or, if he has it, is it a singleton so that he can still not make the diamond suit ? Or is it possible that the declarant has no more hearts and dummy's remaining high heart is not in fact a certain entry ? Even if 3^ou draw the wrong inference, at least draw one. It is better to have inferred and lost than never to have inferred at all.

3. Put yourself in the other player's place. Leave your own seat, so to speak, and sit in the chair of the person whose play you are diagnosing. Pass before your mind's eye the various hands from which you would have played as he did. In the first illustration (when you placed the queen in your partner's hand) it would be hard for you to draw an inference by merely looking at the declarant's ace, and the king in your own hand. Put yourself in declarant's place and imagine yourself holding the ace and queen and not taking the finesse.

4. Infer from bidding, not only in a general way as each bid is made, but specifically during the play of the hand. It is not enough for you to know that a dealer who passes has not this make or that. If later he plays two aces, you must ask yourself whether he would have passed had he a third ace, or other substantial assistance.

The suggestion previously made, to put yourself in the other player's place, applies equally to bidding. Do not, as a rule, take another player's bid as a starting-point, and then try to infer what it means. Momentarily forget the bid in question. Put 3'ourself in the bidder's place. Review the bids previous to his. Marshal before yourself, still in his place, the hands on which you would have bid as he did. You will be surprised to find, when you go back to your own hand, what an insight you have into his.

5. Draw inferences from leads, not only at the time of the lead and in the suit led, but subsequently and in other suits. Against a spade make, with no other bidding, your partner opens a small heart, which you read as his fourth best. He probably has neither the ace nor the king, since a low lead from either would be an inferior opening. If subsequently your partner takes a diamond trick with the king, you know that he has not the queen of diamonds, and should know also that he has not the ace. Would he have opened with a low heart if he had the ace and king of diamonds ?

While the foregoing suggestions are aimed at those sources of inference which are most frequently overlooked, yet, after all, the principal thing is to infer continually. Get the full meaning from every word and every play. Infer so steadily that at last, in the common cases at least, you unconsciously infer the moment you see.

2 5

A word of caution is necessary. Do not abide stubbornly by an early inference when subsequent plays show an unexpected situation. That first inference (placing the queen when declarant played the ace and you held the king) was well drawn, but later it may appear that the declarant is going to make a long low suit in dummy and could discard the queen if he happens to hold it. Infer continually, but let your inferences be facile, not rigid.

II

COUXTIXG

Closely akin to inferring and, in a sense, part of it, is "counting.'* By this, technically, is generally meant counting the number of cards which a player holds in a given suit. If, for instance, your partner fails in the third round of tnmips, it is not enough to remember that he has no more. You must count the exact number of trumps which the declarant holds.

When a player leads A, K, showing no more, or plays the down-and-out echo, or leads a two, which you read as his fourth best, you must not only count the number of cards he holds, or remember that he has no more, but must count the nimiber of cards in that suit which the other player holds.

Having counted the number of cards in one or more suits, subtraction will frequently allow you to count the rest of the hand. If the dealer has three spades, two hearts, and some clubs, count the total nimiber of cards in his hand and determine precisely how many clubs he has.

All this is simple enough and nothing nevr, but the difficulty is players do not count play after play. Counting, to many, is like a familiar word understood when heard, but never on the tip of their own tongues.

In the foregoing illustrations, the object was to count the exact number of cards in one hand. Frequenth" it is enough to count the number of cards in two hands jointly, to show that whatever the exact distribution, a play is safe. Suppose, placing against a trump make, you lead the king of spades from A, K, J, lo. Dimmiy has four small ones, and your partner and declarant both follow low. Aside from whatever information 3^ou gather from your partner's card, as indicating his echoing or not, you need not wait for your A, J, to be led to. As four cards have been played, and 3'ou and dtmimy each hold three, your partner and declarant together can have only three cards in that suit. If declarant holds the queen it must be singleton, or, if not, then your partner can rufl the third round.

In addition to counting cards, it is frequently necessary to count tricks. Suppose, at a love-all score, the declarant, playing a no-trump, takes your opening spade lead with his ace, leaving you four tricks in spades, if 3^ou oan get in. It then becomes apparent that declarant can take also seven hearts and diamonds, making a total of eight tricks. Dimimv has the king and several small clubs. You don't know where the ace of clubs is, but if declarant holds it he can certainly go game. You need not, therefore, break your hand trying to keep a club protected. Your game is lost unless your partner has the ace of clubs and gives you a spade. Of course, if it were plain that the declarant holds the ace, you must abandon the hope of saving game, and save as many tricks as possible, or perhaps prevent a slam.

In all cases of counting the principal thing is actually to observe and count. Two suggestions may, however, be of value.

When learning to count, separate the cards in your hand according to the cards counted and not counted. Suppose you know the dealer has eight cards, three of which are spades. Do not hold your hand in this way :

Arrange your cards to emphasize the three cards, definitely counted, thus:

If yon then find he has two hearts, separate two more cards, and so on. This, more than an^^thing else, will call 3'our attention to numbers and counting and help you to derive the benefit from it.

When you have learned to count, do not continue the habit of arranging cards in this way. It is poor bridge, and worse form, pardonable only as a temporary expedient.

The second suggestion is the rule of five. When a major suit is bid, credit the bidder with at least five, and, if bid by him persistently, with at least six.

If pla^^ng wdth a group of players in which minor suits are not bid on top cards alone, say, A, K, X, but on top cards with a willingness to play at that make, unless something better offers, then the rule of five can be applied to minor suits also.

Occasionall}^ you will find that there are fewer cards {e. g., A, K, Q, x), or more cards, in the bidding hand than the rule calls for, but in the majorit}^ of cases yon will find the rule helpful.

If a player who, when holding five or more hearts or spades always takes his partner out of a no-trump, does not do so, credit him with at most four spades or hearts. If later he bids a heart or spade, 3^ou should credit him with exactly four of the suit. This five-card take-out is excellent. At advanced scores it can be used in the minor suits also.

The rule of five is, of course, useful not only in 10 counting the declarant's trumps, but your partner's also. Many a game is lost in trying to give one's partner a ruff when the rule of five would have shown that he had no more trumps, and the only play was to try another suit before a long suit in dimimy was made up.

The advantage of counting speaks for itself. An illustration, however, may be helpful to show how far counting may lead when the first card is played.

Suppose at a twenty-four all-score, the dealer bids a club, second hand (your partner) passes, third hand bids a diamond, and you get the bid at one heart. The dealer, now the opening leader, leads the two of spades, and your hand and drmimy's are as follows:

3 hearts

3 spades

4 clubs

3 diamonds

Bid one club Leads 2 of spades

Dummy Leader

You (Declarant)

Third Hand

Bid one diamond

5 hearts 3 spades

2 diamonds

3 clubs

Ji

The two of spades is probably the fourth best. If it were a singleton, third hand would probably have bid a spade. This gives the leader four spades and third hand three spades.

The game being twenty-four all, all suits are major. The rule of five gives the leader five clubs, leaving one club to the third hand. The same rule gives the third hand five diamonds and the leader three diamonds. This accounts for twelve cards in the leader's hand and nine in the third hand. The leader must have one heart, and the third hand four.

The probable distribution of cards among your opponents is, therefore, as follows:

The Leader Third Hand

I heart 4 hearts

4 spades 3 spades

3 diamonds 5 diamonds

5 clubs I club

Will 3"0U not, in trumps, finesse far more successfull}^ with this information than without it ?

Having counted in this way, you should draw inferences as to the high cards. The leader probably has neither the ace nor the king of spades, since a low lead from either would be an inferior opening, etc., etc.

In counting, the same caution is necessar}^ as

with inferences. Deductions early in the hand

are not always certainties. Adapt yoiurself to all information at hand. Above all, count and infer even if, at times, incorrectly. Your total gains will more than counterbalance occasional losses.

A second caution is also necessar}^ in both counting and inferring. Give heed to the conventions, skill, and idiosyncrasies of the ones you are playing with. Reconsider diagram 2, for instance — ^in which you counted all hands when the first card was played — and assume that your opponents bid clubs and diamonds on tops alone, even when the score is twenty-four all. In that case you will not count fast or far.

Ill

EMPHASIZING STRENGTH

As soon as possible, determine the ability of the players at your table. If you and 3^our partner are superior to your opponents, be more venturesome in bidding, or play for penalties, rather than rubber; if inferior, be more cautious; and, as between partners, when other considerations leave 3^ou in doubt whether to bid your suit or your partner's, bid the suit of the better player. You should not, of course, base your play upon relative ability alone, but should give it due consideration.

Have a clear idea of whose skill is in question. In making 3'Our contract, it is a question of your or your partner's single-handed skill against that of your opponents. In defeating an adverse make, it is the joint skill of yourself and partner against that of one opponent. It may even be a question of one player against another; for instance, when all high cards evidently lie between you and the opposing bidder. It is never, in the play of the hand, a question of two partners against two opponents.

In straight bridge, relative skill affords a scientific and conclusive basis for the choice of seats. If your opponents have cut the deal and chosen seats, let the stronger of you sit at the dealer's left. On the first deal, the stronger will then have the important, opening lead; on the second, he will play the hand; on the third, though the opening lead is now equalized, he w411 still have played one hand more than his partner, and only on the fourth deal will stronger and weaker stand alike. Conversely, a player w^ho has cut the deal should choose seats so that, tmless his opponents change their position, the weaker opponent will be at the dealer's left.

In Auction, since the dealer is not necessarily the declarant, the choice of seats is less important and the correct principle less clearly established. Moreover, the system of scoring has so frequently and so recently been changed, and methods of bidding still vary so widely, that it is too early to reach a definite conclusion as to whether the dealer or his partner is more likely to be the final declarant. I believe it is the dealer, and, as between opponents, second hand, rather than fourth. Furthermore, I consider the deal a slight advantage. It is all-important to attack vigorously, and the dealer can frequently do so, or at least forestall an adverse attack, when he could not do so in any other position. While recognizing the tentative nature of the conclusion, I therefore beheve that in Auction, too, the first dealer should attempt to have the weaker opponent at his left, while his opponents should definitely place the stronger of them to the left of the first deal.

Occasionally it is wise to choose seats according to the peculiarities of a certain player. An opponent who grossly fails to cover honors should, if possible, be put at the left of a strong, observant player, so that the latter may have an opportunity to lead through.

Thoughtful choice of seats may seem unimportant and fine-spun. The fact is, rubber upon rubber is lost by an inferior play by the weaker player which would never have been made by the stronger, and the opponents should, therefore, attempt to put the weaker where he will do most harm. Moreover, there are hundreds of plays which one by one may seem unimportant and infrequent, but which, taken together, give a commanding advantage.

In choosing seats and emphasizing the weaker player, the demands of courtesy should not be overlooked; and in a loose game, with few penalties enforced, scientific choice of seats may not accord with the spirit of the play. But in a rigorous game choose seats carefully.

The principle of emphasizing the stronger player may control as to rules enforceable by either partner and permitting them to say, ''Partner,

I6 will you determine the penalty?*' More frequently, however, it w411 be a similar, though slightly different principle. This is to let the decision be made by the hand which is the important one on the whole deal or in the single play in question. Suppose your partner, as dealer, bids a no-trump; second hand, two clubs; you and fourth hand pass; your partner bids two no-trumps, and second hand then makes an underbid of two clubs. If doubling is your play, correct the underbid and double; or, if you have a very poor hand and wish to wean your partner from no-trumps, correct the underbid and pass. Do not correct thoughtlessly. Your partner, who has the important hand on that deal, may be eager to play no-trumps, especially so if you are ten or more on the game. Why force him to bid three? If 3^ou are ready to bid two no-trumps, consider, nevertheless, whether you should ask your partner as to the penalty. Why hastily deprive him of what may be a golden opportunity to double three clubs, especially if you are a game ahead and a dash for rubber is not imperative? Whatever you do, do not blindly correct the underbid, hesitate, and finally overbid with three no-trumps.

Always scrutinize every detail. If your partner has been bidding a suit instead of no-trumps, and your opponents eventually make an underbid in another suit, then you have no information as to your partner's holding in the adverse suit.

This difference may not change the result, but requires consideration.

Another example: Dummy at your right holds the queen, jack, and ten of a suit in which you hold the king and others. Dummy cannot possibly get the lead to play through your king, but declarant leads dummy's queen by mistake. On this play yours is the important hand. Protect your king. Correct the lead. But if you do not hold the king, and it is immaterial to you who leads, let your partner decide. The lead from dummy may be the master-key to his play.

In the foregoing example the high cards were intentionally specified. When you held the king there could be no question of the advisability of calling the lead, but frequently there is. Suppose dummy at your right holds the ace, jack, and nine of trumps, and you the queen and others, and dummy's jack is led through you out of turn. The declarant probably has the king, ten (and others), and, if the queen does not fall from your hand, is likely either to pass the jack or take with the king and return the ten. If you call the lead, declarant may place the queen in your hand and eventually lead through you. You must try to outguess and outmanoeuver your opponent.

IV

PASSING

Bidding on insufficient strength is a simple fault requiring little discussion. Aside from opening declarations without high card strength, or injudicious sacrifices to save game, overbidding probably occurs most frequently when one takes an appreciable risk in a non-game-going declaration for the mere purpose of scoring some points toward game — which means all risk with no chance of real gain — or, secondly, when, without a single raise from one's partner, one persistently bids even a game-going declaration — in which case, especially if bidding against no-trumps, one should not be disappointed by finding practically nothing in his partner's hand; or, finally, when one plays no-trumps against two declared suits, in which case mere stoppers are not enough, unless one can immediately run ofi a large ntimber of tricks.

Passing, though v:ilh sufficient strength to bid, is more complex. I shall consider only two phases : passing to conceal a suit, and passing because a bid is either dangerous or superfluous.

Suppose, at a love-all score, the opponent £t your right deals and bids a no-trump, and 3'our hand is as follows :

Clubs: K, 0, J, X, x, x Diamonds: A, x, x Hearts: x, x Ro^^als: x, x

Granting th^t your hand is strong enough to bid two clubs, you should, nevertheless, pass.

It is highly improbable that yon can go game in clubs, and also improbable that 3'our partner can do so with any make against a no-trump. Your first object must, therefore, be to save game, and your best chance is to establish your clubs against a no-trump. Why bid and not only invite third hand to shift to hearts or spades, but also give the dealer a certain chance to do so ?

Sometimes, of course, if you bid you will force your opponents to two no-trumps and gain a good penalty, and occasionally you may even go game, but your infrequent gains in this way will be overshadowed by the points and games you lose by inducing a shift.

You cannot attack ever}' moment. Be satisfied with the defensive at times.

Do not, however, be too eager to conceal a suit, for this is purely a defensive measure and you cannot win by a continual, passive defense. Before concealing suits give attentive consideration, therefore, to each detail. The foregoing hand, for instance, contains the following points:

1. Your score is love. You presumably cannot go game. Compare point 4.

2. Your opponents' score is low. If you force them to two no-trumps, you will increase the nimiber of tricks necessary for them to make their contract, but not the number of tricks necessary to make game. A bid which makes both game and contract more difficult is frequently justified when one making only contract more difficult is not.

3. Your opponents' make is no-trumps. Your suit is more powerful against that make than any other.

4. Your make would he clubs. This is not usually considered a game-going declaration, especially against a no-trump, and of all possible declarations is the worst with which to keep the flag flying.

5. You have only simple honors in clubs. If you continue bidding and sacrifice to save game, you will not have a large honor score to reduce your loss.

6. You have not heard from your partner. If, contrary to probabilities, your partner has a prospect of game, or if he is strong enough to indicate a suit for you to lead, he will bid in spite of your pass. If your partner had bid a diamond you should pass. If he had bid a heart or spade, leaving only one game-going suit to the opponents, it would be a close question whether you should pass or not.

3 21

7- You hauC not heard from the adversary at your left. This is not so important as any declaration from him would have been.

8. You are weak in hearts and royals. Even if strong in one of the two, it is frequently better to pass.

9. You have a sure re-entry,

10. You have the opening lead. If you were fourth hand you should bid 3^our clubs to indicate the suit for your partner to lead. This ma}^ invite a shift, but, not having the lead, you would lose little.

Some of the foregoing points are of slight, others of great, importance. If a hand differs from this one in some respects, do not immediately conclude that your bid will be different. Consider the whole situation.

Concealing a suit against a suit bid is usually bad. Bidding one suit against another is less likely to invite the opponents to shift, and, even if they do so, \'ou are frequently as strong as before. Furthermore, the opponents* suit bid, as distinguished from a no-trump, indicates concentrated rather than distributed strength and you and your partner may have a ver\^ good chance for game in a suit or even in no-trumps. You should give your partner what information you safely can. Finalh^ even if you and your partner have not a game-going declaration, you should take such points above and below the line as 3^ou can without serious risk.

There are, however, cases where a suit should be concealed against another. Suppose the dealer at a love-all score bids a spade. Your partner and third hand pass, and you have a club bid, considerable strength in spades, but no hearts. It is safer to leave the opponents in their spade bid than to take the chances of their bidding a heart.

Similar to concealing a suit entirely, whether against a no-trump or a suit bid, is a refusal to raise your own or your partner's bid, hoping to keep the opponents in a declaration in which you can save game, or even win a penalty. This, too, is frequently effective (especially when your suit is a minor suit and your opponents are bidding two suits), but is to be adopted with caution.

I turn now to passing because a bid is either dangerous or superfluous.

Suppose at a love-all score you deal and bid a heart, and fourth hand bids a spade, and that you have no prospect of game, but just enough to bid two hearts. You should pass. You are playing with twenty-six cards, not thirteen. If your partner can raise, he will, unless he prefers to lie in wait for the spades. If he cannot bid, you cannot go game, may even fail to make your contract, and if your partner has nothing at all you may be doubled and lose heavily. If you feel a temptation to bid to force your opponents to two spades, remember not only that you would yourself be making an unsound bid in the hope that your opponents would also do so, but especially that your position would be worse than theirs. You are raising without information from your partner. The opponent (at your right) who has bid spades, cannot possibly bid again without hearing from his partner.