Master-auction; auction for those who know it

Preface

If you do not know how to play Auction, this is not the book for you. I recommend my Complete Auction Player which will start you at the beginning and turn you out a smooth and accomplished player — time and effort on your part being taken for granted.

If you know the rudiments and routine of Auction and are perfectly content never to know more, never to improve your game, never to rise above mediocrity, again this is not the book for you. There is no book for you.

But if you, being a player of any grade whatever, are eager to push ever nearer to perfection, if you are interested in keeping pace with the latest discussions, in studying the illustrations of various subtle and pretty points, in polishing away the small ignoriv Preface

ances which are surprisingly in evidence even among good players, then this is — I greatly hope — the exact book for you. Certainly, I have tried very hard to make it so.

F. I.

Hastings-on-HudsoN; May, I02O.

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I.— The One-Double . . . i

II. — Fallacies .

Chapter I

Woe is me that I should be obliged to record, not only the continued existence of the one-double, but its increased popularity. It has spread, and is spreading — but if it ever becomes universal, it will certainly be over my dead body.

Bolshevism has spread, and is spreading — you can even hear many smooth and eloquent arguments in its favor; laziness has spread, and is spreading; strife and discord have spread, and are spreading; and so, too, of arrogance and hatred and unrest. But I shouldn't consider that an argument in their favor; it is merely one more indictment of human nature — one more proof that all brains aren't the best brains.

I fear that it would take more than a few pages of print — which are all that here avail me — to put the one-double out of existence. That, moreover, is not my present object. I am even about to show its devotees how to use it properly. But before I do that, let me once more put myself on record as its implacable enemy, and let me give you my reasons.

It is dishonest — wouldn't you rather be straight ?

It is illegitimate — wouldn't you rather stand by the law?

It is cowardly — wouldn't you rather be a good sport?

It is clumsy — wouldn't you rather be graceful ?

It is dangerous — wouldn't you rather play safe?

It is unkind — wouldn't you rather be gracious ?

It is insidious — its habit is like drugtaking.

It is retrogressive — don't you care to stand for progress?

And finally, it is unnecessary — which is equivalent to saying it is stupid. For if a thing is dishonest, illegitimate, cowardly, clumsy, dangerous, unkind, insidious, and retrogressive, the only conceivable excuse for anyone's embracing it would be the fact that it would serve him a turn which nothing else would ; when that excuse vanishes, when the thing is proven unnecessary to the accomplishment of his end, what would you think of him for still clinging to it?

Now, as abuse is cheap till proof is forthcoming, let me give you the reasons for my statements.

The one-double is dishonest because it means something quite other than what it says. I needn't tell you that to double honestly is to show that you want the adversary to play his bid and that you expect to beat him at it;

but that is very far from being what the one-double means. Doubling a one no-trump means, ''Partner, please tell me, what is your best suit?" Doubling a one-suit bid means, * ' Oh dear, that bid of the adversary's has just spoiled my no-trumper. I haven't a stopper in his suit. Do you happen to have one, Partner?"

When you put this conversation into cold print, doesn't it look rather bald? Doesn't it savor a bit of sharp practice ? Even though everyone at the table knows the signal, that doesn't excuse it. The adversaries of a one-doubler can not possibly prevent his partner from giving him the explicit information that he has demanded by a set and false form of words. A signal doesn't have to be secret to be lacking in sportsmanship.

It is illegitimate. From time immemorial it has been conceded that specific information in card games (except the bare terms of the bidding which are necessary to the life of any bidding -game — terms which mean exactly what they say) must be conveyed by play of cards — not by word of mouth. Conveyed by cards, it takes skill to give, skill to read, and there is always the sporting chance of lacking the proper cards and of having to use one's wits in order to circumvent the awkwardness. Conveyed by word of mouth, it takes no skill to give, no skill to read, and there is no sporting chance: nothing but sudden paralysis of the tongue could prove embarrassing.

It is cowardly. The man who doubles a one-bid is afraid to take a chance at a bid, even though he holds a hand that is too strong to pass. He wants to " pussy-foot "^ and find out what his partner has, before he commits himself. A disease somewhat akin to this broke out in certain local circles some two years ago. My only knowledge of it came through various letters begging me to champion, or to kill, it. The dealer would neither pass nor bid; instead, he would say, **I reserve my bid." Then, he would either glean information, or if the other three players passed he would still have the right to bid. This absurd "reserved" bid and the one-double are blood-brothers.

It is clumsy. It is always clumsy to make the wrong person carry a load. The player who, holding a strong hand himself, hears his adversary announce a strong hand, has every reason to expect his partner to hold a weak one. Yet he forces that weak hand to bid, while he, himself, shirks the responsibility.

// is dangerous. When a one-double goes wrong, it goes wronger than any other wrong thing I ever saw. By its very nature it must. The danger of the bid is marked by its exactions. No one may possibly be left with it. If a man says to his partner, "I'll go into this place, but for Heaven's sake don't leave me there! Come immediately and drag me out by hook or crook," would you look upon that as a very safe place? And when even the rescuer may be in as much danger as the adventurer, I say avoid the place.

It is unkind. It places on weak shoulders a burden that strong ones refuse to assume. No weak hand should be so victimized; no strong one should be permitted so to victimize a partner. It is an agonizing moment when a player hears himself ordered to bid on material that warrants no bid. He'll be damned if he does, and he'll be damned if he doesn't — especially will he be damned if he doesn't.

It is insidious. Take my word for it, if you once begin using one-doubles you'll go on — not because of their startling success, but because you'll soon find that you don't know how to sit up without this brace — how to walk without this crutch for a lame duck. I note the insidious spread of the disease in my pupils. Of course, I must teach them every variation of the game, and I permit them free choice of school — even while I emphasize that which I consider best. Those who eschew the one-double never miss it; they soon learn to cover every situation effectively without its aid. Those who elect the one-double are soon its slaves. Holding a no-trump hand and hearing a no-trump bid by the adversary, they will say to me: '*/ don't know whether this is a pass or a two no-trump bid. ril just double and put it up to Tny partner!'' And very soon they learn to dispense with all reasoning except that contained in their last sentence: ''I'll just double and put it up to my partner." Mind, it is the weak players who do this instinctively; but artificial braces will eventually weaken any player, no matter how strong.

// is retrogressive. The day of the forced bid ended when a special congress decided that the dealer might pass. What engendered that decision ? American ' ' high spades! " In the days when the dealer (or his partner) was forced to bid, there had to be protection against too heavy losses. Spades at two a trick, and a stop-loss, formed this protection until certain players had the brilliant idea of taking advantage of the low spade value and making it a means of illegitimate bidding.

An entire set of false bids was coined; lest they prove too elaborate for ordinary memories, ''bid-cards" were printed — these to be carried to every game. It is unnecessary here to describe all those ancient spade-bids^ ranging from ''one" to "seven." The last three will serve as an example : ' ' Five spades"' meant, "Partner, take your choice between hearts and royals" — ("royals" being spades at nine a trick) ; ' ' Six spades ' ' meant ' ' Take your choice between hearts and no-trumps ' ' ; and "Seven spades" meant "Take your choice between royals and no-trumps!"

But a few short years ago that method was heralded as the "coming landslide in Auction." What does it sound like to-day? And I am forced sorrowfully to admit that it was an American idea, that it came close, to killing America's Auction prestige; instead. of asking "What are the latest American theories?" players in other countries; were coming to ask "What are the latest American jokes?" — and it took a long and arduous newspaper campaign to kill. And

THE ONE-DOUBLE COMES FROM THE SAME SCHOOL OF PROMOTERS WHO LOOSED AND SPONSORED THE MISERABLE HIGH-SPADES !

In other words, there are certain players whose minds and tastes demand false bids; deprive them of one set, and they immediately coin another.

However, my point is this: since it has been definitely and officially decided by Auction-congress that no player shall be forced to bid, it is not only retrogressive, but it is an infringement on a player's most elementary privileges, so to force him. Yet that is what happens to the luckless partner of the one-doubler : he is robbed of his passingprivileges (which are his intrinsic right), and is forced to bid. Regardless of poverty, of danger, of distaste, he must bid; his partner has so ordered. The partner with the strong hand hides behind a shelter, at the same time commanding the partner with the weak hand to bid.

Now, all these indictments might, I sup-

The One-Double ii

pose, be set aside if the fact remained that the one-double was necessary to the success of certain situations — that it could do something that nothing else could do. But when that last prop is knocked away, surely the one-doubler is left without a leg to stand on I And it is this last prop which I am about to assail by means of hands which have recently come under my observation — all of them actual hands, none of them with a single spot altered to fit my theories.

If you are a one-doubler, I know what you will say : you won't care for the examples that I give. You will think that if they were a little different here, a little changed there, my points could not be scored. Perhaps you will "wish she could see that hand we played last week when the one-double worked so well." Then let me answer you thus: you could almost certainly never show me a hand in which I would not undertake to substitute for your one-double, a two-suit bid, a two-no-trump bid, or a pass — and with equal suecess. And if you should succeed in showing me such a hand, you still couldn't convince me that the ofie-double was honest — for it isn't. And I'm old-fashioned enough to have a strong penchant for honesty. There will always be those who prefer subterfuge to frankness, there will always be those who will put themselves on record as supporters of false methods, but I'm free to confess that their tastes are not mine. Nor do I stand alone, for (you see, I've saved my most knock-out argument till the last) players who are hailed as some of the best in the world detest that one-double as heartily as do I. Whether ethically or economically, they have no use for it. A man whose name is known everywhere that Auction is played told me that it was the most expensive experiment he had ever tried. Said he, "Let the penny players monkey with it if they want to. The dollar players will let it alone. " I'm told that most of the best-known Clubs in America stand against it, as Clubs — which is not to say that none of their members use it. However, I can assure you that if you decide to range yourself on my side, you will not lack good company — the best, in fact. As I find that the double of a one-no-trump bid is much more popular than the double of a one-suit bid, I shall confine myself to discussing the former ; the latter seems dying or dead. And now for the hands:

^ 962 4^ 83 764 4^ 97632

4^ 10

KQ J92 4^ AJIO

Y

A B

Z

^Q74 4^ AKQJ9 A3 4b KQ

It is a clean score, and Z naturally prefers to bid no-trumps rather than clubs. Nevertheless, should he be pushed very far he would certainly jump into clubs, forced by the shortness of his other suits.

By any sane and honest system of bidding, A holds the winning hand. He can make the highest successful bid at the table, and this bid is perfectly obvious the moment he looks at his hand. He can defeat any bid that is made against his own safe one. If he uses common sense and common honesty the hand is his. True, he cannot go game on it, — ^but neither can he juggle it into a game-hand by any possible system of false bids and false doubles. No artificial system will increase the value of his hand one iota. No trick that was ever invented will serve him as well as good old-fashioned science and common sense. Even chicanery has its limits, you see.

A's bid is plainly ''Two diam.onds." He is debarred from two no-trumps by his singleton club, and by the knowledge that clubs must positively be Z's long suit. With two aces, two kings, a queen, and two jacks in his own hand, A must know that Z is long where he, himself, is short, and that the no-trumper was bid on strong clubs and side re-entry. This knowledge guides A to the bid of "Two diamonds."

I have already said that where the one-doubler doubles one no-trump, I take my choice of three courses — passing, bidding two no-trumps, or bidding two in some suit. I can give no hard-and-fast rule to cover all hands, but the practiced player will never be at a loss as to the proper course. The hand under discussion, for instance, is much too strong to allow A to pass, much too weak in clubs to permit a two-no-trump bid (lacking as it does, the master-card of its own best suit), and exactly right for a two-diamond bid. Perhaps you will sneer at diamonds on a clean score, but surely you would rather make three-odd diamonds with twenty-eight honors than let your adversary make an unmolested no-trump? And surely you i6 Master-Auction

would rather play diamonds triumphantly than no-trumps disastrously?

A's hand, however, is the exact type on which the average player (who is also a ** no-trump hound") would double the one no-trump. In this case, what will happen? Y will pass — the adversary of a one-doubler must always pass, if he has any sense; B must bid — the partner of a one-doubler must always bid, whether he has any sense or not. He will be forced to say "Two clubs" on his only four-card suit — and that, by the way, is one of the strongest of the many indictments against the one-double: it forces a two-bid on four trumps, and a two-bid on four trumps has been admitted to be bad Auction ever since the principles of scientific bidding were established.

B, poor wretch, bids "Two clubs," and Z passes from pleasure. A, thinking clubs are stopped in B's hand, goes to the "Two no-trumps" for which he has been secretly hankering — and the fat is in the fire.

A*s wiser course, after the two-club bid from his partner, would be to over-call with *'Two diamonds." He would then be just where I would have had him in the first place, only he would get there clumsily instead of gracefully. The false double fails to change the situation, and A reaches the same p5int by both routes — except that in the first case he reaches it with clean hands and a pure heart, and in the second case he doesn't.

Where was the great value of his one-double?

I showed this hand to a one-doubler. "But," objected he, "suppose you, being in A's place, should bid your famous ' Two no-trumps'? What then?"

"But I wouldn't," I cried. "That would be as crazy as doubling the one. The cards forbid such a bid. I'd say 'Two diamonds' without a second's hesitation."

"Very well," he replied, "I'll sit in A's place and I'll double the one no-trump. Change B's cards just a trifle — give him five spades to the queen "

i8

''He can't have the queen," I objected. "That's one of the things on which Z has bid his no-trump. You be A and take his cards; I'll be Z and take his. Fix the rest of them to suit yourself."

He shoved them into this position :

^10 9 6

4^ 976

Y

*10

KQ J92

A

B

4^ 754 10 8

4b A J 10

—

^ AKQ J9

A3

♦ KQ

''There," he said. "I'm A. I double your one no-trump, my partner gives me 'Two spades' and we make them."

"Oh no, you don't," I told him. "I'm still alive. I bid 'Three clubs' — and I make them, with forty-eight honors."

**I bid 'Three spades, '"he countered.

*^ And lose "

''Notabit of it!"

But he did — though as the hand progressed I'll admit to fears.

I led the king of clubs. Then, as I didn't mind letting dummy trump with an honor (you see, A is now dummy), I followed with the queen of clubs. A trumped with the ten. If he now exhausts trumps I make a round, Y makes a round, and B is left with a losing club. Losing two clubs, two trumps, and a diamond, he'd make but two-odd.

So, after trumping the second club, he led the king of diamonds, which I took. I led the jack of clubs, and A trumped with the jack. Then he led the ace of spades, then a low diamond to his own ten. Next, the jack of hearts, which I covered and dummy won; then the queen of diamonds, on which he threw a heart and which I trumped with the king. I led the ace of clubs, dummy threw a heart, Y his last diamond, and B trumped.

He led his last heart to dummy's ace. Next, the jack of diamonds, on which Y discarded, but which B, himself, was forced to trump. He then had to lead trumps right up to Y — from eight-five to nine-seven, so that Y captured both rounds. B thus made but two-odd spades.

Of course, if in arranging the hand he had taken for himself both the nine and eight of spades, and also the jack and ten of hearts (leaving absolutely nothing in Y's hand) he could have made his three spades — but that wouldn't have been thanks to the one-double. Also, I might have said ''Four clubs" — my honors protecting my one-trick loss. And taking the hand as it really lay, it is a splendid example of the way to accomplish legitimately that which the one-double seeks to accomplish illegitimately. With A's hand, he can make three-odd diamonds against any attack in the world, provided he has enough sense to part with his own high trumps in order to establish dummy's ten and eight.

True, he would be uncomfortably forced by the clubs, but he could afford it. The most probable blind-lead would be the eight of clubs, which Z would take and return; A's trumps would be forced by every club-lead after the first — in spite of which he can make three diamonds or defeat any higher adverse bid. And by no combination of false bids can he arrive at a declaration which will pay him as well as his plain and obvious one.

I constantly hear one-doublers criticizing each other for hands that fail. "You hadn't the cards to double a one no-trump, ' ' they will cry; and then, a few moments later, they themselves go gaily to doubling on hands that are as light, or lighter. It is very hard to persuade them to commit themselves specifically as to the make-up of a legitimate one-double (if there could be such a thing) ; but if you ever do pin them down, the hand that they will show you is invariably a strong two no-trumper.

That, in all possible cases, is my own favorite bid against an adverse one no-trump. When I sit on the proper side (and sometimes when I don't), and when I have the material, there is no bid that I love better than two no-trumps against one. The rubbers that this bid has won for me ! The other rubbers that it has saved for me ! The partners that have called it blessed, because it didn't shove on to them a responsibility that they were unable to assume !

When I bid two no-trumps against ONE, I'm always willing to play them. That is the great beauty of the bid — ^its honesty. Nevertheless, if my partner

HAS A POOR hand AND ANY FIVE-CARD SUIT HEADED BY AN HONOR, I WANT HIM TO OVER- CALL WITH THREE IN THAT SUIT. And that

you see, is nothing more nor less than our old and tried friend, the over-call, pushed one point farther. With an impossible no-trump assist, you over-call one no-trump with two in any five-card suit: you've done it for years : the convention is an indispensable part of your Auction equipment. Very well; go just one step farther. With an impossible no-trump assist, over-call two no-trumps with three in any five-card suit that is headed by an honor. That no over-call can be made on fewer than five cards has long been conceded; length is the first requisite of a weak bid. Yet the partner of the one-douhler is forced to over-call on any four-card suit. Thus it is unsound at the very beginning. Reduce your old-established no-trump over-call to a four-card suit instead of a five, and see how often you'll hit trouble. Very often, if I'm any prophet. Yet a miracle is supposed to he worked and the thing rendered safe in the case of the one-double.

With my two-no-trump bid, I stand ready to play my own suit in all cases where my partner lacks the material for a proper over-call. That is its beauty; I may be left in, faihng a sound over-call from my partner. The one-doubler is not so fortunate ; he must be rescued, even when his partner is notably unable to assume the task.

Here is a hand which admirably illustrates the points in question:

^96

fi Q763

Q5

4^ 76542

Y

A B

Z

9 KJ3

<> AK

Z opened with "One no-trump." It was light, but as dealer I constantly bid it as lightly. Z has a no-trumper or nothing. He has three suits stopped (provided luck is with him) and he may have even four. Open ing no-trumpers are bid on stoppers these days. But in the present case, Z has even an ''average" no-trumper, in that he holds one ace, one king, one queen, one jack, one ten, etc. The chance of an adverse bid, or of an over-call makes his bid correct.

A passed, and I do not think Y should have said, "Two spades." He didn't think so either, and he passed. Y's spades were just a trifle too poor to over-call, while his queens might help the no-trump hand. So the bid came to B, being held by Z at one no-trump.

A weak player without a spine would immediately have doubled the one no-trump. But B wasn't a weak player, and he had a spine.

He thought it a pity to waste his hand at clubs, on a clean score.

He thought it a pity merely to content himself with defeating a one-bid, which is rarely very profitable.

Although on the wrong side of the adverse bidder, he. bid **Two no-trumps," thus proving the color of his blood. B can make four no-trumps — and that is certainly too good a hand to throw away.

Nevertheless, A (unable to see his partner's

26 MsLster-Auction

hand) has a distinct duty. His cards bid him over-call with * * Three diamonds ' ' — as a warning, and on the proper material. And he makes five-odd. Of course, any five-odd hand is better than any four-odd hand, in that it takes more skill and better cards to win it. B's bid and A's over-call make an excellent commentary on the principles that I have just been elucidating. And the thing whidh I beg you particularly to note is this : had B doubled the one no-trump, it wouldn't have helped him at all. Y would have bid his diamonds, and either he would have played them and made five, or B would have gone to no-trumps and made four. Exactly the same things happen without the false aid of the one-double. Now, I am perfectly aware that you can sit down and make a hand where the one-double would pay. But even then, you can't turn it honest. And equally easily can I sit down and make hands where every rule of sane bidding will go wrong, where the over-call from no-trumps on five cards to an honor will go to smash, where raises on soHd raisers won't work, where poor playing will beat good, where correct finesses prove more costly than poor ones. I can make a special hand to overthrow every doctrine of the game. That proves nothing. Scripture can be quoted to any end, and hands can be made to stultify the best and most scientific of principles. It is the rule that works in the most cases that must be accepted. And these rules that I am giving you, do just that thing. Another hand will emphasize my points :

V KJ5

AJ7

Z bid *'A no-trump." Should A pass, Y would be forced to call his partner off with ^' Two hearts."

But A didn't pass. He bid ''Two no-trumps," Y passed, B over-called with ''Three spades," and scored four-odd. It was exactly the same principle as if A had bid "One no-trump," and B had over-called with "Two spades." Nothing, you see, but our old and tried friend pushed one trick farther — and if the two-no-trump bid is properly made, there is rarely much trouble about that third trick, because the strength lies in the right place. Z's strength lies under A's strength.

A one-doubler, in A's place, would double one no-trump. B would say "Two spades," and exactly the same result would obtain. Where, then, would he the great advantage of the one-double ? What did it accomplish that the legitimate hid failed to accomplish ? True, the latter necessitated a bid that was one trick in excess of the former; "pussy-footing"

would shave one trick from the honest contract ; but to my mind that fails to excuse it — rather, it makes it the more contemptible. Nor have I noted a general fear of three-bids that would v/arrant the dishonesty.

Moreover, should there have been no five-card suit in B's hand (if he held, for instance, one less spade and one more heart) he wouldn't be forced to bid on four trumps, and A could perfectly well make his contract of two no-trumps. Whereas, if A doubles, he can not possibly be left in his false position.

Now, note this point which I am about to make:

When a one no-trump is over-called with a two-suit bid, I would not have the no-trump BIDDER RETURN TO HIS BID. And equally, when two no-trumps are over-called with a three-suit bid, I would not have

THE NO-TRUMPER RETURN TO HIS BID.

When called off, stay off ; that is a rather safe motto, as I think you'll find.

The player who bids two no-trumps against one, will often find difficulty in getting into his partner's hand to lead. He will be forced to lead from his own strength right up to the adverse strength. This is bad, although on the return volley the adverse strength will be in the same plight, and will have to lead straight up to him. By taking careful account when to win and when to lose, no player should find himself in overwhelming difficulty with a mere two-bid. Nevertheless, this possible tension will be greatly relieved by a three-bid in some suit from the partner of the two-no-trumper — and it is this fact which forms the chief basis for its recommendation. Should it not be forthcoming, however, the plight of the two no-trumper (being free and not forced) can by no possibility be as dire as may be that of the luckless partner of a one-doubler.