b'ION BR! \n\n^AWS AND PRlNCIPl \n\n\n\nRNEST BERGHOi \n\n\n\nBook .B5 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION \nBRIDGE \n\nTHE LAWS AND PRINCIPLES: \nUNDER THE \nENGLISH CODE OF 1914 \n\nB7 \n\nERNEST BERGHOLT \n\nAuthor of \n\n"The Principles and Practice of Whist" (Philadelphia, 1902), \n"The Principles and Practice of Bridge," The Bridge \nProble XL Book Double Dummy Bridge " ), " Royal \nSpades, or Lily Auction Bridge," "A New Book \nof Patience Games," A Second XewBook \nof Patience Games," etc. \nAnd Editor of "Hoyle\'s Games Modernized" \n\n\n\nLONDON \n\nGEORGE ROUTLEDGE & SONS, LTD. \nBroadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane, E.G. \nNew York : E. P. DUTTON & CO. \n\n\n\n3^ \n\n\n\n"7 \n\n\n\nof \n\n^ PREFATORY NOTE \n\nThis volume is the fruit of marty years\' experience in \nteaching and in analysing the game of Bridge under \neach of the varying forms which it has successively \nassumed. I have borne in mind throughout the \nrequirements of the beginner ; but I hope that even \nthe expert may find food for reflection in some of the \nviews which I have endeavoured to develop. \n\nI am glad to take the opportunity of expressing \npublicly my gratitude to that excellent analyst, Mr. \nJames Castello, for his revision of the proof r heets, and \nfor the many valuable hints and suggestion that he \nhas furnished. \n\nThe Aut:-1R. \n\n\n\nCORRIGENDUM \n\nIn all three of the diagrams on pp. 122, 124, 126. \n\nFor ^ J read ^ 10 \n\n\xe2\x80\x9e 41 10 \xe2\x80\x9e ^ J \n\n\xe2\x80\x9e \xe2\x99\xa6 J \xc2\xbb\xc2\xbb * 10 \n\n\xe2\x80\x9e + 10 \xe2\x80\x9e 4i J \n\n\n\nCONTENTS \n\n\n\nPAGE \n\nIndex to the Laws ..... 7 \n\nThe Laws \xe2\x80\xa2 9 \n\nIntroductory ...... 39 \n\nGeneral Routine ...... 43 \n\nOriginal Declaration by the Dealer . . 43 \n\nWhen to Bid One in a Suit .... 47 \n\nNot Original Declarations .... 50 \n\nTwo-suit Hands ...... 59 \n\nOne No-Trump ...... 67 \n\nNot Original No-Trumpers . . . \xe2\x80\xa2 73 \n\nThe Two-suit No-Trumper .... 75 \n\nThe Call of Two or More No-Trumps . . 76 \n\nSecond Hand Declarations .... 77 \n\nThird Hand Declarations .... 82 \n\nFourth Hand Declarations .... 97 \n\nThe Bidding on Second Round ... 98 \n\n" Flag-Flying loi \n\nDoubling ....... 102 \n\nThe Original Lead. \xe2\x80\x94 I. When there are \n\nTrumps ....... 109 \n\nContract allowed to Win through a Wrong \n\nOpening Lead . . . . .114 \n\n\xc2\xa7 \n\n\n\n6 \n\n\n\nCONTENTS \n\n\n\nPAGE \n\nThe Original Lead. \xe2\x80\x94 11. When there are no \n\nTrumps . . . . . . .116 \n\nHow NOT TO Play a No-Trumper . . 119 \n\nThe Original Lead when Partner has Doubled \n\nA No-Trumper . . . . .128 \n\nThe Suit Originally Led : which Card to \nChoose : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. \' \xe2\x80\x94 ^When there are Trumps . . .129 \n\nSummary ...... 133 \n\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 ^When there are no Trumps . . 135 \nThe Bath Coup. Neglecting to Change Suit . 137 \n\nSummary . . . . . .139 \n\nThe Lead of the Fourth-Best . . .139 \nExamples of the Lead of the Fourth-Best . 140 \nThe Eleven Rule . . . . .141 \n\nLeading to Partner\'s Declared Suit . .144 \nThe Ordinary Conventions .... 144 \n\nGeneral Play of the Hand . . . .147 \n\n\n\nINDEX TO THE LAWS OF ROYAL \nAUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nPAGE \n\n\n\nThe Rubber ....... 9 \n\nScoring ........ 10 \n\nCutting ........ 13 \n\nFormation of Table . . . . \xe2\x80\xa2 13 \n\nCutting Out ....... 14 \n\nEntry and Re-entry . . . . -14 \n\nShuffling . . . . . . -15 \n\nThe Deal . . . . . . .16 \n\nA New Deal . . . . . . -17 \n\nDeclaring Trumps . . . . . .18 \n\nDoubling and Re-doubling . . . .21 \n\nDummy ........ 23 \n\nExposed Cards . . . . . -25 \n\nCards Liable to be Called . . . .26 \n\nCards Played in Error, or not Played to a \nTrick ........ 30 \n\nThe Revoke ....... 30 \n\nCalling for New Cards . . . -33 \n\nGeneral Rules . . . . . -33 \n\n\n\nThree-handed Royal Auction Bridge . . 35 \n\nf^TIQUETTE of RoYAL AUCTION BrIDGE , . 37 \n\n7 \n\n\n\nTHE LAWS OF \nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nFramed by the Cards Committee of the Portland \nClub, with the co-operation of a representative \nof each of the following Clubs : The Baldwin, \nThe Bath, The St. James\'s, The Turf, and \nWhite\'s. \n\nFinally Approved and Adopted by the Committee \nof the Portland Club in May, 1914. \n\n[These Laws are here reprinted verbatim by special \npermission. The Explanatory Notes, which embody \nseveral of the most recent decisions of the Portland \nClub Committee, are by the Author of the present \nwork.] \n\nTHE RUBBER \n\nI. The Rubber is the best of three games. If the \nfirst two games be won by the same players, the third \ngame is not played. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 Were it not for a recent extraordinary decision \nby the New York Sunday Sun, it would scarcely be necessary \nto say that " the best of three games " means the majority \nof three games : two games out of three. An agreement is \noccasionally made to play what has been called a partie \nof rubbers, i.e., to play until the same side has won two \nrubbers. In such an event, it must be agreed beforehand \nwhether " winning a rubber " is to be deemed to mean \n" winning the majority of games " or " winning the balance \nof points" {see Law 11). \n\n9 \n\n\n\n10 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nSCORING \n\n2. A game consists of thirty points, obtained by \ntricks alone, which are scored below the line. This \nis exclusive of any points counted for Honom\'s, \nChicane, Slam, Bonus, or Under -tricks, aU of which \nare scored above the hne. \n\n3. Every hand is played out, and any points in \nexcess of the thirtj\' points necessar\\\' for the gamie \nare counted. \n\n4. \\Mien the declarer [vide Law 50) makes good \n\nhis declaration by winning at least as many tricks \nas he declared to win, each trick above 6 counts : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n6 points when Clubs are trumps. \n\n7 Diamonds \n\n8 ,, Hearts \n\n9 ,, Spades (Royal) are trum.ps. \n10 ,, there are No Trumps. \n\nThese values become respectively 12, 14, 16, 18, \nand 20 when the declaration has been doubled ; and \n24, 28, 32, 36, and 40 when the declaration has been \nre-doubled [vide Law 56). - \n\n5. Honoui"s consist of ace, king, queen, knave, and \nten of the trump suit. \\Mien there are no trumps \nthey consist of the four aces. \n\n6. Honours in trump suits are thus reckoned : If \na player and his partner conjointly hold \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. The five honoin-s of the trump suit, they \nscore for honours five times the value of the \ntrump suit trick, \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE ii \n\n\n\nII. Any four honours of the tramp suit, they \nscore for honours four times the value of \nthe trump suit trick. \nIII. Any three honours of the trump suit, they \nscore for honours twice the value of the \ntrump suit trick. \nIf a player in his own hand holds \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. The five honours of the trump suit, he and \nhis partner score for honours ten times the \nvalue of the trump suit trick. \n\nII. Any four honours of the trump suit, he and \nhis partner score for honours eight times \nthe value of the trump suit trick ; and if \nhis partner holds the fifth honour, nine \ntimes the value of the trump suit trick. \n\nThe value of the tramp suit referred to in this law \nis its original value \xe2\x80\x94 e.g., six points in clubs and \nseven points in diamonds ; the value of honours \nis in no way affected by any doubling or re-doub- \nling. \n\n7. Honours, when there are no trumps, are thus \nreckoned : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nIf a player and his partner conjointly hold\xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. The four aces, they score for honours forty \npoints. \n\nII. Any three aces, they score for honours \nthirty points. \nIf a player in his own hand holds \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nThe four aces, he and his partner score for \nlioiiours one hundred points. \n\n\n\n12 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nThese values are in no way affected by doubling or \nre-doubling. \n\n8. Chicane is thus reckoned : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nIf a player holds no trump, he and his partner \nscore for Chicane twice the value of the \ntrump suit trick. The value of Chicane is \nin no way affected by any doubling or \nre-doubling. \n\n9. Slam is thus reckoned : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nIf a player and his partner make, independently of \nany tricks taken for the revoke penalty \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. All thirteen tricks, they score for Grand Slam \n\none hundred points. \nII. Twelve tricks, they score for Little Slam fifty \npoints. \n\n10. Honours, Chicane, Slam, Bonus, and points for \nUnder -tricks are reckoned in the score at the end of \nthe rubber. \n\n11. At the end of the rubber, the total scores for \nTricks, Honours, Chicane, Slam, Bonus, and Under- \ntricks obtained by each player and his partner are \nadded up, two hundred and fifty points are added to \nthe score of the winners of the rubber, and the \ndifference between the two scores is the number of \npoints won, or lost, by the winners of the rubber. \n\n12. If an erroneous score affecting Tricks, Bonus, or \nUnder -tricks be proved, such mistake maj^ be corrected \nprior to the conclusion of the gam.e in which it oc- \ncurred, and such gam^e is not concluded until the last \ncard of the following deal has been dealt, or, in the \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 13 \n\n\n\ncase of the last game of the rubber, until the score \nhas been made up and agreed. \n\n13. If an erroneous score affecting Honours, \nChicane, and Slam be proved, such mistake may be \ncorrected at any time before the score of the rubber \nhas been made up and agreed. \n\n14. When a rubber is started with the agreement \nthat the play shall terminate {i.e,, no new deal shall \ncommence) at a specified time, and the rubber is then \nunfinished, the score is made up as it stands, 125 \npoints being added to the score of the winners of a \ngame. A deal, if started, must be finished. \n\nCUTTING \n\n15. The ace is the lowest card. \n\n16. In all cases, every player must cut from the \nsame pack. \n\n17. Should a player expose more than one card, \nhe must cut again. \n\nFORMATION OF TABLE \n\n18. If there are more than four candidates, the \nplayers are selected by cutting, the first six in the \nroom having the right of belonging to the table, which \nis complete with six players. The candidates who \ncut the next lowest cards have a prior right to any \nafter-comer to enter the table. \n\n19. The four who cut the lowest cards play the \nfirst rubber ; they cut again for partners, and the \ntwo lowest play against the two highest. The player \ncutting the lowest card deals first, and has choice of \n\n\n\n14 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\ncards and seats, and, having once made his selection, \nmust abide by it. \n\n20. Two players cutting cards of equal value, unless \nsuch cards are the two highest, cut again ; should they \nbe the two lowest, a fresh cut is necessary to decide \nwhich of those two deals. \n\n21. Three players cutting cards of equal value cut \n\nagain ; should the fourth (or remaining) card be the \n\nhighest, the two lowest of the new cut are partners, \n\nthe lower of those two the dealer ; should the fourth \n\ncard be the lowest, the two highest are partners, the \n\noriginal lowest the dealer. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 To avoid a fresh cut, it has become customary \nof late years to rank cards of equal denomination according \nto the order of the suits in Auction ; e.g., ii four sixes should \nbe cut, those cutting the six of clubs and the six of dia- \nmonds would play against those cutting the six of hearts and \nthe six of spades ; the player cutting the six of clubs would \ndeal first. This practice is not recognized by the Laws. \n\nCUTTING OUT \n\n22. At the end of a rubber, should admission be \nclaimed by one, or two candidates, the player who \nhas, or the players who have, played a greater number \nof consecutive rubbers than the others is, or are, out ; \nbut when all have played the same number, they \nmust cut to decide upon the out -goers ; the highest \nare out. \n\nENTRY AND RE-ENTRY \n\n23. A candidate, whether he has played or not, can \njoin a table which is not complete by declaring in at \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 15 \n\n\n\nany time prior to any of the players having cut a \ncard, either for the purpose of commencing a fresh \nrubber or of cutting out. \n\n24. In the formation of fresh tables, the candidates \nwho have neither belonged to nor played at any other \ntable have the prior right of entry ; the others decide \ntheir right of admission by cutting. \n\n25. Any one quitting a table prior to the conclusion \nof a rubber may, with consent of the other three \nplayers, appoint a substitute in his absence during \nthat rubber. \n\n26. A player joining one table, whilst belonging to \nanother, loses his right of re-entry into the latter, and \ntakes his chance of cutting in, as if he were a fresh \ncandidate. \n\n27. If any one break up a table, the remaining \nplayers have the prior right to him of entry into any \nother ; and should there not be sufficient vacancies \nat such other table to admit all those candidates, they \nsettle their precedence by cutting. \n\nSHUFFLING \n\n28. The pack must neither be shuffled below the \ntable nor so that the face of any card can be seen. \n\n29. The pack must not be shuffled during the play \nof the hand. \n\n30. A pack, having been played with, must neither \nbe shuffled by dealing it into packets, nor across the \ntable. \n\n31. Each player has a right to shuffle once only \n\n\n\ni6 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n(except as provided by Law 34) prior to a deal, after \na false cut, or when a new deal has occurred. \n\n32. The dealer\'s partner must collect the cards \nfor the ensuing deal, and has the first right to shuffle \nthat pack. \n\n33. Each player, after shuffling, must place the \ncards, properly collected and face downwards, to the \nleft of the player about to deal. \n\n34. The dealer has always the right to shuffle \nlast ; but should a card or cards be seen during his \nshuffling, or whilst giving the pack to be cut, he may \nbe compelled to re-shuffle. \n\nTHE DEAL \n\n35. Each player deals in his turn ; the order of \ndealing goes to the left. \n\n36. The player on the dealer\'s right cuts the pack, \nand, in dividing it, must not leave fewer than four \ncards in either packet ; if in cutting, or in replacing \none of the two packets on the other, a card be \nexposed, or if there be any confusion of the cards or \na doubt as to the exact place in which the pack was \ndivided, there must be a fresh cut. \n\n37. When a player, whose duty it is to cut, has once \nseparated the pack, he cannot alter his cut ; more- \nover, he can neither re-shuffle nor re-cut the cards. \n\n38. After the pack has been cut, should the dealer \nshuffle the cards, the pack must be cut again. \n\n39. The fifty-two cards shall be dealt face down- \nwards. The deal is not completed until the last card \nhas been dealt face downwards. There is no misdeal. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 17 \n\n\n\nA NEW DEAL \n\n40. There must be a new deal \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. If, during a deal, or during the play of a \nhand, the pack be proved to be incorrect or \nimperfect. \n\nII. If, during a deal, any card be faced in the \npack, or in any way exposed on, above, or \nbelow the table. \n\nIII. Unless the cards are dealt into four packets, \none at a time and in regular rotation, begin- \nning at the player to the dealer\'s left. \n\nIV. Should the last card not come in its regular \norder to the dealer. \n\nV. Should a player have more than thirteen \ncards, and any one or more of the others \nless than thirteen cards. \nVI. Should the dealer deal two cards at once, or \ntwo cards to the same hand, and then deal \na third ; but if, prior to dealing that card, \nthe dealer can, by altering the position of \none card only, rectify such error, he may \ndo so. \n\nVII. Should the dealer omit to have the pack cut \nto him, and the adversaries discover the \nerror prior to the last card being dealt, and \nbefore looking at their cards. \n\n41. A player may not look at any of his cards until \nche deal has been completed ; should he do so, and \nI card be afterwards exposed, the adversary on his \n\nB \n\n\n\ni8 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nleft shall have option of allowing the deal to stand or \nnot. \n\n42. If the dealer, before he has dealt fiftj\'-one cards, \nlook at any card, his adversaries have a right to see it, \nand may exact a new deal. \n\n43. Should three plaj^ers have their right number \nof cards, and the fourth have less than thirteen, and \nnot discover such deficiency until he has pla\\\'ed an}^ \nof his cards, the deal stands good ; should he have \npla3\'ed, he is answerable for any revoke he may have \nmade, as if the missing card, or cards, had been in his \nhand ; he may search the other pack for it, or them. \n\n44. If a pack, during or after a rubber, be proved \nincorrect or imperfect, such proof does not alter any \npast score, game, or rubber ; that hand in which the \nim.perfection was detected is null and void, and the \ndealer m.ust deal again. \n\n45. Any one dealing out of turn, or with the \n\nadversaries\' cards, may be stepped before the last \n\ncard is dealt, otherwise the deal stands good, and the \n\ngame must proceed as if no mistake has been made. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 If a player complete a deal mth the wrong cards, \nso that the deal stands good under the Law, the interchange \nof the two packs also stands good. \n\n46. A player can neither shuffle, cut, nor deal for \nhis partner without the permission of his opponents. \n\nDECLARING TRUMPS \n\n47. The dealer, having examined his hand, maj- \neither pass or m.ay declare to win at least the odd \ntrick, but he may declare to win more. Should hei \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 19 \n\n\n\nmake a declaration, he must state whether the hand \nshall be played with or without trunr ps ; in the former \ncase he miust nam.e w^hich suit shall be trumps. The \nlowest declaration he can make is "One Club" \xe2\x80\x94 \ni.e., he declares to win at least one odd trick, clubs \nbeing trumps. \n\n48. After the dealer, each player in turn, com.menc- \ning with the player on the dealer\'s left, has the right \nto pass or to make a declaration higher than has yet \nbeen made, or to double the last declaration, or to \nre-double a declaration which has been doubled, \nsubject to the provisions of Law 56. A declaration \nof a greater number of tricks in a suit of lower value, \nwhich equals the last declaration in value of points, \nshall be considered a higher declaration- \xe2\x80\x94 e.g., a \ndeclaration of " Three Clubs " is a higher declaiation \nthan " Two Spades " (Royal), and " Four Clubs is \nhigher than " Three Hearts." If all the players pass, \nthe hand is abandoned, and the deal passes to the \nnext player. \n\n49. A player, in his turn, may overbid previous \ndeclarations any number of times, and may also \noverbid his partner, but he cannot overbid his own \ndeclaration which has been passed by the other three \nplayers. When the final declaration has been made \xe2\x80\x94 \ni.e., when the last declaration has been passed by the \nother three players \xe2\x80\x94 ^the player who made such \ndeclaration (or in the case where both partners have \nmade declarations in the same suit, or of " No \nTrumps," the player who made the first of such \ndeclarations) shall play the combined hands of \n\n\n\n20 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nhimself and of his partner, the latter becoming \nDummy. \n\n50. When the player of the two hands (hereinafter \ntermed "the declarer wins at least as many tricks \nas he declared to do, he scores the full value of the \ntricks won {see Laws 2 and 4). When he fails, his \nadversaries score fifty points for each under-trick \xe2\x80\x94 \ni.e., each trick short of the number declared ; or, if \nthe declaration has been doubled, or re-doubled, one \nhundred or two hundred respectively for each under- \ntrick ; neither the declarer nor his adversaries score \nanything towards the game. \n\n51. If a player make an illegal declaration, such \nas declaring an impossible number of tricks, the \nadversary on his left may demand a new deal, may \ntreat such declaration as not made, or may permit \nit to stand. The player in error cannot be penalized \nfor more than Grand Slam. \n\n52. If a player make a declaration (other than \npassing) out of turn, the adversary on his left may \ndemand a new deal, or may allow the declaration \nso made to stand, or he may refer it to his partner, \nwhose decision must be final. Should the declaration \nbe allowed to stand, the bidding shall continue as if \nthe declaration had been in order. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 The following case has been decided by the Portland \nClub. Z. is the dealer, but has not declared. A., thinking \nit is his own deal, says " I pass." Y., the next player, then \ncalls One Spade. Z. now says it is his deal, and calls \nOne No-trump. What should be done ? \n\nDecision. \xe2\x80\x94 B. (partner of A.) has the triple right of penalty \nas laid down in Law 52, and there the matter ends. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 21 \n\n\n\n[It is unfortunate that A/s mistake, for which there is no \npenalty, and which must be deemed a void act, should \nhave misled Y., but in giving an official decision, the Laws \ncan only be construed strictly. \xe2\x80\x94 Ed.] \n\n53. If a player, in bidding, fail to declare a sufl&cient \nnumber of tricks to overbid the previous declaration, \nhe shall be considered to have declared the requisite \nnumber of tricks in the bid which he has made, \nprovided that the number of tricks shall not exceed \nseven ; and his partner shall be debarred from making \nany further declaration, unless either of his adver- \nsaries make a higher declaration or double. If, \nhowever, such insufficient declaration be accepted \nby the next player passing it, or doubling it, or by \nmaking a higher declaration, no rectification can be \nmade. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 Either adversary may call attention to the in- \nsufficiency of the declaration, or to the fact that a declaration \nhas been made out of turn. See Law 104. \n\n54. After the final declaration has been made, a \nplayer is not entitled to give his partner any informa- \ntion as to a previous declaration, whether made by \nhimself or by either adversary ; but a player is entitled \nto inquire, at any time during the play of the hand, \nwhat was the final declaration. \n\nDOUBLING AND RE-DOUBLING \n\n55. The effect of doubling and re-doubling is that \nthe value of each trick over six is doubled or quad- \nrupled, as provided in Law 4 ; but it do\xc2\xa7g not alter \n\n\n\n22 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nthe value of a declaration \xe2\x80\x94 e.g., a declaration of \nTwo Clubs " is higher than " One Heart/\' although \nthe heart declaration has been doubled. \n\n56. Any declaration can be doubled and re-doubled \nonce, but not more ; a player cannot double his \npartner\'s declaration, or re-double his partner\'s \ndouble, but he may re-double a declaration of his \npartner\'s which has been doubled by his adversaries. \n\n57. The act of doubhng, or re-doubling, re-opens \nthe bidding. WTien a declaration has been doubled, \nor re-doubled, any player, including the player whose \ndeclaration has been doubled, or whose double has \nbeen re-doubled, can in his proper turn make a \nfurther declaration of higher value. \n\n58. When a player whose declaration has been \ndoubled, m.akes good his declaration by wanning at \nleast the declared number of tricks, he scores a bonus \nwhich consists of 50 points for wanning the number of \ntricks declared, and 50 points for each additional \ntrick he may win. If he or his partner have re- \ndoubled, the bonus for wanning the number of tricks \ndeclared and for each additional trick is doubled. \n\n59. If a player double out of turn, the adversary \non his left may dem.and a new deal. \n\n60. When the final declaration has been made \n{see Law^ 49), the pla}\' shall begin, and the player on \nthe left of the declarer shall lead. \n\n61. A declaration once miade cannot be altered, \nexcept as provided b}\' Law 53, but if a declaration \nis obviousty a misnomer, and is amended practically \nin the same breath, it stands as corrected. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n^^3 \n\n\n\nDUMMY \n\n62. As soon as a card is led by the eldest hand, i.e., \nthe player on the left of the declarer, the declarer\'s \npartner shall place his cards face upwards on the \ntable, and the duty of playing the cards from that \nhand, which is called Dummy, and of claiming and \nenforcing any penalties arising during the hand, \nshall devolve upon the declarer, unassisted by his \npartner. \n\n63. Before placing his cards upon the table, the \ndeclarer\'s partner has all the rights of a player, but \nafter so doing shall take no part whatever in the play, \nexcept that he has the right : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n{a) To ask the declarer whether he has any of \n\na suit which he may have renounced ; \n(b) To call the declarer\'s attention to the fact \n\nthat too many or too few cards have been \n\nplayed to a trick ; \n{c) To correct the claim of either adversary to \n\na penalty to v/hich the latter is entitled ; \n{d) To call attention to the fact that a trick \n\nhas been wrongly gathered by either side ; \n(e) To participate in the discussion of any \n\ndisputed question of fact, or of law ; \n(/) To correct an erroneous score. \n\nIf he call attention to any other incident in the \nplay of the hand, in respect of which any penalty \nmight be exacted, the fact that he has done so shall \n\n\n\n24 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\ndeprive the declarer of the right of exacting such \npenalty against his adversaries. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 If the declarer play two cards frora his O\'^ti hand \nto one trick, and omit to play to the trick from Dummy, \nit has been decided by the Portland Clab that the declarer\'s \npartner may call attention to the error. \n\nThe following case has been decided by the Field news- \npaper. " A. and B. are playing against Y. and Z. A. has \nfinally declared Three Hearts. At the second trick A. leads \na winning trump, and Z. (fourth player) renounces. A. \nturns and quits the trick [see Law 92) ; Y. marks chicane, \n\nA. is in the act of leading again when Z. says, * I have a \ntrump.\' He blames Y. for not asking the usual question \n[see Law 93) at the time when he played void. Y. apologizes, \nsays, \' We do not score, then, for chicane,\' and cancels the \npoints he has put do^^^l. \n\n" The play proceeds, and AB. vrm the odd trick. ^Mien \nwriting the score, A. says : \' We are two down, partner.\' \n\nB. (Dummy) says : \' How can we be t^vo do\\\\Ti with a re- \nvoke ? \' Z. now contends that Dummy has cancelled the \npenalty by referring to the revoke. B. rephes that the \nrevoke having been announced by Z. himself, and admitted \nby Y. when he cancelled the chicane score, Dummy is entitled \nto correct the erroneous score, by Law 63 (/). What are the \nrights of the parties ? " \n\nDecision. \xe2\x80\x94 B. is correct. . . . Dummy has no right to \nassist the declarer, directly or indirectly, to discover a revoke. \nFurthermore, should the declarer have noticed, but not \nclaimed, an unadmitted revoke, Dummy has no right to \nremind the declarer to claim it. Should Dummy transgress \nin these ^respects, the declarer loses his right to a penalty. \n\nBut the public admission of a revoke by the offending \nside, in the presence and hearing of the declarer, naturally \nmakes it unnecessary for the declarer to put forward any \nsubsequent claim ; and Dummy is put into the same position \nas if the declarer had claimed and proved a previously unad- \nmitted revoke. \n\nIn the above case, therefore. Dummy is entitled, by Law \n63 (/), to that the score is correctly recorded. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 25 \n\n\n\n64. If the declarer\'s partner, hy touching a card, \nor otherwise, suggest the play of a card from Dummy, \neither of the adversaries ma\\\', but without consulting \nwith his partner, call upon the declarer to play or not \nto play the card suggested. \n\n65. If the declarer\'s partner call the attention of \nthe declarer to the fact that he is about to lead from \nthe wTong hand, the adversary on the left of the \ndeclarer may require that the lead be made from \nthat hand. \n\n66. When the declarer draws a card, either from \nhis own hand or from Dummy, such card is not \nconsidered as plaj\'ed until actuallj^ quitted. \n\n67. A card once played, or named by the declarer \nas to be played from his own hand or from Dummy, \ncannot be taken back, except to save a revoke. \n\n68. The declarer\'s partner may not look over his \nadversaries\' hands, nor leave his seat for the purpose \nof watching his partner\'s play. \n\n69. Dummy is not liable to any penalty for a \nrevoke, as his adversaries see his cards. Should he \nrevoke, and the error not be discovered until the \ntrick is turned and quitted, the trick stands good. \n\n70. The declarer is not liable to any penalty for an \nerror w^hence he can gain no advantage. Thus he \nmay expose some, or all of his cards, without \nincurring any penalty. \n\nEXPOSED CARDS \n\n71. If all the cards have been dealt, and before \nthe final declaration has been made, any player \n\n\n\n26 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nexpose a card from his hand, the adversary on his \nleft may demand a new deah If the deal be allowed \nto stand, the exposed card m.ay be taken up and \ncannot be called. \n\n72. If, after the final declaration has been made, \nand before a card is led, the partner of the player \nwho has to lead to the first trick exposes a card fi-om^ \nhis hand, the declarer miay, instead of calling the \ncard, require the leader not to lead the suit of the \nexposed card. \n\nCARDS LIABLE TO BE CALLED \n\n73. All cards exposed by the declarer\'s adversaries \nare liable to be called, and must be left face upvv\'ards \non the table ; but a card is not an exposed card \nwhen dropped on the floor, or elsevrhere below the \ntable. \n\n74. The foUovdng are exposed cards : \xe2\x80\x94 \n1. Two or more cards played at once. \n\nII. Any card dropped with its face upwards, \n\nor in any way exposed on or above the \n\ntable, even though snatched up so quickly \n\nthat no one can name it. \n\nXote. \xe2\x80\x94 According to an old decision of James Clay\'s \nif a player accidentally pnt his whoie hand (in a closed packet) \nface upwards on the table, every card in the hand could be \ncalled, although only one card could be seen and named. \nThe Portland Club have re-jersed this decision, and their \nruhng is that only the card (or cards) that are \\-isible can be \ncalled. \n\nBy a traditional decision of " Cavendish " in the Field, \nendorsed by Clay, a hand of cards lowered as held without \nany card being detached from the others [see Law 79), is not \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 27 \n\n\n\nlegally ^\' exposed," and cannot be called. This decision \napplied to Whist laws identical in wording with Laws \n74, 77, and 79 of the Code here annotated. \n\n75. If either of the declarer\'s adversaries play to \nan imperfect trick the best card on the table, or lead \none which is a winning card as against the declarer \nand his partner, and then lead again, without waiting \nfor his partner to play, or play several such winning \ncards, one after the other, without waiting for his \npartner to play, the latter may be called on to win, \nif he can, the first or any other of those tricks, and \nthe other cards thus improperly played are exposed \ncards. \n\n76. Should the declarer indicate that all or any \n\nof the remaining tricks are his, he may be required \n\nto place his cards face upwards on the table ; but \n\nthey cannot be called. The declarer is not then \n\nallowed to call any cards which his adversaries may \n\nhave exposed, nor to take any finesse unless he \n\nannounces it when making his claim. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 No exact definition of the term " finesse *\' has as \nyet been given by any authority on the game. The Field \nhas decided that it makes no difference whether the " finesse " \ndebarred to the declarer has, or has not, been " previously \nproven a winner.\'\' The Portland Club have decided that \nif Dummy leads a plain suit, which second player, holding \nking, knave of trumps, ruffs with the knave, it is not a \n"finesse " for the declarer, holding ace, queen of trumps, to \nover-ruff with the queen. \n\n77. If either of the declarer\'s adversaries throws \nhis cards on the table face upwards, such cards are \nexposed, and liable to be called by the declarer. \n\n78. If aU the players throw their cards on the table \n\n\n\n28 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nface upwards, the hands are abandoned, and the score \nmust be left as claimed and admitted. The hands \nmay be examined for the purpose of establishing a \nrevoke, but for no other purpose. \n\n79. A card detached from the rest of the hand of \neither of the declarer\'s adversaries, so as to be named, \nis liable to be called ; but should the declarer name a \nwrong card, he is liable to have a suit called when \nfirst he or his partner have the lead. \n\n80. If a player, who has rendered himself liable to \nhave the highest or lowest of a suit called, or to win \nor not to win a trick, fail to play as desired, though \nable to do so, or if when called on to lead one suit, \nlead another, having in his hand one or more cards \nof that suit demanded, he incurs the penalty of a \nrevoke. \n\n81. If either of the declarer\'s adversaries lead out \nof turn, the declarer may call a suit from him or his \npartner when it is next the turn of either of them to \nlead, or may call the card erroneously led. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 It has been contended that, according to the wording \nof the above Law, if A. leads when it is B.\'s turn to lead \nthe declarer may call a suit from either A. or B. It is uni- \nversally recognized, however, that such is not the intention \nof the Law, and that the true interpretation is that, when it is \nnext the turn of either adversary to lead, the declarer may \ncall a suit from that particular adversary. If A. leads when \nit is B. \'s turn to lead, and the declarer decides to call a suit, \nhe must call it from B. immediately. If, on the other hand, \nhe decides to call the card erroneously led, the usual practice \nis to request A to place it face upward on the table, and B. \nthen leads whatever card he pleases. \n\nThe following Case at Whist, under a Law identical in \nwording with Law 81 of the Code here annotated, was \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 29 \n\n\n\ndecided by " Cavendish," and has been since then tradi- \ntionally accepted. \n\nA. leads, and the other three players follow suit. A. \nplays another card (it not being his lead), and proceeds to \ngather the five cards into one trick. On being told of it, A. \nexplains that his attention has been diverted, and that he \nthought he had not played to the trick. The adversaries \nclaim to be entitled to the penalties for a lead out of turn, \non the ground that the penalty should depend not on the \nactual intention of the player, but on his possible intention. \n\nDecision. \xe2\x80\x94 A. has not led out of turn ; he has merely \nexposed a card. The abstract principle pleaded by the \nadversaries is quite sound, but it does not apply to this case. \nA.\'s word must be taken as correctly representing the fact \nthat he played a second time to one trick. \n\n82. If the declarer lead out of turn, either from his \nown hand or from Dummy, he incurs no penalty ; \nbut he may not rectify the error after the second hand \nhas played, unless called upon by either adversary to \ndo so. \n\n83. If any player lead out of turn, and the other \nthree have followed him, the trick is complete, and \nthe error cannot be rectified ; but if only the second, \nor the second and third, have played to the false \nlead, their cards, on discovery of the mistake, can be \ntaken back ; and there is no penalty against any \none, excepting the original offender, and then only \nwhen he is one of the declarer\'s adversaries. \n\n84. In no case can a player be compelled to play \na card which would obhge him to revoke. \n\n85. The call of a card may be repeated until such \ncard has been played. \n\n86. If a player called on to lead a suit have none \nof it, the penalty is paid. \n\n\n\n30 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nCARDS PLAYED IN ERROR, OR NOT \nPLAYED TO A TRICK \n\n87. Should the fourth hand play before the second, \nthe latter (not being Dummy or his partner) may be \ncalled on to win, or not to win, the trick, or to discard \nfrom a suit specified by the declarer (subject to \nLaw 84). \n\n88. If any one (not being Dummy) omit playing \nto a form.er trick, and such error be not discovered \nuntil he has played to the next, the adversaries may \nclaim a new deal ; should they decide that the deal \nstands good, or should Dummiy have omiitted to play \nto a former trick, and such error be not discovered \ntill he shall have played to the next, the surplus card \nat the end of the hand is considered to have been \nplayed to the imperfect trick, but does not constitute \na revoke therein. \n\n89. If any one play two cards to the same trick, \nor mxix a card with a trick to which it does not pro- \nperly belong, and the mistake be not discovered until \nthe hand is played out, he (not being Dummiy) is \nanswerable for all consequent revokes he may have \nmade. If, during the play of the hand, the error be \ndetected, the tricks may be counted face downwards, \nin order to ascertain whether there be among them a \ncard too many : should this be the case they may be \nsearched, and the card restored ; the player (not being \nDummy) is, however, liable for all revokes which he \nmay have meanwhile made. \n\nTHE REVOKE \n\n90. Is when a player (other than Dummy), hold- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 31 \n\n\n\ning one or more cards of the suit led, plays a card of a \ndifferent suit. \n\n91. The penalty for each revoke shall be : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n{a) When the declarer revokes, his adver- \nsaries shall score 150 points in addition to \nany penalty which he may have incurred \nfor not making good his declaration. \n\n(6) When either of the adversaries revoke, \nthe declarer may score 150 points, or miay \ntake three tricks fromi his opponents and \nadd them to his own. Such tricks taken \nas a penalty may assist the declarer to \nm.ake good his declaration, but they shall \nnot entitle him to score any bonus in the \ncase of the declaration having being \ndoubled or re-doubled. \n\nThe penalty of 150 points is not affected by \ndoubling or re-doubhng. \n\nIn no circumstances can partners score anything \nexcept for honours or Chicane on a hand in which one \nof them has revoked. \n\n92. A revoke is established, if the trick in which \nit occurs has been turned and quitted \xe2\x80\x94 i.e., the hand \nremioved from that trick after it has been turned face \ndownwards on the table \xe2\x80\x94 or if either the revoking \nplayer or his partner, whether in his right turn or \notherwise, lead or play to the following trick. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 It has been decided by the Portland Club that to \nthrow the rest of one\'s cards on the table (abandoning the \nhand) is an act of play sufhcient to estabhsh a revoke. \n\n\n\n32 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n93. A player may ask his partner whether he has \n\nnot a card of the suit which he has renounced ; should \n\nthe question be asked before the trick is turned and \n\nquitted, subsequent turning and quitting does not \n\nestablish the revoke, and the error may be corrected, \n\nunless the question be answered in the negative, or \n\nunless the revoking player or his partner have led or \n\nplayed to the following trick. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 The wording of this Law has sometimes led to \nmisunderstanding. If *^ the question be answered in the \nnegative," the error may still be corrected, provided always \nthat the revoke has not been " estabhshed " in one of the \nmodes defined in Law 92. \n\n94. At the end of the hand, the claimants of a \nrevoke may search all the tricks. \n\n95. If a plaj\'er discover his mistake in tim^e to save \na revoke, any player or players who have played \nafter him may withdraw their cards and substitute \nothers, and their cards withdrawn are not liable to be \ncalled. If the plaj\'er in fault be one of the declarer\'s \nadversaries, the declarer may call the card thus played \nin error, or may require him to play his highest or \nlowest card to that trick in which he has renounced. \n\n96. If the player in fault be the declarer, the eldest \nhand may require him to play the highest or lowest \ncard of the suit in which he has renounced, provided \nboth of the declarer\'s adversaries have played to the \ncurrent trick ; but this penalty cannot be exacted \nfrom the declarer when he is fourth in hand, nor can \nit be enforced at all from Dummy. \n\n97. After a revoke has been claimed, if the accused \nplayer or his partner mix the cards before they have \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 33 \n\n\n\nbeen sufficiently examined by the adversaries, the \nrevoke is estabhshed. \n\n98. A revoke cannot be claimed after the cards \nhave been cut for the foUowdng deal. \n\n99. If a revoke occur, be claimed and proved, bets \non the odd trick, or on the am.ount of the score, must \nbe decided by the actual state of the score after the \npenalty is paid. \n\n100. Should both sides subject them.selves to the \npenalty for a revoke, neither side can score an\\1:hing, \nexcept for honours or Chicane ; should either or both \nsides revoke more than once, the side miaking the \nfewest revokes scores 150 points for each extra revoke. \n\nCALLING FOR NEW CARDS \n\n101. Any player (on paying for them) before, but \nnot after, the pack be cut for the deal, may call for \nfresh cards. He m.ust call for two new packs, of \nwhich the dealer takes his choice. \n\nGENERAL RULES \n\n102. Any one during the play of a trick, or after \nthe four cards are played, and before, but not after, \nthey are touched for the purpose of gathering them \ntogether, may demand that the cards be placed before \ntheir respective players. \n\n103. If either of the declarer\'s adversaries, prior \nto his partner plaj\'ing, should call attention to the \ntrick \xe2\x80\x94 either by saying that it is his, or by naming \nhis card, or, without being required so to do, by draw- \ning it towards him \xe2\x80\x94 ^the declarer miay require that \nopponent\'s partner to play his highest or lowest of \nthe suit then led, or to win or not to win the trick. \n\nc \n\n\n\n34 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n104. Should the partner of the player, solely \n\nentitled to exact a penalty, suggest or demand the \nenforcement of it, no penalty can be enforced, but he is \nentitled to call his partner\'s attention to the fact that \nan offence has been committed (subject to Law 63). \nShould any player claim a penalty to which he is not \nentitled, he loses his right to exact any penalty. \n\n105. In all cases where a penaltj\' has been incurred, \nthe offender is bound to give reasonable time for the \ndecision of his adversaries. \n\n106. If a bystander make any remark which calls \nthe attention of a plaj\'er or plaj\'ers to an oversight \naffecting the score, he is liable to be called on, by the \nplayers only, to pay the stakes and aU bets on that \ngame or rubber. \n\n107. Bets on the result of a rubber are won by the \n\nwinners on points. If a rubber is concluded under \n\nLaw 14, bets miade on that rubber are annulled. \n\nNote. \xe2\x80\x94 The practice at the Portland Club is that no money \npasses when the balance of points won on the rubber does \nnot exceed 25. In such an eventuality, bets on the rubber \nare void. \n\n108. A bystander, by agreem.ent among the \npla^\'ers, may decide any question. \n\n109. A card or cards torn or marked m^ust be either \nreplaced by agi\'eemxent, or new cards called at the \nexpense of the table. \n\nno. Once a trick is complete, turned, and quitted, \nit must not be looked at (except under Law 89) until \nthe end of the hand. \n\n\n\nTHREE-HANDED ROYAL AUCTION \nBRIDGE \n\nThe Laws are the same as those of Royal Auction \nBridge, except as varied by the following : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI. The game is played hy three players, all against \nall ; the table being com.plete with four plaj\'ers. \n\nII. The player who cuts the lowest card has the \nfii\'st deal ; the player cutting the next lowest card \nsits on the dealer\'s left, and the remaining player on \nthe dealer\'s right. The cards are dealt as at Royal \nAuction Bridge, but the cards dealt to Dumxmy are \nnot taken up until after the final declaration has been \nmade. If whilst deaUng a card be exposed, there must \nbe a new^ deal. \n\nIII. The dealer makes his declaration or passes, \nand the bidding continues as at Royal Auction Bridge. \n\nIV. If, after the deal has been completed, and \nbefore a card is led, any pla\\\'er expose a card from his \nhand, he shaU forfeit loo points to each of the other \nplayers ; and the declarer \xe2\x80\x94 if he be not the offender \n\xe2\x80\x94 ^may call upon the eldest hand not to lead from the \nsuit of the exposed card. If he does not exercise this \nright, the card must be left on the table as an exposed \ncard. If the card be exposed by the declarer, after the \nfinal declaration has been made, there is no penalty. \n\nV. If a player double out of turn, he forfeits lOO \npoints to each of his adversaries, and the player \n\n35 \n\n\n\n36 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nwhose declaration has been so doubled shall have the \nright to say whether or not the double shall stand. \nThe bidding is then resumed ; but if the double has \nbeen disallowed, the said declaration cannot be \ndoubled by the player on the right of the offender. \n\nVI. The rubber consists of four games ; but when \ntwo games have been won by the same player, the \nother, or others, are not played. \n\nVII. WTien the declarer miakes good his declaration, \nhe scores as at Royal Auction Bridge ; when he fails \nto do so, he loses to each of his adversaries. \n\nVIII. The scoring is the same as at Roj-al Auction \nBridge, except with regard to honours, which are \nscored by each player severally \xe2\x80\x94 i.e., each player who \nhas one honoiu in clubs scores six ; each player ha\\4ng \ntwo honours in clubs scores twelve ; a player holding \nthree honours in clubs scores eighteen ; a player \nholding four honours scores fortj\'-eight ; and a player \nholding five honours in clubs scores sixty ; and simi- \nlarly for the other suits. In a Xo-trumxp " declara- \ntion, aces count ten each ; and if all four be held by \none pla^\'er, one hundred. \n\nIX. One hundred points are scored b\\\' each player \nfor every game he wins, and the winner of the rubber \nadds a further two hundi\'ed and fifty points to his \nscore. \n\nX. At the conclusion of the rubber, the total scores \nobtained by each player are added up separately, \nand each player wins fi-om, or loses to, each other \nplayer the difference between his score and that of the \nsaid other player, \n\n\n\nETIQUETTE OF ROYAL AUCTION \nBRIDGE \n\n\n\nThe following rules belong to the established \nEtiquette of Royal Auction Bridge. They are not \ncalled laws, as it is difficult \xe2\x80\x94 in some cases impossible \n\xe2\x80\x94 ^to apply any penalty to their infraction, and the \nonly remedy is to cease to play with players who \nhabitually disregard them. \n\nIt is unfair to purposely make a declaration which \nis insufficient to overbid the previous one. \n\nAny one, having the lead and one or more winning \ncards to play, should not draw a second card out of \nhis hand until his partner has plaj\'ed to the first trick, \nsuch act being a distinct intimation that the former \nhas played a winning card. \n\nA plaj\'er who has looked at his cards, ought not to \ngive any indication by word or gesture as to the nature \nof his hand, or call the attention of his partner to the \nscore of the game. \n\nA player who desires the cards to be placed, should \ndo it for his own informxation only, and not in order \nto invite the attention of his partner. \n\nNo player should object to refer to a bystander, \nwho professes himself uninterested in the game and \nable to decide, a disputed question of facts, as to who \n\n37 \n\n\n\n38 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nplaj^ed anj^ particular card, whether honours were \nclaimed though not scored, or vice versa \xe2\x80\x94 etc., etc. \n\nIt is unfair to revoke purposely ; having made a \nrevoke, a player is not justified in making a second \nin order to conceal the first. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nINTRODUCTORY \n\nLong before the adoption, by the Portland and other \nleading clubs, of the present scale of values for the \nvarious declarations, it was freely admitted that \nthe old method (2, 4, 6, 8, 12) of counting the values \nof the suits, leading to a ridiculous preponderance \nof No-trumpers, and an equally ridiculous outlawry \nof Spade calls, was wholty unscientific and unsatis- \nfactory. Many letters did, in fact, appear on the \nsubject in British newspapers with tentative sugges- \ntions of possible ways of imxprovement ; but, as often \nhappens, v/hile we on this side the Atlantic did no- \nthing for a long time but talk round and round the \nsubject, the Americans set to work to translate their \nideas into action. \n\nThe first step v/as the permission to declare Spades \nat 10 per trick, in addition to its previous value of \n2 per trick. With this value, the suit was termed \n\nRoyal Spades " or simply Royals.\'\' About, or \nprior to, the autumn of 1910, card-players in Boston \n(U.S.A.) tried reducing this value to 9, so that one \nmore trick might be necessary than in No-trumps to \n\n39 \n\n\n\n40 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nwin the game from a love score. In the winter of \n1910, this idea was brought to the notice of Milton \nC. Work by a Boston visitor to the Racquet Club at \nPhiladelphia. Mr. Work, akeady famous as a writer \non Whist and Bridge, after carefully considering the \nmerits and demerits of the new plan, came to the \nconclusion that the values of the suits were still badly \nout of balance, and advocated the experiment of \nraising clubs and diamonds to 6 and 7 respectively, \nwhile No-trumps were to be reduced to 10. An un- \nbroken chain of values : 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 : was thus arrived \nat, the isolated value of 2 for ordinary Spades being, \nhowever, still retained. This was in March, 1911. \nIn the summer of that j\'ear, Mr. Work took the new \ncount with him to Saranac Lake, where it w^as \nplayed all the tim^e, and w^hence it spread all over \nAmerica. In September, 1911, it was incorporated \nby the Philadelphia Racquet Club into its code of \nlaws, and was almost immediately afterwards adopted \nby the New York Bridge Whist Club, although the \nWhist Club in that city did not give it official \nsanction until September, 1912. \n\nWho first proposed the double value for the spade \nsuit, and how the term Lilly or Lily " arose \nfor the enhanced reckoning, it seems impossible to \ndiscover. A story is current, however, to the effect \nthat a stranger, who on cutting into a certain rubber \nwas informed of the innovation, remarked, as he \nsorted his cards : So j^ou have made the black \nfellow king of all the suits, eh ? Well, Tve got some \nof the royal family myself, so well call this a Liluioka- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 41 \n\n\n\nlani/\' Not being sure of the correct pronunciation \nof the name of the former Queen of the Sandwich \nIslands, plaj\'ers first cut down the sobriquet to \nlillianos, and finally to lillies. Whether the tale be \ntrue or not, it seems certain that the w^ord was origin- \nally spelled, not with one /, but with two. \n\nUpon this form of the game the Philadelphia \nschool of players engrafted an elaborate system of \nconventional declarations, known as the High Spade \ncalls, in which the complete series of Spade declara- \ntions, from Two up to Seven, were utilized for the \npurpose of conveying information from partner to \npartner as to the type of hand held by each. \n\nFor some time great things were expected from this \ncarefully worked out schemxC of " informatory bid- \nding, but after New York players of the better class \nhad discussed and experimented with it sufficiently, \nthey came to the conclusion that it was m^uch more \nelaborate than useful, and expressed a decided opinion \nthat when a hand is good enough for either of two \nwinning declarations, and when the holder of it does \nnot care w^hich of them is adopted by the partnership \nfor a two-trick contract, he might just as well make \nthe choice himself. \n\nIn England, the system w^as generally regarded \n\\vith disfavour from its earliest inception, the chief \nground of objection being its arbitrary and artificial \ncharacter, and the fact that a bid made in one suit \nw^as to be interpreted as signifjdng strength in \nanother. The most effectual way of destroying the \nmischief root and branch w^as deemed to be the com.- \n\n\n\n42 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nplete abolition of the lower value for Spades, and this \nstep was officiaUj\' taken by the publication of a new \nCode of Laws, framed by a consultative committee of \nsix of the best known London West-End clubs, and \nfinally approved and adopted by the Portland Club \nin Ma}\', 1914. This code will be found verbatim at \nthe beginning of the present handbook. \n\nA Table is set out below of the elemientary scoring \nvalues [see Lav/s 4 to 10 of the Code referred to \nabove). \n\n\n\nWhen Trump Suit is . \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n9 \n\n\n\n\nEach Trick above six . \n\n\n6 \n\n\n7 \n\n\n8 \n\n\n9 \n\n\nmi TT \n\n\n12 \n\n\n14 \n\n\n16 \n\n\n18 \n\n\n\n\n24 \n\n\n28 \n\n\n32 \n\n\n36 \n\n\nFive Honours \n\n\n30 \n\n\n35 \n\n\n40 \n\n\n45 \n\n\nFour Honours in one hj^nd \n\n\n48 \n\n\n56 \n\n\n64 \n\n\n72 \n\n\nFive Honours, 4 in one hand \n\n\n54 \n\n\n63 \n\n\n72 \n\n\n81 \n\n\nFive Honours in one hand \n\n\n60 \n\n\n70 \n\n\nSo \n\n\n90 \n\n\nChicane \n\n\n12 \n\n\n14 \n\n\n16 \n\n\niS \n\n\nDouble Chicane \n\n\n24 \n\n\n28 \n\n\n0- \n\n\n36 \n\n\nNo Trcjips \xe2\x80\x94 Each Trick a \n\n\nbove \n\n\nsix . \n\n\n\n\n10 \n\n\nThree Aces . \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n30 \n\n\nFour Aces \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n40 \n\n\nFour Aces in \n\n\none \n\n\nhand \n\n\n. 100 \n\n\nLittle Slam, 50. Grand Slam \n\n\n, 100 \n\n\n. Rubber, \n\n\n250. \n\n\nGa:me, 30 points, obtained \n\n\nby t \n\n\ndcks \n\n\nonl}\' \n\n\n\n\n\nIt will be observed that, relatively to Trick values, \nthe Honour values proceed precisely as in ordinary \nBridge. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 43 \n\n\n\nGENERAL ROUTINE \n\nThis being the same as in the old Auction Bridge, \nit is unnecessary to recapitulate it here. Those who \nwish for further information are recommended to \nstudy Auction Bridge and How to Play It, written \nby Captain H. S. Browning, and published by Messrs. \nRoutledge & Sons, Ltd. We shall here proceed \nat once to the consideration of \n\nORIGINAL DECLARATIONS BY THE \nDEALER \n\nIt has been remarked by a slangy but entertaining \nwTiter that declarations are made for three pur- \nposes : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n{a) To give information. \n(b) To obtain the contract. \n{c) To push a mug. \n\nWith purpose (c), which, being interpreted, signi- \nfieth to induce an opponent to go beyond his depth, \nwith the charitable intention of watching him drow^n, \nI shall not deal in these pages. You have first to \nmake sure that you have really got hold of a mug,\'\' \nand you have secondly to be careful that he does not \nhoist you with your own petard. It is, in fact, \nentirely a matter of the personal equation. \n\nPurposes {a) and {h) demand careful consideration, \nmost of all in the case of the first call of the hand. \nIt is rarely that the dealer wishes \xe2\x80\x94 and he would be \nfoolish if he did often wish \xe2\x80\x94 ^to play the hand straight \naway on his first declaration. In the cases when he \n\n\n\n44 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\ndoes so wish \xe2\x80\x94 ^which cases will be dealt with in their \nproper place \xe2\x80\x94 ^he bids as high as he can, so as (i) to \ncompel his opponents \xe2\x80\x94 and (2) to request his partner \n\xe2\x80\x94 ^to keep their mouths shut. \n\nThe aim of the partnership should be to ascertain \nwhat really is the most advantageous declaration for \nthe twenty-six cards which are held between both the \nplayers, not for the thirteen cards which have been \ndealt to one of the two. They will never succeed in \nthis aim of theirs unless perfectly clear rules are \nformulated as to the meaning of each other\'s declara- \ntions, and unless these rules are strictly adhered to. \nRegard it, therefore, as a sacred obligation alwaj\'s to \nspeak the truth to an intelligent partner. Only thus \nwill he learn to trust j^ou, and you wiU drive smoothly \nwith him in double harness. \n\nIt has been said, conveniently but laxly, that \nAuction Bridge is a game of aces and kings.\'\' This \ndoes not mean that aces and kings are of greater relative \nvalue than at ordinary Bridge ; but it does mican that \nthe primary information your partner needs from you \nis not whether you hold a long string of low cards in \na suit, but in which suits you hold top cards. The \nreason being that all such top cards retain their value \nboth when some other suit has been made trumps, and \nwhen there are no trumps at aU. \n\nIn the transition period of the game, when spades \nstill retained their dual value, all the best plaj\'ers in \nAmerica, and nearh\' all the best players in England, \nheaded by Mr. WiUiam Dalton, considered it a prim^e \naxiom that the original declaration of a suit is a com- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 45 \n\n\n\npletely trustworthy announcement to the declarer\'s \npartner that the suit is headed by at least king or \nace, if not by both. It seems to be generally con- \nceded/\' says an esteemed Transatlantic writer in his \nmost fully-considered work,^ \'\'that the first call \nmade by a player should be as informatory as possible, \nand the minds of expert declarers in all parts of the \ncountry have comiC together upon a logical plan which \nsimplifies the first bid and also makes it most compre- \nhensive/\' Great stress is laid on this most vital " \nprinciple, and it is proclaimed that \'\'the foundation \nof modern bidding rests upon the rule, which is \nwithout exception, that the original bid of One in \na suit indicates a suit headed by ace or king, if not \nboth/\' \n\nIs there any reason why the abolition of the lower \nvalue of spades should modify this dictum ? Mr. \nDalton is strongly of the contrary opinion. He says : \n" An original bid of a suit must have high cards at \nthe head of it. A very good rule is that you ought \nnot to declare a suit without at least two certain \ntricks in it against any combination of the cards. \nSuch suits as queen and four small ones, or six headed \nby knave or ten, are not calls at all. They cannot \nbe anything but misleading. They were bad enough \nat Auction Bridge, but they are worse still at Royal \nAuction, where the bidding is so much higher/\' ^ \n\nThere are two recent writers on the game who take \na different view \xe2\x80\x94 Mr. Edmund Robertson and " Bas- \n\n1 Milton C. Work : Auction Developments, 19 14, p. 59. \n3 Royal Auction Bridge, 4th edition, 191 5, p. 48. \n\n\n\n46 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\ncule." The latter, indeed, claims to be the originator \nof the system of declaring \'\'upon mere numerical \nstrength, as opposed to high cards, in the proposed \ntrump suit, provided that the declarer has certain \nother elem.ents of strength in his hand, which take \nit out of the general rule/\' He states his belief that \nthe new principle, although it has been a long tim.e \nin gaining the recognition which he ventures to think \nit deserves, is now uniformity acted upon by the \nmajority of enhghtened players, though it is still \nunm^entioned in most text -books. It is a principle \nof great im.portance, because it widens the basis of \nthe potential trump declaration, and it confers a \ndistinct advantage upon the players by vrhom it is \nrecognized and acted upon."^ \n\nI cannot assent to the claims thus put forward, and \nam of opinion that \'\'the majority of enlightened \nplayers still adhere unflinchingh^ to the basic prin- \nciple of Messrs. Dalton and Milton C. Work. Nor \ncan the claim to be the pioneer of a new and advan- \ntageous principle be substantiated ; for, as a m.atter \nof fact, the supposed " novelty is the one idea upon \nw^hich every tj\'ro in the gamiC at once pounces \\vith \navidity, and from w^hich he can only be weaned by \nthe constant and pertinacious preaching of more \nexperienced and wiser players. \n\nNevertheless, solely in the case of declarations of \none of the two "major " suits (spades and hearts), \nI concede that a certain amount of latitude is occa- \n\n1 Royal Auction Bridge. By " Bascule." New edition, \nI9I5; P- vi. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 47 \n\n\n\nsionally permissible, but strictly within the limits that \nwill be defined a little later on. \n\nIn the meantime, the learner cannot do better \nthan bear carefully in m.ind that the most expensive \nand the most exasperating miisunderstandings have \nbeen proved, over and over again, to be those which \narise fromi a belief in the existence of cards, good for \ntricks, in partner\'s hand, which eventually turn out \nnever to have been there at all. Resolve, therefore, \nto v/in a reputation among your fellow players for \nstrict veracity in your original calls, and guard \njealously that reputation as your miost cherished card \npossession. \n\nWHEN TO BID ONE IN A SUIT \n\nI consider a clear comprehension of, and an un- \nswerving adherence to, the rules under this head as \nabsolutely the m.ost imiportant point of the gamie. \nI therefore put it in the forefront, instead of, as usual, \nbeginning v>ith the consideration of No-trumxDS. \n\nThe promotion of the club suit from 4 to 6 \nmakes it possible to give a single set of rules \nunder this head for all the four suits : clubs, \ndiamonds, hearts, and royals. \n\nThe essential effect of the modern scale of values \nis that the old distinction between an \'\'attacking \nand a \'\'defensive call has been obliterated. It is \npracticable, on the declaration of any one of the four \nsuits, to win the game from the score of love. In No- \ntrum^ps, nine tricks are required ; in Spades and \nHearts, ten tricks ; in Diamonds and Clubs, eleven \n\n\n\n48 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\ntricks. Hence Spades and Hearts are classed to- \ngether as the Major/\' Diamonds and Clubs as the \n"Minor\'\' suits. The difference is an appreciable \none, but it is a difference of degree only, not of kind. \n\nIn the case of every suit, two conditions must be \nfulfilled. There m.ust be (i) a certain length (gener- \nally five, never fewer than four) in the trump suit ; \nand there mmst be (2) a certain high-card strength, \neither concentrated in the trump suit, or distributed \nbetween that suit and the rest of the hand. If there \nare only four trumps, the high cards must be aU \nhonours. With nothing in the plain suits, the \nhonours must be at least A, K, Q, 10. With K, Q, \nJ, 10 only in trumps, there must be one sure trick \noutside. For example : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n4. \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\n7,6,5; A, K, Q, 10; 9,6,4; 8,3,2. \n\n7,6,5; K, Q, 4; K, Q, J, 10; 8,3,2. \n\nSimilarly, with trumips a little weaker than in \nthe former case, and the other cards a little \nstronger : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n* \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\nXS; 7>6, 4; A, Q, J, 10; 8,3,2. \n\n7.6,5; X4; 9.6,4; A, Q, Xio. \n\nIn hands such as the above, the value of the four \nhonours in one hand has been taken into considera- \ntion. A second class of hands, Vvdth five trumps, we \nmay sum up by saying that in high cards there must \nbe at least average strength (ace, king, queen, \nknave, 10, or their equivalents), and that the trumps \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nmust be headed by at least ace, lo ; or king, knave. \nFor example : \n\n\xe2\x80\xa27 * 4\xc2\xbb \n\n7, 6, 5 ; K, Q, 4 ; K, 0, J, 5,4;\' 8, 7. \n\nK, J, 6, 5, 4 ; 8, 7 ; 7- 6, 5 ; A, Q, 10. \n\nK, Q, 5 ; A, 10, 6, 5, 4 ; Q, J, 7 ; 9, \n\n\n\nPassing on lo six trumps, I would stipulate for \neither ace or king, queen at head of the trumps, and \none certain trick outside ; or if the trumips have the \nminimum two honours (king, knave), then at least \nextra plain-suit strength of queen, knave and \nanother : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ * \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\nA, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 ; K, Q ; 9,6,4; 10,2. \n\n6,5; K, J, 8, 7, 6, 5; Q,X6; K,Q. \n\nIn hands containing two five-card suits, rather less \nhigh-card strength is permiissible, for with five trumjps \nit is always of special advantage to hold a plain suit \ncapable of establishmient by help of the trumips. \nSuch hands as these m.ay be considered as a fourth \nclass : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ * \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\n7,6; Q,X8,3,2; K,Q,J,5,4;8. \n\n|7; K, J, 10, 3,2; 5,4; K,J, 8, 5, 4. \n\nl A, 10, 6, 5,4; J, 10, 7; K, 8, 7, 6; \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nI I consider all the above hands as typical of the \nminimum strength that miust be held so as to start \nthe bidding on a sound basis. To m.ake this clear, \nI set out hands slightly below^ what I have defined as \njjbeing necessary. \n\n\n\n50 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nNOT ORIGINAL DECLARATIONS \n\n9 * \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\nK, 10, 7, 6, 5 ; 8, 4 ; K, 9, 6 ; Q, J, 4. \n\n10,7,6,5; QJ,4; K,Q,J,7; 6,5. \n\n7, 6, 5 ; A, K, J, 4 ; 9> 7> 6 ; 10, 8, 4. \n\n7, 6, 5 ; 10, 8, 4 ; 9> 7> 6 ; K, Q, J, 10. \n\nJ, 10, 7 ; A, 10, 6, 5, 4 ; Q, 7, 6 ; 8, 4. \n\nA, 9, 8, 7, 6 ; Q, J, 6, 4 ; 7, 6 ; 8, 4. \n\nThe first and last of the above hands are recom- \nmended in a recent handbook as sound original One- \nHeart calls. The second, third, and fourth look even \nmore seductive. Nevertheless, they will be found, on \ncareful analysis, to be essentially defensive, not attack- \ning, hands ; and the temptation should be resisted. \nSom.e of these hands are quite excellent for assisting \nyour partner after he has declared ; but that is a \ndifferent matter, as it is often necessary to run a cer- \ntain risk in the effort to save a game or push " the \nopponent. There is no need to run any such risk in \nthe original call of the hand. When your hand is of \nless than average strength, let some one else start \nthe bidding : you will find that they will not be \nbackward in doing so. \n\nReferring back to our typical minimum calls, and \nto the three purposes defined on page 43, we shall \nnotice that, with all the hands recomim.ended assound, \nthe declarer does [a) impart inform.ation ; and is (6) \nprepared, if necessary, to undertake his contract. \nNeither aim is sacrificed to the other. Under the obso- \nlete count, there was current an original call known as \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 51 \n\n\n\nan \' \'Inf ormat ory Club \' \' \xe2\x80\x94 which meant that , if you held \na short, strong club suit, you declared the suit, not \nbecause you were willing to play the hand with clubs \nas trumps, but because you desired to instruct your \npartner to call No-trumps if he could possibly manage \nto do so. There is a writer on Royal Auction who \nadvocates the retention of the same device under the \nmodern count. I will give the recommendation in his \nown words : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nOne Club is a very important, strictly conven- \ntional, informative call, and is only declared from ace \nand two or more others, or from king, queen, and at \nleast one another. . . If the suit contains . . . king, \nknave and others of any kind, the only correct course \nis to pass, if it is impossible to call One No-trump. \nFor instance, call One Club on the following hands : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ 4* \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\n8, 4, 3 ; K, Q, 9, 5 ; 10, 6 ; J, 9, 3, 2. \n\n9,7,4,2; A, 4, 2; X8, 4; 10,8,3. \n\n\'\'The presence of one or more possible tricks in the \nhand is eminently desirable, but not necessary, as any \nplayer who really understands the convention will not \nexpect anything more than the ace, or the king, queen. \nBut the ace should have at least two other ones with \nit, and the king, queen should have another one with \nthem.\'i \n\nI quote this strange advice with the same purpose \n\nas led the ancient Spartans to exhibit to their young \n\nsons the degradation of the helot : in order that it \n\n1 Hints on Royal Auction Bridge. By Major S. H. Hingley, \n1914, p. 26. \n\n\n\n52 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nmay operate as an awful warning. There is one thing, \nand one thing onh\', to be done with each of the above \nhands, and that is, to pass. They do not contain \nthe vestige of an excuse for any declaration at aU. \n\nNever forget the golden rule of a weU-known \nAmerican teacher of the game : Everj^ bid m^ust be \na make." That is to say, every bid m^ust be a sub- \nstantive and bond fide offer to plaj^ the hand with \nthe declared suit as trumps, if the rest of the table \nleave you alone. I grieve to think of the fate in store \nfor you with the above calls of One Club,\'\' in the \nevent of the other three pla^\'ers mereh\' remaining \nsilent. \n\nThe so-called original " Inform.atorj\' Call \'\' is a \nrelic of the Dark Ages ; and the first thing the learner \nhas to do is to forget that it ever existed. \n\nFrom yoMX first call of One in a suit your partner \nmust always be justified in dra\\nng the following \ninferences : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n[a) That with the support from. him_ on which it is \nreasonable for j\'ou to reckon, you maj\' be expected to \nwin the odd trick if you be left in with the call. \n\n(h) That 3\'Ou can take care of the suit you have \ndeclared if he or the enemy call No-trumps. \n\n{c) That it will be advantageous for him to lead \nyou 3\'our declared suit at the first opportunitj\'. \n\nBearing the preceding in mind it becom^es eas\\\' to \nsee wh}^ even the foUo\\^dng hand, although consider- \nably stronger than the examiples just cited, is not an \noriginal One-Club bid : \xe2\x80\x94 \n^ 9, 8, 6 ; * A, K, 7 ; A, Q, 4 ; 4 10, 9, 5. 3- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 53 \n\n\n\nFor it m3.y deceive your partner (i) into advancing \nClubs too far, on his own cards : (2) into leading j\'ou \na club against a No-trumper, It is a supporting hand, \nand nothing else; and if you hold it as dealer, you \npass as a matter of course. \n\nIt is, however, laid down by M. C. Work (a thought- \nful and esteemed authority) that \\vdth the exceptional \nholding of a four-card suit headed by ace, king, \ntogether with ace, king in a shorter suit. One trick \nmay be originally bid in the four-card suit. Thus, \nyou m.ay call One Diamond on the following : \n\n9A, K,7; *6,4,2; A, K, 8, 5 ; \xc2\xab 9, 6, 3. \n\nSimiilarl}\', One Club, if diamonds and clubs be \ninterchanged. Some players might venture One No- \ntrump, but I should not think it sound. \n\nHere is another highly exceptional holding : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^9,6,5,4; *A,K,Q; OA, K,Q; \xe2\x99\xa6 7, 6, 5 ; \n\nwhich, contrariwise, is not a suit call, but a No- \ntrumper. \n\nDo not, therefore, declare originally One trick in \nthe longest suit of any one of the following hands, in \nspite of the fact that a current manual on the game \nadvises you to do so : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ * 4 \n\nQ,9,8,7,6; 7,3,2; K, Q, 7 ; K, 3. \n\nA, 5, 4 ; 10, 9 ; A, 10, 8 ; J, 10, 8, 7, 4. \n\n8,7,6; A, J, 10; K, Q, 10, 9; 6,5,2. \n\nA, 5. 4; X9^8,7; 10,8; A, 5, 2. \n\n\n\n54 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nEven with eight spades or hearts, queen high, and \nno other high cards, follow the same general rule. \nAs it is difficult for old \\Miist or Bridge players to \nunderstand the evil consequences that may follow \nfrom a violation of our basic principle, it is ad\\dsable \nto give an illustration. A selected deal does not \nprove anything, of course ; but may nevertheless \nmake clearer the rationale of the rule. \n\n^ A, 9, 6. \n\n* A, K, Q. \n\nJ, 10,8, 5, 3. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 3> 2. \n\n\n\n^8, 4. \n\n* 9, 8, 7, 6, 5. \nA, K, Q, 7, 4. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 10. \n\n\n\n\n9 K.QJ,io,5,2. \n\n* J, 10,4,2. \n6. \n\n* A, K. \n\n\n\n9,2. \n\n^ X 8\' 9\' 7. 6, 5, 4- \nThis is how the cards actually fell : the deal has \nnot been \'\'packed\'\' for effect. It be observed \nthat the distribution is quite a fail* and natural one. \n\nAt the score of love all, Z. deals. Now, it is clear \nthat Z. may rightfully be quite content to play \nthe deal with spades for trumips. If Y. has any good \nplain-suit cards, the spades will defend them splen- \ndidly ; if Y. has no good cards, there is nothing to be \neffected in any case, and the six very probable trump \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 55 \n\n\n\ntricks must prevent serious loss. As a Whist argu- \nment, all this is sound as a bell ; the trouble is that \nthe game is not Whist but Auction : the opponents \nare going to have something to say in the matter, \nand so is the partner. \n\nA second important point is that there is not the \nleast risk in commencing with a pass : there is no \nrisk that every other player will pass and the deal \nbe thrown up. There are four aces, four kings, three \nqueens and three knaves divided up among A., Y., \nand B. ; and some one of the three must have a hand \nthat he will declare upon. \n\nIt may be suggested, by those who argue that Z. \nought to call, that with his unusual length in spades \nand weakness in the other suits he should begin by \ncalling Two Spades ; and we will, therefore, suppose \nthat he does so. The call partly achieves its object \nby preventing A. from showing his diamonds ; he \ncan only pass. Y. of course passes.^ He has fine \n\n1 An advocate of the system of calling of which I dis- \napprove has suggested that Y.\'s duty is to overcall on the \nfirst round with Two No-trumps. If there is one maxim of \ndeclaring more important than another, it is nev&r to over- \nhid when ths call suits your hand, a maxim, I admit, which is \nmore honoured in the breach than in the observance by \nunsystematic callers. Z.\'s Two-spade call means : " I will be \nresponsible for this hand if you have reasonable support and \nwill let me alone." Now Y. has splendid support, and there- \nfore no possible excuse for interference. Started otherwise, \nthe bidding might go : Z., One Spade ; A., Two Diamonds ; \nY., Two No-trumps (showing control of diamonds) ; B., \nThree Hearts ; Z., Three Spades ; A., Four Hearts ; Y., \nFour No-trumps ; and the result is precisely as before, the \ninitial hid heing th\xc2\xbb \xe2\x80\xa2rror. \n\n\n\n56 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nsupport, and he understands that Z. wishes to be let \nalone, if possible. B. calls Three Hearts. Z. is \ndriven to Three Spades (othervdse the game seems \ngone). A. assists his partner with Foui\' Hearts (his \nthree sure tricks in diamonds and singleton spade \nfully justif}\' this, even though he has only two hearts). \nY, now shows his sure stopper in the opponents\' suit \nby bidding Four No-trumps : he holds four certain \ntricks, and naturally credits Z. \\nth a genuine Spade \ncall. B. passes, and Z.\'s case is a parlous one. If he \npasses, the call stands ; B. opens his hearts, and Y., \nVv\'ho has contracted for ten tricks, can make just \nfour ! \n\nIt is possible that Z. maj\' drag his partner out of the \npitfall which he originallj\' dug for him by overcalling \nwith Five Spades ; in which case he gets off more \neasih\', being onh\' two tricks down, as A. \\dU open his \ndiamonds in preference to leading the hearts which he \nknows are commanded bj\' Y. If B. is famuliar \\with \nZ.\'s ways, he probably doubles the Five Spades, in \nv,\'hich case Z.\'s loss wiU be 218 \xe2\x80\x94 nearly the value of \nthe rubber points. \n\nNow see the difference if Z., as he ought, begins by \npassing. A. will in this case call One Diamond \n(naturally a disadvantage to YZ.), Y. One No-trump \n(which is correct, as he is sure to stop the diamonds \non fourth round, and has five of the suit). B., Two \nHearts. \n\nThis is the moment for Z. to come in \\^dth Two \nSpades. He will thus miake the position quite clear \nto Y., who knows his partner must have a long suit \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 57 \n\n\n\nwithout ace or king ; hence he places both of these \ncards with AB. \n\nA. supports his partner, as before, with Three \nHearts. Y. is well aware that he cannot pursue his \nNo-trumper, but must assist the spades on his side- \nsuit strength ; he calls Three Spades. \n\nNow YZ. have B. just where they want him. If \nhe does not overbid, YZ. m.ake their contract, for \nAB. can onh^ vrin two diamonds and the ace, king of \ntrumps. If he calls Four Hearts, as is probable, Z. \nand A. pass, but Y. doubles ; and AB. are bound to \ngo dovTO, whether Z. opens with his club (as he should, \naccording to inference from the bidding) or with a \nheart \xe2\x80\x94 crediting Y. with the ace. \n\nThe deal is typical of what is constantly happening. \nIts lesson should be taken to heart. \n\nI proceed to explain the limitations (alluded to \npreviously) under which I think that Spades or \nHearts (but not Diamionds or Clubs) may be declared \nwithout either ace or king. \n\nIf there is strength enough in the plain suits to com- \npensate for the deficienc}\' in trumips, and if the trum^p \nsuit itself is sufficientlj\' long, the dealer may reason- \nably argue that he is independent of anything that his \npartner may do. If the latter has a weak hand (even \nif he is weak in trumps), the dealer is adequately pro- \ntected. If the partner has a strong hand, and goes into \nNo-trumips, the dealer has fine support. And if the \nopponents have the No-trumper, Z. still wants the \nspades opened, unless (which is very unlikely) Y. \nhas a suit v/hich he is sure is a better one. Suppose, \n\n\n\n58 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nlet us say, that the dealer holds queen, knave, lo to \neight spades, and two certain tricks outside. The \nposition is now a very different one. Something like \nthe following is quite a moderate expectation : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n^8, 4. \n\n8,7, 6,5. \nA, J, 10, 7, 4. \n\xe2\x99\xa6 9. \n\n\n\n\n^ K,QJ,io,5,2. \n\n* J, 10, 4, 2. \n6. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 A, K. \n\n\n\n^ A, 3. \nOK, Q. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 Q, J, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4. \n\nI make no objection to Z.\'s beginning with One \nSpade ; but think that he would do better to call \nThree straight away. It is not a hand on which he \ndesires to encourage conversation betw^een the oppon- \nents, nor is he at all anxious to hear from his partner. \n\nHowever, let us assume, for argument\'s sake, that \nhe says One Spade. A., with his singleton spade \xe2\x80\x94 \nand the call being a forced one \xe2\x80\x94 ^might say Two Dia- \nmonds. Y. passes. B., Two Hearts. Z., Three Spades. \nA. and Y., No. B., Four Hearts. Z., Four Spades \n(this is the limit, as he fully expects to lose two \nspades and a diamond). \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 59 \n\n\n\nWhat is B. going to do ? If he calls Five Hearts, \nhe goes down two tricks : YZ. will make ace of \nhearts, ace, king of clubs, and a ruff on third round of \nclubs. And if B. does not overcall, YZ. make their \ncontract : Z. gets rid of his losing heart on Y.\'s second \nclub, and AB. only win two trumps and the ace of \ndiamonds. \n\nTWO-SUIT HANDS \n\nThere are hands on which, according to the prin- \nciples above set forth, it would be equally correct, so \nfar as information to partner is concerned, to begin \nby declaring One in either of two suits. For \nexample : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ * \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\n2; A, K, Q, 3,2; 3,2; A,Q,J,3,2. \n\nK, 10, 9, 3, 2 ; A, K, 10, 3, 2 ; 3, 2 ; 2. \nA, K, 10, 9, 2 ; 2 ; K, Q, 10, 9, 2 ; 3, 2. \n\nOn such holdings as these, the modern practice is \nto begin by declaring the more expensive suit, and to \nshow the other suit later on, as opportunity may \noccur. Your partner is thus offered the chance (of \nwhich he should take advantage) of showing which of \nthe two suits is the more suitable to his own hand. \nIf he prefers the second suit, he lets it stand ; or, \nshould it be overbid, he raises it. If he considers the \nsuit first called to be the more advantageous, he reverts \nto it (whether it be overcalled or no) ; and the object \nof declaring the cheaper suit at the later stage is to \n\n\n\n6o ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nenable him so to revert to the earher call without \nincreasing the mimher of tricks. If, on the first of the \nhands given above, you begin with One Spade, and \nif, after Two Hearts have been bid against you, you \ngo on to Three Clubs, your partner can show that the \nformer suit fits in better with his own cards by bid- \nding Three Spades. If the Three-club call be passed \nup to him and he does not so over-call, it is an an- \nnouncement on his part that either he is indifferent, \nor that he prefers the clubs to the spades. \n\nIllustrative Hand No. VHP furnishes an exam.- \nple. At love all, in the rubber game, the dealer Z. \nholds \n\nA, Q,5,4,2; * 8, 4 ; O9; 4 A, Q, 8, 3, 2 ; \n\nand starts with One Spade. A., Two Clubs. Y., \nTwo Diamonds. B., No. Z., Two Hearts. A., No. \nY., No. B., Three Clubs. \n\nNow Z. has nothing further to say, but passes the \ncall, knowing that Y. has the exact m.easure of the \nsituation. A. passes also, and Y. calls Three Hearts, \non which the hand is played. It will be seen that in \nhearts he holds king, knave, 7 ; but in spades only \nthe 5 and 4. \n\nThis rational conversation " betw^een partner \nand partner is likely to be of the most value when \nboth the suits are major ones ; but a similar advan- \ntage may accrue in other cases also. \n\n1 See Royal Auction Bridge : the Art and Practice) con- \ntaining 45 Illustrative Hands {same author and publisher as \nthe present work). \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 6i \n\n\n\nThe first and the third of the three hands given \non p. 59 were sent by me in 1913 to that most able \ninvestigator, the late W. H. Whitfeld, who made \nactual trials of them by dealing out the remaining \nthirty-nine cards into three packets, and following \nout the declarations proper to each of the Auction \nhands thus formed. He cam.e to the conclusion that \nin one respect there w^as a slight disadvantage in the \nfirst hand in declaring Spades first, because it occa- \nsionally happened that one opponent held five spades \nto the king. He thought that there w^as an appre- \nciable danger of the dealer\'s finding such a combina- \ntion against him. If he starts with Spades, he gets \nno warning of this ; but if with Clubs, it appeared that \nthe opponent would be very likely to declare the \nspades himself. \n\nMr. Whitfeld recognized, how^ever, the advantage \nof giving partner \'\'the best chance of showing wdiat \nhe w^ants." The dealer, with two suits, does not want \na No-trum_p declaration, since it is hard to establish \ntwo suits before the adversaries can estabhsh one. \nBy making one of the suits trumps, he can use the \nlong cards in it to estabhsh the other. What he wants \nto know is the suit in which his partner has the greatest \nstrength. \n\nI have myself little doubt that it is on the whole \nmore advantageous to commence with the m.ore \nexpensive suit. A collateral advantage of this plan \n(now generally practised) is that it mxay in some cases \nprevent the adversaries from becoming aware of their \nfull strength in a suit which they share between them. \n\n\n\n62 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nWHEN TO BID TWO OR MORE IN A SUIT \n\nIt may naturally be asked : why bid more tricks \nthan there is any necessity for ? If the contract can \nbe secured on a bid of One, what is the object of under- \ntaking to make more than one ? In case of success, \nthe reward will be the same ; in case of failure, the \npenalty will be greater. \n\nThis argument would be a weighty one, if there \nwere any guarantee that your proposed bid of One is \ngoing to be allowed to stand ; and if there were no \nobject in giving your partner an idea of the contents \nof your hand. The precise aim in bidding more than \none trick originally is not the same in {a) the major \nand {b) the minor suits ; and the difference should \nbe clearly fixed in the mind. We have here, in fact, \nwhat has been termed the \'\'parting of the w^ays \nas regards the two classes of suits. \n\nIn former days, a bid of Two was used bj^ many \nplayers to indicate absence of the high cards necessary \nfor the bid of One ; but length in the suit, and a desire \nto play it for trumps. This meaning is now gener- \nally abandoned, the same conditions being now shown \nby bidding the suit on second round. There are two \nadvantages attached to the postponement : (i) It \nmay not be necessary to bid more than One ; (2) \nsomething may transpire in the interim, making it \ndesirable to suppress mention of the suit altogether. \nIn any case the convention referred to was an arbi- \ntrary one, and in some circles was always discoun- \ntenanced for that reason. \n\nIn the major suits, an original bid of Two or more \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 63 \n\n\n\nsprings from a desire to muzzle the rest of the table. \nThere is no motive for such a desire if you have a \nstrong all-round hand. But when you are very strong \nin one of the major suits, and very weak in the second, \nyou do not want the opponents to get into conversa- \ntion with one another. It is true that you cannot \nprevent the other suit from being bid up to its full \nstrength if it is massed in one hand. But it will more \nfrequently happen that when the suit is adverse, it is \ndivided between the adversaries ; and even though \neach of them may become aware, from your opening \nbid, that you are trying to shut out one of the suits, \nand will in all probability know exactly what that \nsuit is, you may often be able to " cut their com- \nmunications \xe2\x80\x94 so that one of them may never get the \nopportunity of \'\'assisting\'\' the other\'s bid in the \nsuit, without going too high. The following deal is an \nexample : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n^ J, 10, 6. \n\n* J, 4. 3> 2 \n8, 7,2. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 K, 8, 3. \n\n\n\n^ K, Q, 7, 3, 2. \n*9> 8. \n\nA, 9, 5, 4, 3. \n\xe2\x99\xa6 9- \n\n\n\nY \n\n\n\n^A,9,8,5 4. \n\n* A, 6, 5. \nK, Q, 6 \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 7, 6. \n\n\n\nA \n\n\n\nB \n\n\n\nZ \n\n\n\n^ None. \n\n\n\n* K, Q, 10, 7. \n\nJ, 10. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 A, Q, J, 10, 5, 4, 2. \n\n\n\n64 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nWith spades trumps, YZ. will win the game from \nlove arid score 8i for honours. With hearts trumps, \nAB. will win a small slam. \n\nBids which aim at stopping the bidding are kno\\TO \nas \'\'preemptive\'\' or \'\'shut-out\'\' calls. WTiether \nthey should be practised, on suitable occasions, or \nnot, is a disputed point am.ong even the best plaj\'ers. \nWe are only concerned here with explaining their \nscope and their alleged advantage. \n\nTo justify an original call of Two in a suit, the hand \nm.ust be good for six tricks. Out of the seven Vvhich \nare then unaccounted for, 3^ou have no right to expect \nj^our partner to take more than two \xe2\x80\x94 eight tricks in \nall. Similarly, to justify a shut-out call of Three, the \nhand should contain at least seven tricks. In the \ncase given above, if spades be trumps, Z., the dealer, \ncan count his hand as good for seven tricks at least ; \nand if he believes in preemptive calls, he should start \nwith his full bid of Three Spades. If he does not so \nbelieve, he should start vvith One only, in the ordinary \nway. Half measures are futile : a call of Two Spades \nis likelj\' to fail in its purpose. It is clear that Three \nSpades, if bid by Z. in the above deal, will hold the \ncontract and win the gam^e, for neither A. nor B., \nalthough they may both know that Z.\'s purpose is to \nshut out the hearts, will dare to bid Four in that \nsuit. It is impossible for either of them to tell hov/ \nm.any of the missing hearts are held hy Y., and if they \nmake it a practice to overbid on speculation, they will \nconstantly be finding them^selves overwhelmed by \ncalamity. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 65 \n\n\n\nOn the contrary, suppose Z. to start with One \nSpade only. A., Two Hearts. Y. can say nothing. \nZ. will, of course, bid Two Spades. A. and Y., No. \nB., Three Hearts ; and is prepared again to overbid \nZ.\'s Three Spades with Four Hearts. The example \nis an hypothetical one (it has been previously put for- \nward by an advocate of preemptive bids), but it does \nrepresent in graphic manner the principle of cases \nwhich comm.only occur. \n\nThe bid of Two or more in a m.ajor suit is a definile \ninstruction to partner that the declarer is prepared to \ntake full responsibility for the deal, and wishes not \nto be interfered with. \n\nSimilarly, if you hold \n\n^ A, K, J, la, 8, 5 ; * A, 7, 6, 2; Q, J, 10; \xe2\x99\xa6 None ; \n\nyou bid Three Hearts at once, on the samiC principle, \nto shut out, if possible, the spades. \nBut on \n\n9 A, K, J, 10, 8, 5 ; * K, Q ; Q, X 10 ; 4 A, K ; \n\ndeclare One Heart, and serenely await developm.ents. \nYou are quite willing to accept any informiation that \nmay be proffered by the other players, and will be \nable to take the fullest advantage thereof. The \nmotive for \'\'shutting out no longer exists. \n\nThe cases of Diamonds and Clubs stand on a differ- \nent footing. 1 The number of probable tricks that \n\n1 On the assumption, of course, that five by cards are \nnecessary for game. If the score is such that four by cards \nwin game, the minor suits may be bid exactly Uke the major. \n\nE \n\n\n\n66 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nmust be held is the same ; othennse we should be \nviolating our fundamental maxim that ^\' everv bid \nmust be a make/\' But vdien we bear in mind that \na hand good for six or seven tricks in clubs or dia- \nmonds is recognized as a speculative Xo-trumper {vide \ninfra), even when the strength is divided between two \nsuits only, vre perceive that a call of Two or Three in \neither of those suits implies a hand of quite a special \ncharacter \xe2\x80\x94 solid clubs or diamonds (A, K, Q, to five \nor more) with a certain amount of side strength, but \nnot sufficient to justify Xo-trumps. For instance : \n\n^ 10, 3 ; + K, 10, 7 ; A, K, Q, 9, 8, 4 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 S, 2 ; \n\nupon which you would start the bidding with Two \nDiamonds. If the king of clubs were the ace, you \nwould bid Xo-trumps. \n\nIt naturally follows that, a hand of the above \ncharacter, j\'ou are anxious, if possible, that your \npartner should shift to Xo-trumps ; whence it is \nsometimes said that a bid of Two Clubs or Diamonds \nis a conventional " in\\atation to partner to go Xo- \ntrumps. Properly considered, however, the signifi- \ncance thus attaching to it is not a conventional, but a \nnatural one ; that is to say, the bid should not be \nmade unless j\'ou are ready to stand by it : and. \nthat is so, a partner quite uninstructed in arbiirar}- \nmeanings would rationally deduce that a change to \nX^o-trumxps, if he himself has a hand to fit in, would \nbe a benefit to the partnership. For two tricks fewer \nare required to score the game. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 67 \n\n\n\nIllustrative Hand No. XVIII furnishes an \nexample. At love all, the dealer holds \n\n^ 8, 6, 5, 2 ; * Q, J ; OA, K, Q, 8, 5, 4, 3 ; \n\nand calls Two Diamonds. Second hand passes. \nDealer\'s partner overcalls with Two No-trumips. All \npass, and the declarer wins ten tricks. \n\nIt may also happen that, on an extremely excep- \ntional type of hand, the accepted condition of soli- \ndity m the suit can be dispensed with. Holding \n\n^A; \xe2\x99\xa6A, 9, 8,7; 0X10,8,7,6,3,2; \xe2\x99\xa6A; \n\nI see nothing for it but to call Three Diamonds. \nThere are four tricks in trumps and three aces \xe2\x80\x94 seven \ntricks, say, in all. With two lone aces, and the only \nlong suit far from establishment, the combination is \nmarkedly unsuitable for No-trumps ; on the other \nhand, it is too strong to pass up without any bid at \nall. \n\nWe will now consider the call of \n\nONE NO-TRUMP \n\nThere is a rule known as the Robertson Rule \xe2\x80\x94 \nbecause it was devised and promulgated by Mr. \nEdmund Robertson \xe2\x80\x94 which, as the inventor of it has \nhimself declared, \'\'has been extensively misquoted \nand misapplied.\'\' \n\nThe rule was only intended to be used in reckoning \nup the value of a hand so as to decide whether it be \nstrong enough to warrant a call of No-trumps. As \nformulated by Mr. Robertson, an ace king, queen, \n\n\n\n68 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nknave, or ten {each properly guarded) were to be \ncounted as 7, 5, 3, 2, and i respectively, according to \nwhich an average hand \xe2\x80\x94 containing exactly one \nof each of the above cards \xe2\x80\x94 would sum to 18. \n\nI have long been convinced \xe2\x80\x94 and Whitfeld was of \nthe same opinion \xe2\x80\x94 that the Robertson scheme of \ncounting undervalues the ace : to count 7 for it does \nnot sufficiently allow for the influence it is able to \nexert over the whole course of play in a No-trumper \nby retaining the command of a suit until the suitable \nmoment for abandoning it. The count I have always \nrecommended is the following : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nFor each Ace count 8. \n\nFor each King count 5. \n\nFor each Queen count 3. \n\nFor each Knave count 2. \n\nFor a Ten of independent value count i. \n\nNotice the proviso that I have added in the case \nof the Ten. The reason is this. For a King or Queen \nor Knave to be worth their full value in points, as set \nout above, it must be fiilly guarded ; and when the \nsuit in which they occur is not a long one, the presence \nof the Ten is frequentty necessary to satisfy this con- \ndition. In such a case, its value is incUided in the \npoints for the picture-card, and it mxust not therefore \nbe counted over again. For instance, the following \nhand \n\nK, 9, 8 ; * K, 10, 7 ; OK, 10, 6, 2 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 K, 10, 5 ; \nwould be counted by Mr. Robertson thus : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 69 \n\n\n\nFour Kings count . . . .20 \nThree Tens count .... 3 \n\nTotal . . .23 \n\nwhich would work out at 5 points more than the \naverage 18 ; that is to say, one King over an average \nhand. \n\nI consider this estimate to be an exaggeration. I \nregard the Tens of clubs and spades as adjuncts \nbringing the Kings of these suits up to their full value \nof 5 ; the K, 9, 8 of hearts I also reckon as 5 ; but \nthe 10 of diamonds (there being four in suit) may \njustly be counted as making that suit worth 6. I \ntherefore estimate the hand as worth 21 \xe2\x80\x94 a Queen \nabove the average. \n\nBear in mind Mr. Robertson\'s own caution that his \nscale of values is not to be applied to singleton aces, \nnor to improtected kings, queens and knaves. He \nsays : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nFor a singleton Ace count 3. \nFor an unguarded King count 2. \nFor an unguarded Queen count i. \n\nThese, I think, are reasonable discounts ; possibly \nthe Ace may be worth 4, however, even when single ; \nthough it makes a material difference when it miust \nunavoidably be played on the first round of the suit. \n\nMr. Robertson, and most other miters on the \ngame, recommend an original One No-trump on a \nstrictly average hand, ^protected in three suits, " Pro- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\ntection means either ace ; or both king and queen ; \nor queen, knave, and ten (without the ten, say queen, \nknave, to four at least in suit). \n\nI have never been able to see the sense of declar- \ning No-trumps, even at Auction Bridge (which is held \nby many to justifj^ these thin declarations), on a hand \nwhich has no chance of fulfilling the contract unless \nyour partner has a stronger hand himself. You are \nreally declaring, in such a case, not on what you \nyourself hold, but on what you are hoping to find in \nthe hand of some one else. This is not a sound \nbusiness proposition. \n\nThose who advise a declaration of One No-trump on \na bare average holding adduce the follo\\^ing reasons \nfor the faith that is in them. They think \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n1. That with an average holding, the advantage of \nthe dealer in plaj-ing the combined hands is worth an \nextra trick over and beyond the face value of the cards \nhe holds. \n\n2. That if the dealer passes with an average hand, \nhe will discourage his partner from bidding unless \nhe has decided strength. A good opportunity will be \nmissed, because there was a fair chance of gamiC if the \nbidding had been opened with a No-trump.\'\' ^ \n\nAs regards the former reason, I consider that the \ndealer\'s advantage, assuming the play of his oppon- \nents to he sound, is greatly overrated. Furthermore : \nevery time the dealer wins his odd trick, he scores lo \nfor it ; every time he loses the odd trick, his opponents \nscore 50, with the option of making it 100 if thej- are \n^ Robertson\'s Royal Auction Bridge, 1914, p. 38. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nstrong enough. Even if we reckon points below the \nHne as being twice as valuable as those above it, the \nodds against the dealer will still be more than 25 to \n10, i.e. more than 5 to 2. \n\nThe second \'\'reason\'\' appears to spring solely \nfrom a confusion of ideas. If the dealer passes, and \nsecond hand also passes, and third hand has cards \nwhich, when combined with a bare average hand on \nthe other side of the table, offer \'\' a fair chance of \ngame,\'\' which means nine tricks, why in the name of \nall that\'s wonderful should he be afraid to bid One \nNo-trump ? WTien it is once clearly understood that \nthe dealer will not call a No-trum^per unless he has at \nleast a queen above the average (which is a fair \nminimum margin), there is no reason at all why third \nhand should not make the same call with a rather \nstronger holding \xe2\x80\x94 say an ace above the average. This \nwould certainly not be more venturesome than the \ncall which the dealer is urged to make. Now if he \nmakes a point of bidding on this or greater strength, \nthere is assuredly no appreciable chance of missing \na game hand. How often do you think two hands \nw^hich are between them just an ace better than two \nexactly average hands wiU win three by cards ? \n\nBy a less responsible wTiter than Mr. Robertson, I \nhave seen a third reason given in support of what our \nAmerican cousins call the \'\'fake No-trumper." It \nhas been said that since, when the dealer is weak, the \nother three hands will be strong, the original bidder \nhas nothing whatever to be afraid of, as his call will \nbe certain to be overbid by some one else. The \n\n\n\n72 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nnatural corollary of this argument is that the poorer \nthe holding, the better the reason for going No- \ntrumps. And there was at least one writer, under the \nold count, who prided himself upon carrying the \ndoctrine to its legitimate conclusion, and suggested \nthat No-trumps was the proper original call on \n\n9 10, 6, 5 ; * 9, 8, 7, 3 ; 10, 8, 2 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 6, 5, 4 ! \n\nWell, the day for such extravagancies is long past ; \nyet their influence maj^ be traced in the misty ideas \nthat still prevail in certain quarters. What object \nis there in making a declaration that you are sure will \nnot be allowed to stand ? There is one, and one only : \nto give your partner such trustworthy informiation as \nto the contents of your hand that, relying implicitly \non what you have told him, he may be able to shape his \nown course to the best advantage. What you tell \nhim, if you start with No-trumxps, is just this : that \nyou have such cards that, with average cards in his \nown hand, you are prepared to back yourself to win \nthe odd trick five times out of seven ; and that the \ncom.bination contemxplated will in addition hold out \nthe fair chance of game that Mr. Robertson speaks \nof above. \n\nI maintain with confidence that you are not justi- \nfied in making such an announcement unless you hold \nat least a queen above the average (i.e., ace, king, two \nqueens and a knave) with the face-cards adequately \nstopping three suits. \n\nTake the following, therefore, as representative \nminimum Noners :\xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 73 \n\n\n\n^ * \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\nA, 2 ; Q, J, 10, 6, 5, 4 ; K, J, 3 ; 9, 7. \n\nA, 5, 4 ; A, 7, 3, 2 ; Q, J, 3 ; 9, 7, 6. \n\n10, 5, 4 ; A, 7, 3 ; Q, J, 7> 3 ; K, Q, 6. \n\nK,Q,4; 10,7,3; Q,X8; K, J, 10, 5. \n\nK, J, 4 ; K, Q, 8 ; 10, 7, 3 ; K, J, 6, 5. \n\nThe distribution of the suits, so far as the original \ncall is concerned, is immaterial ; but, on the first \nhand given above, should the 6-card suit be hearts or \nspades, it may often be advisable to change to the \nsuit-call when j\'our turn to speak recurs : your \ndecision must depend upon what has transpired in the \ninterval. \n\nIn practice you will find it very difficult to adhere \nrigidly to principles, when you come down to the \nborder-line of strength. You will do well, however, \nto formulate for 3\'ourself a perfectly definite rule, and \nto abide by it. \n\nAs examples of what to avoid : I select, from vari- \nous WTiters, specimens of alleged No-trum.pers on \nwhich you should make a point of passing the declar- \nation : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nNOT ORIGINAL NO-TRUMPERS \n\n^ * 4 \n\nA, Q, 5, 4 ; 10, 7, 2 ; Q, 7, 5 ; Q, 10, 6. \n\n(A barely average hand, which an American Sunday \npaper recently described as \'\'too good to pass/\') \n\n10, 9, 8 ; A, Q, 7, 2 ; Q, J, 10, 3 ; K, 4, \n(The king of spades has not its full value.) \n\n\n\nI \n\nI \n\nI \n\n\n\n74 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n9 * \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\n9. 8, 7, 3 ; K, 10, 4 ; K, J, 2 ; K, Q, 6. \n\n(A bare knave above the average, and no ace.) \n\n^ 4\xc2\xbb \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\nA, 7, 3 ; A, 6, 4, 2 ; J, lo, 4, 3 ; 4, 2. \n\n(Equivalent to just an average.) \n\nOf course I am fully aware that this is quite con- \ntrary to the so-called system of a certain section \nof expert New York players, who will tell you that \ntheir suit calls can always be relied upon, but that their \ncalls of One No-trump mean nothing at all ! One of \nthese players, when asked by his partner, after the \nhand had been played, what excuse he had for bidding \nNo-trumps, replied : The deal, my nerve, and my \ndesire to worry the opponents.\'\' \n\nThis cult of what is sometimes spoken of as the \n\'\'modern border-line No-trumper,\'\' and sometimes, \nmore disrespectfully, as the \'\'fake No-trumper,\'\' is \nin direct contradiction to the leading principle of the \nnew count that " your bid should always be a make.*\' \n\nIt is curious that the proper defence against un- \nsound tactics of this nature should be so little under- \nstood. It has been argued that the opponents can \nnever be sure whether the call is made on a cast-iron \nhand, or only upon one ace and a couple of "hopes " ; \nthe object of the dealer being to keep them guessing \nin the dark, and occasionally to induce them to ven- \nture out of their depth on what they take to be a \n\ndummy gun/\' but what eventually turns out to \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 75 \n\n\n\nbe a piece of genuine heavy ordnance of the most \ndestructive kind. \n\nThis is simply a revival of the exploded Whist \nfallacy : Never mind your partner, so long as you \ncan puzzle the adversaries/\' It seems to be for- \ngotten that the wretched partner is kept guessing too, \nand never has the least idea how to regulate his own \nbids. The policy of the opponents, against these \nbogus opening calls, should be always to leave them to \nbe played, and to lie low for penalties, unless they can \nclearly see a prospect of scoring game by over- \nbidding. Let the dealer\'s partner do the guessing : \nhe will find all his work cut out for him. \n\nTHE TWO-SUIT NO-TRUMPER \n\nThere are cases where the usual stipulation for \n\'\'three suits stopped " may be relaxed. When five \nby cards are necessarj^ for game, and you hold a solid \nsuit of clubs or diamonds, with another ace for re- \nentry, a speculative One No-trumps is permissible : \n\n9 * \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\n10, 5 ; A, 7, 3 ; A, K, Q, 6, 2 ; 9, 7, 6. \n\nBut at any score at which four by cards will win \nthe game, declare the big suit. (If there be no out- \nside ace, and the hand is good for six quick tricks, the \nrecognized call is Two in the big suit. Example : \n\n\n\n10, 5 ; \n\n\n\n* \xe2\x9d\x96 \n\nQ, J, 10; A, K, g, J, 4; 9,7,6.) \n\n\n\n76 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nTHE CALL OF TWO OR MORE NO-TRUMPS \n\nIngenious Mr. Doe has remarked that \'\'the Two \nNo-trump call was invented to conceal v>^eakness in \none of the m.ajor suits/\' That is, with two solid \nsuits, a third guarded, and nothing in the fourth \n(being hearts or spades), the alleged intention was to \nprevent the missing suit being shown against you on a \ncheap call. Naturally the device, when once known, \nbecame less useful for that particular purpose, because \nit at once announced, for the opponents\' benefit, that \nyou were afraid of a red suit being opened. An \nadditional drawback is that it prevents your partner \nfrom bidding Tv/o in a suit, if he v/ants to. \n\nIllustrative Hand No. XXXII exhibits a com- \nbination which does not comiply strictly wdth the \nabove formula, but which nevertheless exemplifies \ninstructively the application of the same principles. \nAt love all, in the rubber game, the dealer holds \n\n^A; ^\xe2\x80\xa2A,Q, J,5,4; 0A,K,Q,2; 4 Q, 7> 3- \n\nNow here he is not actually defenceless in either \nhearts or spades, and the clubs are not solid ; yet a \ncall of Three No-trumps is distinctly indicated for \nreasons similar to those set out. What the dealer \nwants to prevent, if possible, is the immediate estab- \nlishment of hearts or spades before he has had the \nchance of establishing the clubs. If, at Trick i, the \nace of hearts is taken from him ; and, at Trick 3, \nan adversary gets in with the king of clubs, the posi- \ntion at the fourth trick is practically the sapie as if \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 77 \n\n\n\nthere had been sohd clubs and only one small heart \nat the first trick. It will be found that, in the Hand \nreferred to, to call Three No-trumps is the only way \nto win the game and rubber. \n\nA similar call maj^ also be of service for a somxcwhat \nrare type of hand : six or seven solid clubs or dia- \nmonds, nothing in one of the major suits, and king \nguarded, or ace, in both the other tv>^o suits. The \npurpose is not to prevent the missing suit being \nopened, but to prevent the call being taken from you \ntoo cheaply in Hearts or Spades. \n\nWith an unusualty strong all-round hand, hy no \nmeans bid more than One, but let the opponents do as \nmuch talking as they like. You may therefore bid \nTwo No-trum.ps on hand (a) below ; but not on hands \n{b) and [c) :\xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n9 \n\n[a) A, 2 ; \n(6) A, 2 ; \n{c) A, K ; \n\n\n\nA, K, Q, 5, 3, 2 ; \nA, K, J, 5, 3, 2 ; \nK, Q, J, 10, 9 ; \n\n\n\n\n\nK,2; \n\n\n\n7. 3> 2. \nK, 3, 2. \nA, K, O \n\n\n\nSECOND HAND DECLARATIONS \n\nIf the dealer has passed, the second hand is put \ninto the samic position as the dealer was, and should \nbe guided by just the sam^e principles. It is as much \nthe duty of the second hand to enlighten the fourth \nhand (on the first opportunity) as it was the dealer\'s \nduty to enhghten the third hand. \n\nI cannot agree with those who advise second hand \n\n\n\n78 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nto be more venturesome than the dealer in going No- \ntrumps, on the plea that as the dealer is weaker than \nusual, fourth hand is Hkely to be stronger than usual, \nand so better able to give support. If the dealer has \nless than his average of high cards, and second hand \nhas (say) just an average holding, one of the two \nremaining hands must have more than the average. \nIf the strong No-trumper belongs to the opponent, \nyou are foolish to snatch the declaration and put your- \nself under him. If it belongs to your partner, it \nclearly devolves upon him to declare and to play it. \n\nAfter an attacking call by the dealer, however, \nsecond hand is in an entirely different position. \nThere is one situation in which it is imperative to \nmake no declaration, although it is the most difficult \nthing in the world to prevent the inexperienced plaj\'er \nfrom doing so. If the dealer has bid One No-trump, \nand you have (i) a strong established suit, or (2) a \nsuit that you can at once establish, together with \ncertain re-entry, say nothing about it if you want to \ndefeat the call. You will yourself have the lead ; \nand, if you warn the enemy of their danger, they will \nswitch to another declaration. \n\nHolding such a hand as \n\n^7,6] * A, 7, 3 ; K, Q, J, 8, 4, 3 ; 41 5, 4 ; \n\nwhich offers an admirable chance of defeating the \nNo-trump call, your best policy is to pass. You may \nthink it a capital opportunity for calling Two Dia- \nmonds, but it is not a hopeful undertaking to try and \nwin eleven tricks against at least one No-trump hand, \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 79 \n\n\n\nwhile if the enemy has any misgiving about his abiHty \nto defeat your Two Diamonds, he is extremely likely \nto take refuge in Hearts or Spades. It is then quite \npossible that you may lose a game which would \nhave been more than safe if you had held your \ntongue. \n\nIn such situations as this, it has been pronounced \nii an Auction crime " to declare or to double. Should \nyour hand, however, be so strong all round that you \nare sure you have a probability of game, it is a differ- \nent matter, and you may adopt an attacking policy. \nIt will particularly pay you to do so if your partner \nturns out to be able to overcall your diamonds or \nclubs with a major suit. \n\nThe following position occurred in actual play, and \nthe subsequent developments thereof resulted in som^e \nheated recrimination. The dealer calls One No- \ntrump, and second hand, at the score of 27 to love, \nholds the following cards : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^7,2; * A,K,Q,9,7,6,3,2; Q ; \xe2\x99\xa6 8, 4. \n\nThe chance of game being excellent, I have no \ndoubt that here it is right to call Two Clubs. The \nlater proceedings are chronicled and discussed in the \nField of October 9, 1915, p. 625. I need not enter \ninto them here, as they are not germane to the point \nimmediately under consideration. \n\nThe call of Two of a suit,\'\' writes Mr. Doe, " over \na One No-trump is the most horrible and most fascina- \nting uncertainty of the gamiC. . . . It is useless to run \nrisks when the game is neither to he lost nor won," \n\n\n\n8o ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\nIn Illustrative Hand No. XXVI we have the \nfollowing case : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nZ \n\nB A \nY \n\nVJ. lo; *K,7,3; A, K, 0, J : 4 Q, X 5, 4- \n\nAt love ail, Z. deals and passes. A., One No- \ntrumps. Y., No. Tills is sucli a conjuncture as \nis contemplated by Mr. Doe. Is there any \npossibility that you vrill lose the game by saying \nnothing ? You have your certain tricks in dia- \nmonds ; it can hardly be that you do not make \nat least one club or one spade in addition. If B. or \nZ. has a big suit of hearts, it will be declared. Nor \nhave 3\'OU any reasonable chance of winning the gam.e \nin diamonds unless Z. has somiething substantial, and \nif he has, you will hear from him, as he will be third \nplayer to the No-trump call. The honours are doubt- \nless an attraction, but wall not compensate for being \nthree tricks down. \n\nIn the case of a mxajor suit, the value of honours is \ngreater, and there is a better chance of winning the \ngame. In Illustrative Hand No. XXXVIII, at \nlove all, the dealer calls One No-trump, and second \nhand passes, holding \n\n9 6,4,3,2; *None; OA, 7, 5,2; ^K,Q,Xo,8; \n\nWere the 9 of spades the 10, it Vv^ould be much more \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 8i \n\n\n\ndoubtful whether Two Spades should not be caUed. \n72 for honours would almost counterbalance 100 \npoints penalty. \n\nIf the dealer has bid One of a suit, overcall with One \nof any suit in which you can make five tricks, or with \nTwo of any suit in which you can m.ake six tricks. In \neach case, you may reasonably expect your partner \nto contribute two tricks towards fulfilhng the con- \ntract. In this position, you are not limited by any \nof the rules ahoitt high cards. You cannot look for- \nward to a second chance of showing a long weak suit. \nSuch a declaration is said to be forced ; the rules \npreviously formulated apply only to one that is \n" free.\'\' With \n\n97; * K, J, 6, 4 ; J, 2 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 Q, J, 10, 5, 4, 3 ; \n\nyou would pass as dealer ; but as second hand, w^hen \nthe dealer has called One Heart, you would overcall \nwith One Spade. \n\nNever overcall with a contract that you can\'t make, \nsimply on the plea that " you m^ust show your suit." \nThere is no must " about it. It follows that you \nare never to call Two Clubs or Two Diamonds on a \nOne-trick hand, merely because the dealer has shut \nout your correct call by going One Heart. \n\nIt is difficult to say when to bid One No-trump over \na suit. Speaking generally, however, the holding \nshould be considerably better than an average hand, \nand the dealer\'s suit should be securely stopped. The \nlatter condition is im.portant, because your partner \nwill regulate his own bidding on the assumption that it \n\nF \n\n\n\n82 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nexists. The condition is so universally recognized \nthat it may even be said to rank as a convention. \n\nTHIRD HAND DECLARATIONS \nI \n\nIf dealer and second hand have both passed, you \nhave to consider that neither of them can hold a \ncombination of cards suitable for an original call. \nNeither, for instance, can be expected to have a hand \na queen above the average with three suits securely \nstopped. It does not follow that your partner is \nnecessarily devoid of support for any sound declara- \ntion that 3^ou may yourself be in a position to make. \nWriters who advise original calls of shadowy No- \ntrumpers are obliged to take a different view from \nthat which I have just expressed. If j^ou know that \nthe dealer would have declared One No-trump on \nany of the flimsy pretexts that are held in some \ncircles to be sufficient, j^ou will have to aUow for a \ncorresponding deficiency in cases where he has passed. \nIn any case, vvdthout allowing yourself to be unduly \ndiscouraged, you v/ill recognize that the general \naverage of the cards that you would at the beginning \nhave been justified in expecting from him has been \nsomewhat lowered. If you have a weak hand your- \nself, the strength of the deal is doubtless massed over \nyou in the fourth hand. You may therefore assume \nit as being extremely probable that fourth hand will \ndeclare. If it is important that any particular suit \nshould be led to you by your partner before Dummy\'s \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 83 \n\n\n\nhand goes down, you must now call One in that suit. \nYou should also declare any suit in which you think \nyou can win game, after allowing for the dealer \nhaving passed ; and, when so declaring, it is wise to \nbid Two, so as to shut out, or force the hand of, the \nfourth player. To declare No-trumps, you must have \na stronger hand than has been prescribed for the dealer \n\xe2\x80\x94 a hand reasonably good for five tricks. \n\nII \n\nIf the dealer has declared, and second hand has \npassed. \n\nYou should overbid One Club or One Diamond with \na Heart, a Spade, or a No-trumper, if you have \nsufficient strength, on account of the improved chance \nof gam^e, but do not overbid a Heart with a Spade, or \nvice versa, unless {a) you are particularly weak in the \ndealer\'s suit ; (6) \\^ou are particularly strong in your \nown suit \xe2\x80\x94 say five to four honours, or six to ace, king. \nIn the former case, you know that you cannot help \nyour partner in his suit, while there is no reason for \nsupposing that he cannot help you in yours ; in the \nlatter case, you are justified in assuming your suit \nto be better than his. You may overbid a Heart or \nSpade with Two in clubs or diamonds, if long and \nsolid. The dealer, understanding the nature of your \nholding, can then either bid Two No-trumps, or can \nrevert to his own suit. \n\nYou may overbid a Heart or Spade with No- \ntrumps {a) if all the other three suits are safely \nstopped ; or (&), more speculatively, if you hold \n\n\n\n84 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nsolid clubs or diamonds and one of the two remaining \nsuits safeh\' stopped. You risk finding a whole suit \nagainst j\'ou, but, in the majority of cases, you wiU \nplay to greater advantage on the Xo-trump call. \n\nRefer back to the remarks on p. 65 as to the \nsignificance of an original Two in clubs or diamonds. \nOverbid with Two Xo-trumips if you are m.oderately \nguarded in all the three other suits ; m.cre specu- \nlatively, if 3\'ou have two of those suits securel}\' \nguarded. \n\nAn original Two in hearts or spades is a mandate \nfTomi your partner for you to leave him alone. If you \nhold four aces, 3\'ou may disregard his instructions, \nand overbid Two No-trumps ; \xe2\x80\x94 not otherwise. \n\nThe injudicious bidding of suit against suit between \npartners is one of the most fatal, as weU as one of the \ncomxmonest, errors of Auction Bridge. The m^utual \ninterest of the two plaj\'ers is obviously to decide, by \nrational conversation, upon that suit which vdU yield \nthe best results. Before the bidding, neither panner \nhas any knowledge of the contents of the other\'s hand, \nand begins b}\' assuming an average expectation. If \none of the two holds five trumps, he should mxake his \ndeclaration on the hypothesis that the other will hold \ntwo, or perhaps three. If the declarer holds six \ntrumps, he certainly should not expect the partner to \nhold more than two out of the remxaining seven. \n\nSuppose, now, that third hand has onlj\' a single \ncard in the suit which the dealer has called One : but \nhas a good five-card suit of his ovm, he would be right \nto call his own suit if he can do so mthout increasing \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 85 \n\n\n\nthe contract ; for example, he would be right in \ncalling One Heart over One Club, or One Spade over \nOne Heart. Suppose, again, that third hand is void \nof a suit in which the dealer has caUed One, the \nformer would again be right to call Two, if necessary, \nin a suit of which he holds five. That is to say, the \nadditional reason for fearing disaster is sufficient justi- \nfication for issuing a warning even at the cost of \nincreasing the contract by a trick. \n\nSuppose, however, that in either of the above cases, \nthe dealer returns to the suit he originally declared, \nthird hand should not carrj^ on the contest further, \nunless he has some additional reason which his first \novercall was not sufficient to proclaim. \n\nSay that Z., the dealer, calls One Heart. A. passes. \nY., the third hand, holds \n\n^ 8, 3 ; * 9, 6, 2 ; 7. 4 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 K, J, 8, 7, 6, 3. \n\nHere Y. has two of his partner\'s suit, but six of his \nown. He is justified in overcaUing with One Spade. \nHad he held only five spades and two hearts, or had \nhe held three hearts with his six spades, he would not \nhave had the same justification, and should have \npassed. Moreover, as things are, he has imparted \nall the information that he has to communicate. \nWhen the turn to speak comes round again to Z., \nshould the latter, in face of Y.\'s announcement, bid \nTwo Hearts, the incident, so far as Y. is concerned, is \nclosed. He must say nothing further. The matter \nhas been lucidly put by the late \\V. H. Whitfeld. If \nany player, he points out, has made a declaration \n\n\n\n86 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nwhich gives a certain piece of information, that in- \nformation is taken into account by all the other \nplayers who subsequently declare, and is embodied \nin the declarations that they make. If a fresh \ndeclaration by partner is to be again superseded, it \nmust be because of some additional fact which was \nnot previously communicated and could not have \nbeen suspected. \n\nIn the hand given above, suppose that Y. held \nonly one heart and six spades, he would be right to \nbid Two Spades on the following round over the Two \nHearts, inasmuch as the contract would not be thereby \nincreased. \n\nSuppose hearts and spades to be interchanged. \nWith six hearts and two spades, Y. would be wong \nto bid Two Hearts over his partner\'s One Spade. \nWith six hearts and a single spade, he would be \njustified in doing so ; but would have nothing further \nto say if the dealer reverted to Spades. \n\nAs another example, I will take a case that was \nrecently submitted to the Field newspaper to settle a \nwager. The dealer calls One Heart ; second hand \npasses ; dealer\'s partner holds \n\n^J; +A, J, 9, 8, 6; OA, 9. 5,4; \xe2\x99\xa6 K, 8, 7. \n\nOught he to overcall with Two Clubs ? I think not. \nIt is true that there is a probability that the clubs \nbetween the two hands are better than their hearts, \nbut that is counterbalanced by the disadvantage of \nhaving an additional trick to \\vin. There is fui-ther- \nmore less chance of game in Clubs. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 87 \n\n\n\nAn original bid of One No-trump opens up a some- \nwhat disputed subject. The following dicta should \nbe accepted with reserve, but they are the best that \ncan be put forward in the present state of our know- \nledge. \n\nHolding a strong hand, with one missing suit, you \nshould take your partner out only in the major suits, \nhearts or spades. With \n\n9 A, J, 9, 6, 4 ; + K, J, 5 ; A, 10, 9 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 6, 5 ; \n\nit is conceded by most good players that you should \noverbid with Two Hearts. So with Two Spades, if \nthe holding in hearts and spades be transposed. Not \nso, however, if the heart suit be changed to clubs or \ndiamonds. \n\nHolding a long weak major suit (say \n\n^K,3; +Q,7.3; K, Q ; \xe2\x99\xa610,8,7,4,3,2) \n\nyou must also overbid, irrespective of the support in \nplain suits. It would be the same if the hearts were \nspades. \n\nBut with a long weak minor suit (clubs or dia- \nmonds), the practice is only to overbid when the hand \nhas no support in plain suits. Holding \n\n9 10, 3 ; * 10, 8, 7, 4, 3, 2 ; J, 8 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 9, 7, 3 ; \n\nit is imperative to overbid with Two Clubs, as a \nwarning \xe2\x80\x94 coUoquiaUy known as a \'\'rescue.\'\' You \ntell the dealer that your hand is valueless unless clubs \nare trumps. Interchange spades and clubs in the \nhand previously cited, and you would not overbid, \n\n\n\n88 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nbecause there is help for a No-trumper even if clubs \nare not trumps. \n\nThe doctrine is usually summed up by saying that \nthe " v/eakness take-out " or \'\'rescue " is obligatorj/ \nin all suits, but the \'\'strength take-out\'\' only in \nhearts or spades. \n\nIf you have so strong a hand in clubs that you \nbeheve you can m.ake game in them, take out the No- \ntrmriper with Three Clubs. This is a special case, \nbecause the dealer can overbid again with Two No- \ntrumps, which Three Diamonds (21) would shut out. \nThe bid of Three shows that it is not a " weakness \ntake-out.\'\' \n\nIt has been objected by those who disapprove of \n"take-outs" in the major suits that it is never \npossible for the dealer to know with any certainty \nwhether the over call is " aggressive " or whether \nit is "protective." It is urged that such indefiniteness \nmakes these overcalls very trying, and is apt to lead \nto misunderstanding and mutual recrimination. I \nsee no ground for the objection. The fact appears \nsimply to be that some players cannot bear having \nthe declaration taken from them by their partner, \nand are apt to consider themselves as slighted or \nill-treated on the occasions when it happens. " How \nam I to know," I often hear it asked, " whether \nyou are taking me out from strength or from weak- \nness ? " \n\nThe answer is that it is quite unnecessary to know. \nThe basis of sound calling is mutual confidence. If \nI bid One No-trump, and my partner, whom I know \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 89 \n\n\n\nto be a reliable bidder, says Two Hearts, it is the \nheight of stupidity to start an Auction wrangle with \nhim by going Two No-trumps, which will result, as \nlikely as not, in his going Three Hearts ! What he \nhas told me is that, to the best of his judgm.ent, it \nwill be so much easier and safer to play the deal in \nHearts as to justify the undertaking of an additional \ntrick ; and that deliberate announcement ought \nto be unreservedly accepted. The overcall in a \nmajor suit is practically independent of the general \nhigh-card strength of the hand. There is no such \nthing as being \'\'too strong\'\' or \'\'too weak\'\' to \ntake partner out of a No-trumper, provided that \nyour suit of hearts or spades is sufficiently long. \nRemember, also, that a hand with two five-card suits \nis specially suitable for playing with a declared \ntrump. With any of the following typical holdings, \ncall Two of your major suit over your partner\'s One \nNo-trump : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ * ^ \n\nA,Q,io,4,3; 7; K, Q, 10, 8, 4 ; 9,8. \n\nK,J,6; None; Q, J, 10, 6, 3 ; K,Q,J,4,2. \n\nA, 9, 4, 2 ; 10, 9, 8 ; 4 ; J, 9, 8, 6, 4. \n\n10,9,2; 7.6,3; 4; 10,9,8,7,3,2. \n\n" In these days of light No-trumpers," says Mr. \nRobertson, " a contract to make eight tricks with a \nqueen or knave suit to five [as in the third of the \nabove cases] against a [presumably] strong fourth \nhand, is a foolish invitation to the opponents to \ndouble. . . . There is the further risk of the dealer \n\n\n\n90 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nmisinterpreting the overcall, and going to Two No- \ntrumps/\' \n\nThe answer to the second part of the objection is \nthat the dealer has no business to do anything of the \nkind. It is impossible to protect a deliberately im- \nprudent person from the consequences of his impru- \ndence. The supposed danger of the double depends \non the hypothesis that the dealer has gone No- \ntrumps without justification \xe2\x80\x94 an error which, indeed, \nis widely prevalent, but against which I have issued \nan emphatic warning. \n\nIn some circles, the practice of raising partner\'s \nsuit-bid, when no other bid has intervened, is con- \nsiderably overdone. One wTiter on the game advises \nthat, with such cards as the following : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ K, 7, 3 ; * K, 6, 4, 2 ; A, 9, 6, 4 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 8, 7 ; \n\nthe dealer\'s partner should alw^ays raise (preemp- \ntively, as it w^ere) an original bid of One Heart to Two \nHearts. You have to consider," it is said, \'\'the \npossibility of a preemptive bid by the fourth player, \nwho is quite likely to be strong in spades \xe2\x80\x94 ^your \nown weakest suit." If he bids Three Spades, \'* your \npartner, having received no signal of help from you, \nmay be quite unable to declare Four Hearts on his \nown, so to speak, and it is obvious that you cannot, \nwithout grave risk, carrj^ the bidding to Four Hearts \nfor him." \n\nIt is impossible to approve of this reasoning. The \nhand specified is barely up to average strength, and \nis therefore just about what the dealer would have \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 91 \n\n\n\nbeen expecting from his partner when he called his \nOne Heart. It is always possible for any player to \njump in with a " shut-out " bid ; but the wisdom \nof such a coiurse is by no means universally admitted, \nand there is no sense in trying to anticipate a pos- \nsibly rash contract by rushing gratuitously into \nan equally rash one on your own account. It is \nreally much more likely that fourth hand, if he \nbids Spades at all, will simply bid One. It will then \nbe quite tim.e enough for j\'ou to consider what you \nwill do when it comes round to you again. A gratui- \ntous bid of Two Hearts is likely to give the dealer \nan exaggerated idea of the value of your holding, \nand to induce him to venture out of his depth : this \nis simply plaj\'ing the enemy\'s game. \n\nIll \n\nThere rem^ain to be considered the cases when \nsecond hand has made a declaration. Here the third \nhand has received information from two different \nsources, and he mmst be guided by what he has learnt. \n\nIn considering whether to bid No-trumips over a \nsuit called by second hand, when dealer has passed, \nyou are not in the sam.e position as if seccnd in hand \nover an original suit call ; because you have the \nadditional inform: at ion that your partner has no \ncards to justify an original call. Either the declared \nsuit should be stopped twice ; or, if only stopped \nonce, xovl should have a solid suit of clubs or diamonds. \n\nSituations dem.anding good judgm.ent specialty \narise when Two of a suit have been bid over the \n\n\n\n92 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\ndealer\'s One No-trump. Bear carefully in mind \nthat the conditions for a " weakness take-out \'\'do \nnot here exist. The dealer has already been taken \nout by the opponent. If you hold \n\n^ J, 10, 7. 6, 4. 3 ; * 10, 8, 6 ; 7. 5 ; ^ J, 8 ; \nand Two Spades have been bid on your right, j\'ou \nare on no account to overbid in hearts, as j\'ou would \nhave done, if the No-trumper had come up to yon \nunimpeded. Your only justification for an overbid \nis a holding strong enough to give you game. Y\'ou \nmust not bid Two No-trumps except with adequate \nstrength and the adverse suit stopped. With Spades \nagainst you, and holding \n\n^ A, 7 ; * K, Q, J, 10, 8, 6 ; K, J, 8 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 9, 2 ; \n\nyour policy is to bid Three Clubs : this instructs \npartner to overbid with Two No-trumps on cofidition \nthat he stops the spades, and should be by him so \nunderstood. \n\nYou are justified in doubling the suit (but not \nin overbidding with Two No-trumps) if you hold \n{a) Two stoppers in the suit ; (b) One stopper and \ntwo outside tricks. For Two ^No-trumps you must \nhave greater strength still. \n\nOn the following case, varjang opinions have been \nexpressed. \n\nZ \' \nB A \n\nY \n\n\n\n9K,J,7; *K, 10,8; OA,Q; \xe2\x99\xa6 Q, X 9. 8, 3- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 93 \n\n\n\nAt love all, Z. calls One Heart. A., Two Diamonds. \nWTiat should Y. say, holding the cards set out ? \n\nTwo Spades would obviously be bad. The choice \npractically lies between assisting partner with Two \nHearts or calling Two No-trumps. The fact that \none trick more is needed for game in Hearts than \nin No-trumps is counterbalanced by the fact that \nin No-trumps there is a greater risk of loss. To \nsupport a sound Heart call on the cards held by \nY. is a perfectly safe undertaking. The decisive \npoint to consider is which of the two courses wdll \ngive partner the mxost useful inform.ation. Two No- \ntrumps will announce the diamonds stopped, and \nan adequate am.ount of side strength, but will give \nno inform.ation as to the hearts. I have little doubt \nthat it is better to assist with Two Hearts. Nothing \ndefinite is yet known about the clubs, and B. has j\'et \nto speak. If he calls Three Clubs, j\'ou will be glad \nyou did not call Two No-trumips, as it is very likely \nthat B. would have estabhshed clubs and got in on \nthe spades to m.ake them. On the other hand, if \nZ. has good clubs, there is hardly a remiote chance \nthat the Two Hearts contract can be defeated. \n\nThe assisting or supporting value of a \nhand when the dealer\'s original suit bid has been \novercaUed has been defined quite differently by \ndifferent miters. Some insist that the original \ncaller does not want strength in the trumps them- \nselves, but only high cards in the plain suits. Others \nare apt to lay undue stress on the possession of \ntrumps alone. \n\n\n\n94 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nNow, on the one hand, it is clear that support in \ntrumps, both as regards number and high cards, is \nof value. If the dealer has five trumps and third \nhand only one, there are seven between the oppo- \nnents : it may not be at all easy to draw these for \nthe defence of any plain-suit strength that may be \nheld. Two trumps held by third hand probably \nmeans seven trumps against six, with the additional \nadvantage of five being in one hand. This is such \nordinary support as the original caUer would have \nlooked forward to when he made his declaration. \nThree or four trumps are more than he would have \nreckoned upon ; thej\' will make it easier for the \ndeclarer in two ways : he can win extra tricks \nby ruffing losing cards, or he can more readily \nexhaust the trumps and make tricks with winning \ncards. \n\nAs regards high cards in trumps, these also afford \nhelp both in drawing the trumps of the enemy, and \nin cross-ruffing more effectually. \n\nThere is a danger, however, of finding both hands \nlong in trumps, and short in the same plain suit \nor suits, so that the trumps faU together and are \nwasted. \n\nOn the other hand, it is also clear that high cards \nin plain suits are of value, both as \\^dnning tricks \nafter trumps are out, and as giving discards to the \nstrong trump hand, whereby the adversaries\' high \ncards in the suit thrown awa3\' may be kiUed without \nexhausting the trumps. \n\nAs a general rule, support in the plain suits is \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 95 \n\n\n\nlargely neutralized by unusual weakness in trumps ; \nand a suit bid should therefore be rarely raised \nunless two trumps at least be held. It likewise foUows \nthat numerical support in trumps \xe2\x80\x94 ^the holding of \nthree or more \xe2\x80\x94 is partly neutralized by an even \ndivision of the plain suits rendering ruffs less prob- \nable, and perhaps altogether impracticable. \n\nIt does not seem to have been previously pointed \nout that the number of times you are entitled to \nraise yoru partner\'s suit declaration entirely depends \nupon the number of tricks that he has declared. \nThe principle involved being obvious when once \nexplained, it seems strange that it should have \nhitherto escaped observation. \n\nThe dealer will declare One in a suit on a hand \nof average strength in high cards and five trumps. \nThis we can reckon as good for 3 J tricks, plus i trick \nmore for the fifth trump \xe2\x80\x94 ^say 4J or perhaps \ntricks in all. The declarer, therefore, in making \nsuch a declaration, looks to his partner for the other \n2| tricks, i.e. expects him to have such cards as \nwill average about five tricks every two deals. To \nbe justified in increasing the contract by one trick, \nthe partner must have one trick more than the \ndeclarer has been counting him as good for, that is, \nhe must have a hand w^orth 3I tricks \xe2\x80\x94 an average \nof seven tricks every two deals. \n\nHow, then, can we give our adhesion to Mr. Robert- \nson\'s dictum that " in miaking a suit declaration, the \ndealer relies on at least one sure trick from his part- \nner " ? and that therefore the partner can raise once \n\ni \n\ni \n\n\n\n96 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n\'\'holding two sure tricks/\' and can raise once more \nfor \'\'each additional trick\'\' in his hand.^ \n\nIf dealer has declared One Spade, and third hand \nholds \n\n^K. Q,3; 4i J, 10,4,3; OA, 7, 4; ^ Q, 8, 6 ; \n\nhe has a hand exacth\' one queen above the avera^ge, \nand is certainly justified in raising once, but not \ntwice. \n\nSuppose, however, that the dealer has started with \nTvro Spades. This, as we have seen, indicates that \nhe has six tricks in his hand, and is relying on his \npartner for two. In this case, the holder of the \nabove hand (worth 3I tricks) cannot be blamed \nfor raising twice, and would be fully justified in \ndoing so with slighth: increased strength equivalent \nto the missing quarter -trick- \xe2\x80\x94 sziy vrith A, J, 4 of \ndiamonds. \n\nIn estima.ting tricks, 3\'ou are of course entitled \nto reckon probable ruffs ; a ruff in the hand which \nis V\\^eak in trumps being the equivalent of a trick. \nHolding \n\n^ K, 0, 6, 4, 3 ; ^4; A, J, 10, 4 ; # Q, 6, 4 ; \n3\'ou would be right in raising a bid of One Spade \ntvdce : once for the high-card strength, and once \nm.ore for an expected ruff on clubs. With the 3 of \nspades instead of the 3 of hearts, j\'ou could raise three \ntimes. \n\nBe careful to avoid the error of counting the sam_e \nstrength tvdce over. It is impracticable, for ex- \n^ Royal Auction Bridge, p. 106. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 97 \n\n\n\nample, to use the same trum.p both for ruffing and \nfor extracting an adverse trump. \n\nDistinctions between \'\'tricks " and \'\'raisers are \nshadowy and superfluous. A "raiser " is merely a \nvalid reason for increasing your partner\'s bid ; if \nyou cannot vrin "tricks\'\' with your cards, you are \nnot justified in "raising." \n\nFOURTH HAND DECLARATIONS \n\nIn many situations, the policy of the Fourth Hand \nhas been implicitly indicated in what has been aheady \nlaid dowTi. If the dealer passes, second hand bids, \nand third hand passes, you will proceed verj\'^ nearly \nin the same way as if your partner had started the \nbidding, and you were third hand {v. supra, case \n(II), p. 83). The only difference is that you know the \nhand behind you to be deficient in high-card strength. \nThus 5\'Ou may more boldly overbid a call of Clubs \nor Diamxonds with a view of securing the game. \nIf your partner has declared No-trum.ps, and third \nhand has passed, you take him out, if necessary, in \na suit, exactly as described on p. 87. If third hand \nhas bid Two of a suit over partner\'s No-trumxper, \nthe situation of case III again arises, as dealt with \non pp. 91-2. \n\nIf all three players pass the call up to you, and \nyou have an average hand, somie one may, of course, \nbe " foxing." If you can rety on your partner, you \nhave every right to assume that it is not he ; even \nif you know nothing of the company you are in, it \nis two to one that the guilty party is an opponent. \n\nG \n\n\n\n98 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nIt is also possible that the cards lie so evenly that \nno one had a justifiable call. \n\nWhenever you find yourself with a strong hand, \nand can see your way to game, do not hesitate to \ngo for it. Even the first or second game of the \nrubber is worth 125 points plus the 60 or 70 that \nyou will score, on the average, for tricks and \nhonours. On the other hand, the assurance of \nscoring 300 points in penalties every other time is \nonly worth 150, and is therefore less advantageous \nthan a certainty of game. A fortiori if the game be \nthe third of the rubber, the value of which is 250. \n\nIf the dealer has bid in Clubs or Diamonds, and \nthe other two have passed, and you do not see a \nlikelihood of game in your own hand, let the dealer \nplay it out. If he has made a higher call, and you \nthink that, unless your strong suit is opened at \nonce, the game is gone, j^ou must bid to show your \npartner how to save it . \n\nTHE BIDDING ON SECOND ROUND \nThe most that can be usefully said under this head \nis that you must draw the shrewdest inferences you \ncan from the various bids (or lack of bids), and \ndecide accordingly. If your bid as dealer has been \nfollowed by two passes and by a declaration on your \nright, it is generally unwise to advance your own \ncall unless you have six tricks in your hand. With \nfive only, it is evidently logical to let the bid go up \nagain to your partner, who can overbid if he is able \nto " assist " your call, on the principles that have been \nalready expounded. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 99 \n\nIf your original call was One No-trump, on \n\n^ A, Q, 7 ; * A, 8 ; A, 4 ; 4^ A, Q, 10, 8, 6, 2 ; \n\nand second and third hands have passed, and the \ncall of fourth hand is Two Diamonds, you do not \nadvance your original call \xe2\x80\x94 for you clearly will not \nwin eight tricks if a strong suit of six diamonds is \nopened and established, and the adversaries get in \nagain with the king of spades \xe2\x80\x94 but you should \noverbid with Two Spades. In this case, the hand \nis certainly too strong to let the call go by. You \nmay expect eight tricks in Spades, even if the king \nof that suit makes, and your partner does not take a \nsingle trick. \n\nBear carefully in mind that a player who bids a suit \non second round, after declining to do so on the first, \nindicates length in the suit only, without high cards. \nIf it is your partner who makes such a secondary \ncall, it is quite improbable that his suit will be of \nuse in a No-trumper, unless you have high cards \nin it yourself. \n\nIt has been justly said that second-round bidding \ndepends more on inferences from what has previously \nbeen called than on cards actually held. An example \nfrom actual play may make this clearer. \n\n\n\n100 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nB/s Hand : \n\ni^Q, 7, 4, 2 ; 3; 08,7,3,2; 4A, J, 6. \n\nAt the score of love all, Z. deals and passes. A., \nOne Club. Y., One Spade. B., No. Z., Two Dia- \nmonds (refusing to accept his partner\'s Spade). A. \ndoubles. Y., Two Hearts. What should B. say ? \n\nIt may come as a shock to the student to be told \nTwo No-trumps, but consider. B. has both Y^.\'s \nsuits stopped, and if A.\'s double is to be relied upon, \nthe latter stops twice Z/s secondary bid of diamonds, \nin which Z. has not the tops, since he could not name \nit on the first round. In addition, B. can depend on \nA. for two sure quick tricks in clubs, and has himself \nthe queen of that suit. \n\nIf Y. has two five-card suits, he may have only \none diamond, or none at all : in either case, A.\'s \nclubs Vv^ill probably be good, if he has five of them. \n\nThe actual hands of the other players were as \nfollows : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n^ 10. \n\n\n\n*A, K, J, 9. \n\nA, Q, 9, 4. \n\xe2\x9d\x96 9^ 7> 4> 2. \n\n\n\nV 9, 8, 3. \n\n6, 5.2. \nK, J, 10,6,5. \n^ 8. \n\n\n\nA \n\n\n\n9 A, K, J, 6, 5 \n\xe2\x80\xa2?\xc2\xbb 10, 8, 4. \n\nNone. \n\n^ K, Q, 10, 5, 3. \n\n\n\nY \n\n\n\nB \n\n\n\nWhatever Z. opens at No-trumps, B. mmst make \nhis eight tricks and contract, with four clubs, two \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE loi \n\n\n\ndiaiTionds, and a couple of tricks between the \nspades and the hearts. The deal occurred in a \nduplicate match-game in America. At one table B. \nwent Two No-trumps, and made them ; at the \nother tables, Y. was allowed to win his contract in \neither Hearts or Spades. \n\n"FLAG-FLYING" \n\nIn the early days of Auction, it was considered a \nvery heroic thing, when you saw that the opponents \nwould m.ake game on their call, to rush in with an \noverbid that you were sure would fail, in order to \nkeep the game alive, on the chance of securing the \nrubber points later on. In many text -books, great \nconfusion of thought is shown in discussing the ad- \nvisability of such a policy. \n\nIf it is the third game of the rubber, it is said, \nwith truth, that the difference betw^een winning or \nlosing the game is 500 points. It is a fallacy, how- \never, to argue that it is worth while losing (say) 400 \npoints in penalties, in order to live to fight another \nday.\'\' For, even after paying the penalties, you \nhave still an even chance of losing your 250 points \non a future deal, and so on ad infinitum. The differ- \nence between losing the rubber and losing nothing \nis 250 points added to what the opponents score in \ngoing game \xe2\x80\x94 ^which is said to average about 70 points, \ntricks and honours. The loss of the gam.e, then, \nmeans a loss of about 320 points. It is worth paying \n300 to avoid this loss, but not worth paying 400. \nIn comparing these two losses, we are reckoning them \n\n\n\n102 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nboth as certain ; but in actual play, the probability \nof each event has to be estimated. If it is onty 3 \nto 2 that you will lose the 320 (which is comparable \nwith a certain loss of 64 points), it is most decidedly \nnot worth while incurring a 4 to i chance of losing \n200 in penalties (comparable with a certain loss of \n120 points). \n\nIf the opponents have won a game and you have \nnot, it is 3 to I that you lose the rubber, comxparable \nto a certain loss of 125. If j\'ou win the second game, \nyou wipe out this loss ; if you lose the second game \nyou increase the loss to 250. In either case, the game \nis worth 125 points. If 3\'ou have won a game and \nthe opponents have not, the next game won is simi- \nlarly worth 125 points. In everj\' case, therefore, \nthe value of the first or second game is 125 points. \nA 3 to 2 chance of losing 125+70 points comes to 39 \npoints. To avoid this, is not worth sacrificing a \ncertain 50, nor incurring a 3 to i risk of losing 100. \n\nWhether, in any particular instance, the flag \nshould be hauled down, or kept waving, can only \nbe decided by the plaj\'er himself, on the same prin- \nciples as he would use in weighing anj\' risk. But \nthere is certainh\' no heroism, nor even common \nsense, in making unlimited sacrifices. \n\nDOUBLING \n\nIt is easy for a vi\'iter to involve himself in gener- \nalities on this subject, and to leave his readers, at the \nend of his disquisition, no wiser than at the beginning. \n\nAmong the few maxims that will commiand uni- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 103 \n\n\n\nversa! acceptance is one inculcating the advisability \nof egging on your opponents till they have under- \ntaken a contract which they cannot fulfil and out of \nwhich they cannot wiggle, when you promptly \ndouble them and await your reward in placid confi- \ndence. Only, with astute opponents, you cannot \nalways work it like that. Nevertheless, occasions \noccur when it would seem that they do not suffer \nthrough their own fault. Take this case : \n\n^4.3. \n*A, Q, 4,2. \n\nQ, 10, 9, 8, 7, 3. \n\n\n\n^ J,9. ^\xe2\x80\xa2 \n\nOA, J, 5,4,2. \n^ A, K, Q, 8. \n\n\n\nA B \nZ \n\n\n\n^ K, y, 8, 7, 2. \n* 10, 9, 5. \nK, 6. \n^ ]> 7> 2. \n\n\n\n^ A, 10, 5. \n\n* K, 8, 7, 6, 3. \nNone. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 10, 9, 6, 4, 3. \n\nZ. dealt and passed. A. might have declared One \nDiamond ; but he preferred to try for game with \nOne Spade. Y., having only one small spade, six \ndiam.onds to two honours, and support in clubs, bid \nTwo Diamionds in self-defence, which cannot be con- \ndemned as \\\\Tong. B. and Z. passed, and A. doubled. \nNeither Y. nor Z. is justified in overbidding with Three \nClubs, and the hand was played. \n\n\n\n104 \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nB. opened with the knave of spades (to his partner\'s \ncall), v/hich won the trick. Immediately Y. follows \nsuit to the spade, B. knows that A. has called on \ntierce miajcr to four spades, and that Y. has no miore. \nAt trick 2-, he put the lead into Dumm.y\'s hand hy \nleading king of hearts. YZ. miade ace of hearts, \none club, and four trumps, but w^ere two tricks shy " \nof their contract, and AB. scored 200 in penalties and \n14 for honours. \n\nExcept at the score of game aU this is a better \nresult than if they had won ten or eleven tricks in \nNo-trumips (honours divided) and the gam_e (worth \n125 points). \n\nIt is not always by any means easy to say whether \nit is better to double the opponent, or to declare \nin hope of game. Here is quite a typical instance : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nV A, X 5, c . \n^ A, Q, J, 9. \n\nQ, 7. \n\xe2\x9d\x96 A, 0, 5. \n\n\n\n^ 10, 7, 4. \n^ 8, 7, 3. \nA, 10. \n\xc2\xab K, J, 9, 3, c. \n\n^ K, 9. 5, 3. \n*4. \n\n0X8,4,2. \n4 10, 8, 4. \n\nAt love all, Z. dealt and passed. A., One Spade \n\n\n\n\n^ 8. \n\n# K, 10, 6, 5, 2. \nK, 9, 6, 5, 3. \n#7. 6. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 105 \n\n\n\n(certainly an adventurous call). Y., instead of \nbidding No-trumps, doubled. (This was an entirely \nunorthodox proceeding, as it is a generally ac- \ncepted maxim that it is never worth while \ndoubling a bid of One.) B., having two spades \nand a singleton heart, saw no danger in the \ndouble, so he mxade no attempt to pull his partner \nout. Z. of course said nothing, and A. had to w^orry \nthrough as best he could. \n\nY. had an awkward hand to lead from, but he \nstarted with the ace of hearts, w^hich enabled him \nto see B.\'s (Dumm.y\'s) cards. He continued with \nace, followed by queen, of clubs ; the latter card \ncovered by B. and ruffed by Z., who then led the 10 \nof trumps through the declarer to his partner\'s double. \nY. took out two rounds of trumps, leaving B. bare ; \nthen led out knave of clubs ; and then a small heart. \nThe king and queen of that suit gave YZ. eight tricks, \n" setting the contract for 200 points, and also taking \n18 for honours. \n\nIf Y., instead of doubling, had declared No-trumps, \nB. w^ould have opened spades to his partner\'s declared \nstrength, and YZ. would have made five hearts, two \nclubs, two spades, wnning the gamxC with 30 for \ntricks and 30 for aces. If it w^ere the first or second \ngamie of the rubber, this result would be worth 185 \npoints \xe2\x80\x94 ^not so good as the 218 scored by doubling. \nTo have w^on the third game of the rubber, however, \n(250 + 60 = 310) would have been mmch more \nadvantageous. \n\nThe two preceding examples will probably leave \n\n\n\nio6 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nthe student with clearer ideas on the subject than \nseveral pages of vague discussion. One or two im- \nportant cautions, however, may be added. \n\nPlayers do not nowadays double to show one or \nmore tricks in the adverse suit and to invite a No- \ntrumiper.\'\' To double m.eans that yon are willing \nto play the doubled call, and are satisfied that you \nwill do well out of it. \n\nPlayers in America, who invent a new Auction \nconvention almost every month, have recently put \ninto circulation the artificial rule that the double \nof One No-trump shall always be an instruction to \npartner to bid his best suit ; and the double of One \nin a suit shall be an instruction to him to go No- \ntrumps if he can stop that suit. If he cannot stop \nthe suit, he must bid his own best suit, as in the \npreceding case. In no circumstances is he to allow \nthe double to stand unless he can almost defeat the \ncontract himself, and sees no chance of going game \nin anything. \n\nI only mention this as an instance of a highly \nundesirable kind of understanding which I trust \nwill never be adopted in England. The double of a \nbid of One can hardly ever be advisable ; the reason \nbeing that so moderate a bid is generally apt to suc- \nceed and to secure the bonus under Rule 58. xAiso, \nthere is almost alwaj\'s a better and more aggressive \ncourse to be adopted. There are, however, rare \nsituations in which it im,y pay, as in the deal cited \nabove. \n\nIf your partner has been doubled by the player \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\non your right, yon are not to make any kind of a \nridiculous call, on the plea that " you are bound to \npuU him out/\' Mr. Doe has compared such well- \nintentioned but inept interference to the blundering \nefforts of the child who tlirows the whole household \ninto confusion by pretending to \'\'help mother/\' \n\nAn amusing example of the difficulties into which \nthose players flounder who cannot remain quiet \nwhen their partner is doubled is cited hy M. C. Work \nin his Auction Developments. He says that the \n\'\'incident\'\' is vouched for by eye-\\\\itnesses as \nhaving occurred in an American club-room where \nthe standard of Auction pla\\\' is exceptionally high. \nThe plaj\'er in question, known as "the General/\' \nplays his cards with rare skill, but the word " double " \nuttered by an opponent has the samie effect upon \nhim as a particularly blatant steam-roller upon a \nrestive horse. \n\nA \n\nZ Y \n\nB \n\nZ. dealt. The General was B., and the bidding \nwent as follows : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nZ. passed. A., One Spade. Y., One No-trump. \nB., No. Z., No. A., Two Spades. Y., Double. B. \n(quickly), Three Hearts. Z., Double. A., Three \nSpades. Y., Double. B. (without hesitation), Four \nDiamonds. Z., Double. A., Four Royals. Y., \n\n\n\nio8 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\nDouble. B. (after much hesitation and with great \nagitation), No ! Z. and A., No. \n\nThis unusual bidding naturally attracted players \nfrom all parts of the room, who rushed to the table \nto see the remarkable cards that the General must \nhold. He put down \n\n9> 8, 6, 4, 3 ; 4\xc2\xbb 8, 7, 3 ; 10, 9, 6, 5, 2 ; 4 None. \n\nIt is a golden rule never to double any declaration \nthat you feel sure you can defeat, if there is any risk \nof the adversaries shifting to another declaration \nwhich you cannot double, and on which it is quite \npossible that they will succeed. Put succinctly : \n\nNever double anything unless yoii ure prepared to \ndouble everything. \n\nThe double of a declaration on which, if it suc- \nceeds, the enemy will go game, is called a \'\'free \ndouble. It may be indulged in more light-heartedly \nthan the double which actually helps the hostile forces \nto go game ; but do not forget that \'\' you may pay \ntoo dear for your whistle.*\' In the majority of cases, \nit is not true to say the double m.ade no difference, \npartner, as they would have gone out anyhow.\'\' The \ncomfortable doctrine that you may as well be \nhanged for a sheep as for a lamb " means that if you \nhave to suffer exactly the same penalty in both cases, \nyou may as well have a run for your money. It does \nnot mean that you are always justified in doubling \nyour losses, and incidentally giving your adversaries \nthe option of quadrupling them. Furthermore, \nunder the new Code (Law 58), there is a bonus. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 109 \n\n\n\non a sliding scale, for the players who make good \nagainst a double. This provision was expressly \ninserted to give pause to the inconsiderate doubler. \n\nTHE ORIGINAL LEAD \nI. \xe2\x80\x94 When there are Trumps \n\nIt is seldom that the declarer\'s opponents \xe2\x80\x94 ^with \nstrength in trumps against them \xe2\x80\x94 can establish \nand bring in along suit. It does not follow, however, \nthat to establish a suit is useless \xe2\x80\x94 for the player \nwho succeeds in doing so may give his partner useful \ndiscards, and may force a trump from the declarer \nto advantage, if the preponderance of trumps be \nnot too great. It is also essential, in many cases, \nto make high cards before the declaring side have \nhad a chance to discard losers in the same suit, in \nwhich case your potential winners will be ruffed. \nAn instructive example will be found below (p. 114), \nwhere, if the strong suit of spades be not opened \nimmediately, the declarer discards a small one from \nhis own hand on Dummy\'s clubs. \n\nWhile, therefore, the old long-suit theories of \nWhist have ceased in great measure to be applicable, \nit must never be forgotten that a long suit has a \ndefensive as well as an attacking value. Though you \nmay not be able to bring in a suit yourself, you can \nat least take the best chance of not assisting the \ndealer to bring one in. The extreme votaries of the \nshort -suit and singleton schools close their eyes to \nthe fact that the principle that you are more likely \n\n\n\nno \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nto take tricks in a suit which you refrain from opening \napplies with greater force to a suit of which you have \nfew than to one of which you have many. This is \neven more true at Bridge than at Whist, for in Bridge \nthe dealer know^s his exact strength in every suit \nfrom the beginning, and can see just where it is least \nharmful to open, and where it is most advantageous \nto make the enemy open. He is never guilty of \nhugging an ace, queen suit to find, when too late, \nthat his partner has the king, or of botthng up a \nsupposed tenace of king and knave when partner \nholds ace or queen. \n\nThe best leads are from sequences, whether the \nsuits be long or short. If the dealer has declared \nOne Spade, and all have passed, so that you have \nno specific indication of strength in any other suit, \nthe eldest hand should open the sequence suit from \nanj^ of the following combinations (the suit to lead \nbeing underlined) : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ 4^ \n\n^- Q. 4 ; J. 7. 2 ; Q, 6 ; 9, 8, 7, 3. \n2. K, 8, 4, 3 ; Q> ],9,6 \', A, 4, 2 ; J, 5. \n3 X 9> 7 ; Q> 6, 2 ; A, K, 4 ; J, 5, 4. \n\nIn the third case, the diam.ond lead will presumably \nhold the trick, and 3\'ou will have the advantage of \nseeing Dummj^\'s cards before 3\'ou continue leading. \nIn the second case, I do not recommend your be- \nginning with the ace of diamonds to obtain the same \nprivilege. There is practically no risk of losing an \nace, fm\'er than five in suit, through not dashing it out \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nat the first trick. Tlie sight of Dummy\'s cards is \nnot sufficient compensation for the harm you may \ndo by abandoning control of diamonds prematurely. \nWhenever you have a reasonably good , alternative, \ntherefore, leave a short ace-suit alone. A singleton \nace, however, is frequently a good lead ; if your \npartner can get in, he will return the suit, and you \nget an early ruff. \n\nA conundrum which I do not profess to be able \nto answer was recently sent to me through a well- \nknown weekly journal. \n\nBeing eldest hand,\'\' said the propounder, the \ndealer having called One Spade, and all having \npassed, which card ought I to lead from \n\n9A,Q,7; *8,7,3; 0X4.2; 4^8,7,5,2?\'\' \n\nIn such a case, the lead is, of course, a positive \ndisadvantage. We may dismiss the trump lead \n(putting j/\'our partner under the declarer) as being \nout of the question. Whether the ace of hearts, \nthe 8 of clubs, or the knave of diamonds turns out \nthe best is probably a toss-up ; I incline to the ace \nof hearts. Even if the declarer has the king (and it is \nroughly two to one against it), the queen ma}^ make \non the third round, though it would doubtless be \nbetter to make it on the first or second by getting \nthe suit led to you. There is a slight probability \nthat your partner is stronger in clubs than in dia- \nmonds ; but the lead from three worthless cards \nis usually both futile and misleading. The knave \nof diamonds may be a guard in the suit ; if your \n\n\n\n112 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\npartner has queen and one small diamond, and the \nsuit lives three rounds, no play by the declarer can \nrob you of a trick in it, so long as neither you nor your \npartner leads it. \n\nThe lead of a small single card is well enough, if \nyour partner has shown strength in the suit during \nthe calling. As a leap in the dark, it is a distinctly \ndoubtful speculation. The number of trumps most \nfavourable to a singleton lead is three. With fewer, \nyou are less likely to get a ruff ; with more, there \nis generally less advantage if you do. The specula- \ntive lead of a singleton king is always bad. \n\nLeads from long suits headed by single honoius \nare often condemned too unreservedly. In the \ncourse of investigations made at ordinary Bridge by \nthe late W. H. Wnitfeld, he found that the lead from \na long suit to the king was about on a par with the \nlead from a long suit of small cards ; the lead from \na long suit to the knave vras rather more advanta- \ngeous. Both these leads were better than a lead from \ntwo small cards, and considerably better than from \nthree\'small cards. The lead from a long suit to the \nqueen, on the other hand, is much less advisable, and \nshould be avoided. \n\nThe disadvantage of leading from tenaces (by \nwhich are meant suits headed by A, Q, or A, J, or \nK, J) has been exaggerated. WTiitfeld found that \nthe lead from an A, Q suit (contrary to the general \nimipression) was only a little worse than from ace and \nsmall cards, the lead from K, J, being better than \neither of these. The most unfavourable combina- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 113 \n\n\n\ntions of all are A, Q, J ; A, J ; and, in a lesser degree, \nA, 10. I have heard it asserted that a Q, J suit \nopened with a small card is better than a K, J suit ; \nbut it is, in fact, slightly worse. In the latter case, \nthe greater number of tricks lost through unfavour- \nable positions of the ace and queen are compensated \nby the greater gain in opening the stronger suit \nearly. \n\nLeads from Q, J only, or from J, 10 only, are \nconsiderably better than from two smaU cards. \nThese sequences also provide satisfactory leads \nwhen at the head of three cards. The lead from \nknave and one small card is not so good as from \ntwo small cards. Leads from queen and one small, \nor from knave and two small (as pointed out above), \nshould be still more carefully eschewed. \n\nThe preceding observations refer solely to blind " \nleads. When the bidding has afforded information \nas to the distribution of strength, yon natiu-ally take \nadvantage of your inferences. It is always better to \nlead to partner s declared strength than to open a broken \nor weak suit of your own. \n\nMany a contract has been allowed to wdn out \nthrough a bad opening lead from a short suit, when \nj it might have been defeated had the leader followed \nthe good old rule of starting with the strongest suit. \n, That I may not be suspected of manufacturing an \nV instance to suit my own theories, I will illustrate by \nquoting Hand II given for purposes of instruction \nj in a recent book on the game announced to have \n\' been written for advanced players. I should \n\nH \n\n\n\n114 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\npremise that the hand is intended expressly as an \nexample of the declarer\'s play, which is perfectly \nsound. My point merely is that the declarer ought \nnever to have been allowed the chance of exhibiting \nhis skill. The hands of the declarer\'s adversaries \nare not set out, but they can easily be deduced from \nthe bidding, the hands of the declarer, and the play \nof the tricks that are given. I have therefore \nfilled them in conjecturally. \n\nContract allowed to Win through a Wrong \n\n\n\nOpening Lead. \n\n\n\nV A, Q, 9. \n+ K, J, 10, 7. \n\n\n\nQ, X 2. \n\xe2\x99\xa6 5, 4. 3. \n\n\n\n97, 6- \n* Q, 8. \n\nA, 10, 7,\'\'6. \n^ K, Q, 10," 9, 2. \n\n\n\nY \n\n(Dummy) \n\n\n\nV K, J, 8, 5. 4- 3- \n*A, 4, 3,2. \n\n5- \n4\xc2\xbb J, 6. \n\n\n\nB \n\n\n\nZ \n\n\n\n9 10, 2. \n4\xc2\xbb\'9, 6, 5. \n\n\n\nK, 9, 8, 4. 3. \n4 A, 8, 7. \n\n\n\nScore : love all, in the first game. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n115 \n\n\n\nThe Declarations. \xe2\x80\x94 Z., One Diamond. A., One \nSpade. Y., Two Diamonds. All pass. \nThe first four tricks are as follows :\xe2\x80\x94 \n[The card underlined wins the trick. The card \nimmediately beneath is led to the next trick.) \n\n\n\nTrick \n\n\nA \n\n\nY \n\n\nB \n\n\nZ \n\n\nI. \n\n\n+ Q \n\n\n\xc2\xab?\xe2\x80\xa2 K \n\n\n* A \n\n\n\n\n2. \n\n\n+ 8 \n\n\n+ 10 \n\n\n*2 \n\n\n6 \n\n\n3- \n\n\n6 \n\n\nOQ \n\n\n\n\nO3 \n\n\n4- \n\n\nOA \n\n\nJ \n\n\n+ 3 \n\n\nO4 \n\n\n\nAt Trick 5, A. leads the 7 of hearts. \n\nHere it is pointed out, very properly, that the \ndeclarer must take no finesse in hearts, but put \non the ace from Dummy and lead two more rounds \nof trumps, the second of which will be won by A. \nThis will leave Y. with two winning clubs, while Z. \nhas the 9 to put him in with, so that the only other \ntricks AB. can make are one in hearts and one in \nspades, viz. five in all. Z. can get rid of a spade \non Y.\'s last club, and must make his contract of \nTwo Diamonds.\'\' \n\nOf course, Z.\'s original call of One Diamond is \nquite unjustifiable : he should have passed ; but \nthat is not the most extraordinary feature of the \nhand. Although A. is strong enough in spades to \n\n\n\nii6 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nbid them, and, if he has not five, should hold at least \nK, Q, J, to four, he deliberate^ refrains from leading \nthem, and throws away all chance of defeating the \ncontract bj^ a lead from the very bad combination of \na singly guarded queen. \n\nIf he opens with his best suit, as he ought, AB. \neasily win two spades, two trumps, ace of clubs, \nand king of hearts (A., of course, leading through \nDummy after making his spades), and YZ. are one \ntrick shy/\' \n\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 When there are no Trumps \n\nIn this case the conditions are wholly different. \nWhen there are no trumps, the long-suit game reigns \nsupreme. The efforts of both sides tend towards \ntaking tricks with small cards, and the small cards \nthat are most likely to take tricks are those of the \nmost numerous suit. It is easier to bring in a long \nsuit at No-trumps than at Whist, where it was neces- \nsary to clear trumps as well as the suit itself. It \nis only exceptionally that the strategy of a No- \ntrumper wall centre round the careful preservation \nof a tenace, or the placing of the lead at an advanced \nperiod of the game. \n\nDo not hesitate, then, when you have had no indica- \ntion from the bidding of how the strength lies among \nthe other hands, to open originally from the best suit \nyou have, whether it contains a tenace, or whether \nits high-card strength consists of a single honour. \nIn the following examples, the dealer is supposed \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 117 \n\nto have declared No-trumps ; all the other players \nhave passed ; the suit which eldest hand should lead \nis underlined : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n9 + \xe2\x99\xa6 \n\n1. Q, 6, 3 ; 9, 8 ; Q, 9> 6, 3. 2 ; J, 10, 3. \n\n2. A, 8, 7 ; J, 10, 4> 3 ; 9 > 7> 6, 3> 2. \n\n3. K, J ; K, 8, 7, 2 ; A, 10, g, 2 ; J, 8, 4. \n\n4. J, 9; 9^6,2; J, 9> 6, 3 ; J, 9, 8, 3. \n\n5. X 7. 3 ; K, J, 9, 3 ; Q, J, 8. 4 ; a, q. \n\n6. 8, 7 ; A, K, 4 ; K, J, 9, 6, 5 ; Q, 5, 4. \n\nIn No. 3, in actual play, the leader opened wdth \nthe deuce of clubs. He may have thought that the \ncheaper suit was more likely to find support in third \nhand ; or perhaps, being an expert whist-player, he \nhad in mind the maxim laid down in old times by \nJames Clay, that " good players . . . generally \navoid leading from an ace-suit : they keep their ace, \nif possible . . . to bring in their strong suit.\'\' I have \nahvays looked upon this advice with suspicion, even \nat Whist ; to the above hand, at Bridge, it is clearly \ninapplicable. The clubs are not a \'\'strong\'\' suit, \nand the ace can be utilized just as weU as a re-entry \nfor the long diamond by holding up, if necessary, \non the second round. \n\nIn No. 4, the diamonds are very slightly weaker \nthan the spades, but I have underlined the former, \nin deference to the current idea that, in cases of \ndoubt, the cheaper suit should be given the preference. \n\n\n\nii8 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nThe argument is that third hand would overcaU a \nNo-trumper more freely in a major than in a minor \nsuit, because of the better chance of game. There- \nfore, although no announcement of strength in \ndiamonds has been made, the lead may be of \nmaterial assistance to partner/\' I give the argument \nfor what it is worth, and because it is the under- \nlying justification of the Club Convention {see p. 128). \nIt would seem, however, to cut both ways ; for the \ndealer would certainly be more likelj\' to declare No- \ntrumps with his main strength in a minor than in a \nmajor suit ; and dealer\'s partner would be more \nlikely to over call a No-trumper with strength in a \nmajor than in a minor suit. On both accounts, \ntherefore, the opponents are more likely to be strong \nin diamonds or clubs than in hearts or spades. \n\nI should say, myself, that there is practically \nnothing to choose, in hand No. 4, between the \ndiamonds and the spades. In actual play, however, \nthe 9 of clubs was chosen as a strengthening card,\'\' \nand the lead was approved of by a witer on the \ngame. In my opinion, it is about twice as likely to \n\nstrengthen " an adversary as the partner. \n\nFor the lead of the 3 of clubs in No. 5, I have been \nroundty taken to task hy one of the never-open- \nfrom-a-tenace " school, who wrote to me that this \n\'\'absurd initial lead" was \'\'absolutely opposed to \nall recognized ideas on the game." Those who agree \nwith him would open, I suppose, with the 4 of dia- \nmonds, or perhaps with the knave of hearts. \n\nHand No. 6 was dealt in a game at which I was \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 119 \n\n\n\na looker-on. The leader refrained\' from opening the \ndiamonds (" because of the tenace "), and elected \nto play the king of clubs, " to take a look at Dummy\'s \nhand." He lost the game in consequence. The \nhands and the play are set out below. I will call \nthe deal \n\n\n\nHow NOT TO Play a No-trumper \n\n5? Q, 10, 3, 2. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 9.5- \n\n10, 3, 2. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 J, 10, 7, 6. \n\n\n\n^ K, J. 6. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 Q, J, 8, 7, 6. \n8, 7. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 9, 8. 3- \n\n\n\n\n\nB \n\n\n\n\n1 \n\n\n\n\nZ \n\n\nA \n\n\n\n\n\n^ A, 9, 8, 4. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 10, 3, 2. \nOA, Q, 4. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 A, K, 2 \n\n\n\n^7.5. \n\n* A, K, 4. \n\nK, J, 9, 6, 5. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 Q. 5, 4. \n\nScore : love all. \n\n\n\nThe Declarations. \xe2\x80\x94 Z. calls One No-trump. A., \nTwo Diamonds (if he passes, the others pass, and \nthe play is unaffected). Y., No. B., No. Z., Two \nNo-trumps. All pass. \n\n\n\n120 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nThe Play \n\n{The card underlined wins the trick. The card \nimmediately beneath is led to the next trick.) \n\n\n\nTrick \n\n\nA \n\n\nY \n\n\nB \n\n\nZ \n\n\nI. \n\n\ndp K \n\n\n\n\n+ 5 \n\n\n4> 2 \n\n\n2. \n\n\n^7 \n\n\n9 6 \n\n\n^ 10 \n\n\n\xc2\xa3A \n\n\n3- \n\n\n4" 4 \n\n\n*7 \n\n\n\xc2\xab!\xe2\x80\xa2 9 \n\n\n4 10 \n\n\n4- \n\n\n4" A \n\n\n+ 8 \n\n\n02 \n\n_ . . \n\n\n<4 3 \n\n\n5- \n\n\n#Q \n\n\n43 \n\n\n46 \n\n\n4A \n\n\n6. \n\n\n^5 \n\n\n9 K \n\n\n^ 2 \n\n\n^\xe2\x96\xa04 \n\n\n7- \n\n\n44 \n\n\n\xc2\xb1Q \n\n\n^3 \n\n\n42 \n\n\n8, \n\n\n05 \n\n\n\xc2\xb1J \n\n\n03 \n\n\n4 \n\n\n9- \n\n\n^5 \n\n\n^ J \n\n\n\xc2\xa3Q \n\n\n9 8 \n\n\n10. \n\n\n06 \n\n\n07 \n\n\n10 \n\n\nA \n\n\nII. \n\n\n09 \n\n\n08 \n\n\n47 \n\n\n\n\n12. \n\n\nJ \n\n\n4 8 \n\n\n4 10 \n\n\n4 K \n\n\n13- \n\n\n\n\n4 9 \n\n\n4J \n\n\nQ \n\n\n\nComments \n\nTn\'Cife I. \xe2\x80\x94 A\'s lead is very poor. It is certain that \nZ. stops the diamonds, but even if he holds both ace \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 121 \n\n\n\nand queen, Z. has a good chance of bringing the suit \nin, provided he opens it straight off and retains his \ntwo re-entries in clubs. \n\nTrick 2. \xe2\x80\x94 A. tries leading through strength in \nDummy, in the vain hope that B. will win and return \na diamond. \n\nTrick 5. \xe2\x80\x94 B. having discarded a diamond, A. now \nhas recourse to spades. This chopping about from \nsuit to suit is a fatal fault of weak players. \n\nTrick 10. \xe2\x80\x94 B., being familiar with A.\'s methods, \nrecognizes that he has been waiting to be led to in \nthe suit which he declared, but has declined to \nopen. "t--^ \n\nTrick 13. \xe2\x80\x94 We may perhaps hope that A. is re- \nconciled to his loss of the game by the reflection \nthat he has prevented Z. from making the queen of \ndiamonds. \n\nThis style of play may be thought too bad to be \ntaken seriously ; yet many a No-trumper has been \nsimilarly massacred through the leader allowing \nhimself to be frightened off his best suit by the \ndeclarer\'s bidding. \n\nAfter personal experience of all the meteoric schools \nof short-suiters that have at various times shot across \nthe Whist and Bridge firmament, from E. C. How^ell \n(in 1896) onward, I remain firmly convinced that the \nlong-suit system is the true basis of all sound and \nsuccessful play at No-trumps. As I have sometimes \nfound myself obliged to differ, on certain points, \nfrom that excellent judge, Mr. Edmund Robertson, \nI am pleased to be able to quote him here in support \n\n\n\n122 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nof my own views. In his Royal Auction Bridge (p. \n157) he mites : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nWhen the bidding has not suggested a lead [the \nitahcs are my own] the opening lead against a No- \ntrump declaration should be made from the leader\'s \nlongest suit with the object (i) of informing the \npartner where the leader\'s main strength lies ; because \n(ii) the struggle on each side is to establish one or more \nlong suits, and the lead will help to establish the suit \nearly ; and because (iii) it is the lead least likely \nto help the declarer, and it has a chance of hitting \nhis weak spot and so saving the game before he can \nget into the lead/\' \n\nThe principles here involved are so important \nthat I am tempted to give another example : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n^ ], 8, 4. \n\xe2\x99\xa6 10, J, 4, 2. \n\nJ, 7. \n\n4K, X 9, 4. \n\n\n\n9 10, 5, 2. \n\nOK, 8,5,2. \n\xe2\x99\xa6 A, Q, 8, 6. \n\n\n\n\n\nB \n\n\n\n\nyI \n\n\n\n\nZ \n\n\nA \n\n\n\n\n\n^ K, 9, 3. \n\n* A, Q, 3. \nA, 9, 6, 3. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 7. 5, 2. \n\n\n\nScore : love all. \ntrump, and all pass \n\n\n\nA, Q, 7, 6. \n\n* K, 8, 7, 6. \nQ, 10, 4- \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 10, 3. \n\nZ. deals and declares One No- \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 123 \n\n\n\nNow here, it may be (and has been) argued, if \nyou open with a heart, you probably give up a \ntenace over the declarer (not at all a certainty, by \nthe way), which counterbalances v/hat you stand \nto gain by bringing in a long heart. Therefore you \nshould keep all your guarded suits intact, and lead \nthe J of spades, which will doubtless be understood \nby your partner to be a strengthener/\' Since no \none has made a bid in spades, it may be inferred \nthat no one holds more than four of the suit, and \nif so, no great harm can be done by opening it. \n\nThe worst that can happen," says our adviser, \n\nis that a possible trick-making card in your part- \nner\'s hand may be sacrificed ; but this is the case \nevery time you put him under the declarer in an \nuntouched suit, as you are bound constantly to do : \nand, generally speaking, when No-trumps has been \ndeclared and the original leader has a well-protected \nhand, with no pronounced strength in any particular \nsuit, he should [it is said], if he has received no indica- \ntion from his partner, lead a weak suit in preference \nto opening from a single honour or tenace/\' \n\nThe whole course of the argum^ent is illogical. \nThe object of a " strenglkener is to hit on a suit \nin which your partner is stronger than the enemy. \nHere it is admitted that he is most probably not \nstrong. To sacrifice a trick in your partner\'s hand \nis considered quite natural and unavoidable, but \nto sacrifice a possible trick-winner from your own \nhand is held to be a most regrettable incident. And \nactually because you have received no indication of \n\n\n\n124 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nstrength from your partner, you are deemed to be \njustified in breaking down such moderate defences as \nhe may possess ! \n\nLet us see how it turns out in actual play. \n\nij^he card underlined wins the trick. The card \nimmediately beneath is led to the next trick.) \n\n\n\nTrick \n\n\nA \n\n\nY \n\n\nB \n\n\nZ \n\n\nI. \n\n\n4 10 \n\n\n\xe2\x9d\x96 6 \n\n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 4 \n\n\n^ 2 \n\n\n2. \n\n\n^3 \n\n\n4^ A \n\n\n\xe2\x9d\x96 9 \n\n\n^5 \n\n\n3- \n\n\n04 \n\n\n02 \n\n\n07 \n\n\nOA \n\n\n4- \n\n\n10 \n\n\nK \n\n\nOJ \n\n\n03 \n\n\n5- \n\n\n\n\n05 \n\n\n\n\n09 \n\n\n6. \n\n\n96 \n\n\n\n\n^ J \n\n\n\n\n7- \n\n\n4\xc2\xbb6 \n\n\n8 \n\n\n^4 \n\n\n6 \n\n\n8. \n\n\n\n\n^5 \n\n\n<7 8 \n\n\n^9 \n\n\n9- \n\n\n9 A \n\n\n<7 10 \n\n\n* 4 \n\n\n^3 \n\n\n10. \n\n\n11 \n\n\n*5 \n\n\n\n\n4 7 \n\n\nII. \n\n\n*7 \n\n\n*9 \n\n\n\n\n*Q \n\n\n12. \n\n\n*8 \n\n\n-i* 8 \n\n\n10 \n\n\n*A \n\n\n13- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n4 K \n\n\n^3 \n\n\n\nYZ. win the odd trick and their contract. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 125 \n\n\n\nComments \n\nEverythirxg lies as was hoped for : the king of \nhearts is with Z., no one has more than four spades, \nand partner has king, 10, 9 of that suit behind the \nace, queen in Dummy. \n\nTrick 6. \xe2\x80\x94 But, as usually happens, A. is eventually \ncompelled to lead away from his hearts, which he \nhad better have done in the first instance. It never \nseems to be realized by short-suiters who are always \n\nwaiting to be led to that every time they win a \ntrick they have to lead themselves. (So long as it is \nmerely a question of sacrificing their partner, they \ndon\'t mind : their contention being that that is \nonly what they are "bound constantly to do.\'\') \n\nTrick 8. \xe2\x80\x94 Now the dealer puts the lead once miore \ninto A.\'s hand, so as to make him lead up in clubs. \n\nTrick 13. \xe2\x80\x94 And although A. makes his king of \nclubs after all, it is not of much service to him. \n\nPlay the sam^e hand over again, opening in the \northodox way : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\n126 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nTrick \n\n\nA \n\n\nY \n\n\nB \n\n\nZ \n\n\nI. \n\n\n^ 6 \n\n\n^ 2 \n\n\n^ J \n\n\n^ K \n\n\n2. \n\n\nO4 \n\n\nK \n\n\n07 \n\n\nO3 \n\n\n3. \n\n\n10 \n\n\n2 \n\n\nJ \n\n\nA \n\n\n4. \n\n\n0_Q \n\n\n05 \n\n\n\n\n6 \n\n\n5. \n\n\n^ A \n\n\n^5 \n\n\n<^ 8 \n\n\n^3 \n\n\n6. \n\n\n\n\n^ 10 \n\n\n+ 2 \n\n\n9 9 \n\n\n7. \n\n\n\n\n8 \n\n\n4\xc2\xbb 4 \n\n\n\xe2\x9d\x96 2 \n\n\n8. \n\n\n^ 10 \n\n\n^6 \n\n\n^ 9 \n\n\n^5 \n\n\n9- \n\n\n^ 3 \n\n\n\xc2\xbb A \n\n\n^ J \n\n\n\n\n10. \n\n\n4>K \n\n\n9 \n\n\n* J \n\n\n*Q \n\n\nII. \n\n\n* 6 \n\n\n* 5 \n\n\n\xc2\xab?\xe2\x80\xa2 10 \n\n\n* A \n\n\n12. \n\n\n^ 7 \n\n\n\xc2\xab 8 \n\n\n\n\nll \n\n\n13- \n\n\n\xc2\xab^ 8 \n\n\n\n\n4* K \n\n\n^3 \n\n\n\nYZ. lose the odd trick, and AB. defeat the contract. \n\nThere is nothing tricky or exceptional in this \ndeal. The principle it illustrates is simph\' that it is \nboth easier and more advantageous to avoid opening \nyour short suits than j\'our long ones. Wlien there \nare no solid sequences, it is impossible in either case \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 127 \n\n\n\nto avoid giving a trick or two to the opponent ; but \nthen he will generally have to give them back again \nin another suit. The object to be aimed at is to give \nthe tricks in long suits and receive them hack in short \nones. The practice of the " short-suit school is \njust the reverse. And this really sums up and dis- \nposes of the whole controversy. \n\nI am not, however, hide-bound by prejudice ; and \nI concede that there are certain kinds of hands where \nto open the long suit is so obviously futile that the \nleader\'s object should be to avoid deceiving his partner \nby holding out promises that can never be realized. \nIn such cases, the only hope is to hit on a workable \nsuit in the hand of the latter, and thus a supporting \ncard may sometimes be permissible. \n\nFrom the following hand : \n\n^ K, 5, 4 ; * J, 10, 3 ; 8, 7, 6, 3 ; \xe2\x99\xa6 6, 5, 4 ; \n\nthe best blind " lead is probably the knave of clubs. \nIf partner can read the lead as being from weakness \n(which is not, however, always possible), he will un- \nderstand that the leader has no long suit of which \nhe has any hope. To convey this information at the \nearliest moment may undoubtedly be of value. \n\nIt must be borne in mind that partner can never \nhold any suit of considerable strength against an \ninitial bid of One No-trumps, or he would have bid \nTwo in it, not necessarily as expecting to make eight \ntricks, but in order to get you to lead him the suit if \nthe No-trumper be again bid. He will always do \n\nI \n\ni \n\n\n\n128 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nthis, if he believes the opening lead of his suit to be \nneedful in order to save the game. \n\nThe Original Lead when Partner has Doubled \na no-trumper \n\nA call of One No-trumps, like the call of One in a \nsuit, is never likely to be doubled, but a call of Two \nor miore m^ay be ; and it is important to have a clear \nunderstanding of what is expected of the eldest hand \nin such a case, the doubler being on the declarer\'s \nright. \n\n1. If the doubler has called a suit in the bidding, \nthat suit should be led to him. If he has called two \nsuits, lead the one that he caUed first. \n\n2. If the leader has caUed a suit, and the doubler \nhas not, the leader must open his own suit. \n\n3. If neither partner has called a suit, there are \ntwo different understandings, som.ewhat analogous \nto the old Heart " and Short-suit conventions \nat ordinary Bridge. \n\n[a) In some circles, it is a convention that the \nleader shall open with his highest Club. The greater \nprobability of clubs being the doubler \'s suit is \ntaken as the basis of the rule. The idea is \nthat it is seldom good bidding to call a minor suit \nagainst No-trumps, and of the two minor suits, clubs \nare shut out the miore frequentty. \n\n(&) In circles vrhere this convention (kno^^Tl as the \nClub Convention) is not adopted, the leader should \nopen, as usual, from his own best suit. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n129 \n\n\n\nTHE SUIT ORIGINALLY LED : WHICH \nCARD TO CHOOSE \' \n\nI. \xe2\x80\x94 When there are Trumps \n\nMore than a hundred and forty years after Whist \nwas first S3\'stematized b}^ Hoyle, a new system of \nnumber-showing leads (since known as American \nLeads was proposed and elaborated by " Caven- \ndish and Mr. N. B. Trist, of New Orleans. In \nEngland it was never universally adopted by the best \npla37ers and was not incorporated into Cavendish\'s \ntreatise until the last decade of the nineteenth cen- \ntury, just a few years before the game began to be \nabandoned in favour of Bridge. In America, where \nWhist was m.ore laboriously handled than in this \ncountry was thought consistent with the genius of the \ngame, the system found more general acceptance, but \neven there the pendulum soon swTing backwards and a \nreversion set in amiong all the shrewdest and m.ost \nflexible players towards the simplicity and directness \nof older mxCthods. Both in England and America it \nwas conceded that this artificial informatory " \nsystem could only be considered advantageous so \nlong as the side practising it could legitimately hope \nfor a preponderance of strength, and that whenever \nthe course of play showed trump strength to be \nadverse, it was suicidal to give facilities for counting \nthe hands of the leader and his partner. \n\nTo Auction Bridge where, on a suit declaration, \nconsiderable trump strength is ordinarily m.arked \n\nI \n\n\n\nI \n\n\n\n130 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\nagainst the leader before a card has been played and \nwhere, in addition, the declaration and the disclosure \nof Dummy\'s cards make it impossible to limit the \namount of injurious information that may be im- \nparted, the American number-showing system is \ninapplicable. \n\nPrior to the introduction of the American sj\'Stem \nWhist players had becom.e familiar with two other \nconventional leads which, though primarily intended \nto prevent blocking of the leader\'s suit, did inciden- \ntalty declare number. From K, Q, J, five or m.ore in \nsuit, it was customary to lead not the king, but the \nknave, so that if third hand held the ace and only one \nsm.all card he might play his ace on the first round \nwhich he would not be likely to do on a king lead. \nAt Auction Bridge the precaution is useless. The \nbringing in of an established suit by the declarer\'s \nadversaries does not come within the range of practi- \ncal politics. The occasional small advantage of getting \nthree rounds of the suit before another has been opened \nis not sufficient to justify the adoption of a special \nconvention, especially when it is remembered that in \nmany cases third hand wiU have an advantageous \nlead up to Dummy at the third trick. \n\nThe second conventional lead referred to is that \nfrom A, Q, J, etc. Ace, then queen, used to be led \nfrom four in suit ; ace, then knave, fromi five or m.ore ; \nso that in the latter case partner might be instructed \nto play king on the second round if then accomipanied \nby one sm.all card only. To the conditions of \nAuction Bridge this convention is also inappropriate. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 131 \n\n\n\nIf the leader and third hand have eight of the suit \nbetween them it will be trumped by the declarer on \nthird round. It may happen on very rare occasions \nthat the trum.ps of the declarer can be partly forced \nand partly drawn, but it is a needless complication to \nlegislate for an exceptional case which can be dealt \nwith by common sense when it arises. \n\nAt Bridge, therefore, let the \'\'number-showing \nleads be taboo. Such information as they convey will \nhelp the declarer more than any one else. \n\nAnother well-established English Whist rule (not \nfollowed, however, on the Continent) was to lead the \nlowest of a middle sequence : from K, J, 10, 6 the \n10 was led ; so also in the latter days of fourth- \nbests the 8 was led from J, 10, 9, 8, x. At Auction \nBridge, where the cards of second hand are exposed, \nit is better to open such sequences from the top. \nNot only is it thus made plain to third hand exactly \nto what extent Dummy\'s cards are hemmed in, but \nit is made more difficult for the dealer to decide when \nto cover the card led, as he is unable to tell how the \nhigher cards are distributed between the hands of the \nopponents. In the practice of some players the put- \nting of new wine into old bottles has led to a curious \ninconsistency. In Whist a small card used to be led \nfrom A, J, 10, 2. It soon became apparent that in aU \nforms of Bridge it was better to make sure of forcing \nout K or Q on first round by leading one of the \nsequence cards, and the card chosen was naturally \nthe J. But the ancient Whist tradition so clung that \nthey were unable to adopt the analogous lead from \n\n\n\n132 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nK, J, 10, 2, wherefore we still come across players \nw^ho are leading the lo. \n\nIt was contended in the earlier days of Bridge that \nthe distinction is useful on the ground that a J led \nwon by the Q thus conveys to partner information \nof a certain re-entry card, the ace. There are re- \njoinders to be made to this. First, that the informa- \ntion is not definite, as the J might be the top of the \nsuit. Secondly, that such information as is given \nwill help the declarer more than third hand. Instead \nof introducing empirical distinctions of this kind our \nobject should be to reduce the leads as much as \npossible to general laws. \n\nIn the early days of Whist, Q was led from four or \nmore to Q, J, g, and lo from four or more to lo, 9, 8, \nDuring the Cavendish-Clay period these leads were \nabandoned in favour of a small card, but the altered \nconditions of Bridge and Auction Bridge have rightly \nbrought about their revival. In the former case if \nthe queen is w^on adversely and j^ou regain the lead, \nit is generally better to wait for partner to lead the \nsecond round unless by leading J you can extract \nthe 10 single from Dum.my. \n\nIf you open from a suit of five or more headed by \nthe ace (without the king) the ace must always be led. \nA similar suit of four, if opened at all, should be opened \nin the same way. But the ace may often be more \nuseful as a card of re-entry later in the hand. To lead \nout aces early often loses tricks by establishing high \ncards for the declarer. Avoid opening originally from \n\xc2\xa7uch a suit as much as possible. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 133 \n\n\n\nIf you open originally from a suit of three or two \ncards (not comprising A, K, or Q) lead from the top \ndownwards. It has been previous^ remarked that \nto open from J, x, x or from Q, x is particularly to be \ndeprecated {see pp. 111-3). No good player ever opens \noriginally from K, x, x or Q, x, x. From A, x, x \nsome players lead the A, others the lowest. Opening \nfrom A, K only, follow the general rule for short suits \nby leading the ace first. When the K follows your \npartner will be certain that you can ruff the next \nround. \n\nSummary of the card to be led originally \n\n\n\nWhen there are Trumps \n\nAce from five or more, not including the king, and \nfrom A, K only. Leads from tenaces are inadvisable, \nbut may be forced upon you. Avoid especially suits \nheaded by A, Q, J ; A, J ; or A, 10. \n\nKing from aU combinations which include A or \nQ or both, irrespective of number in suit (except to \nshow two only, as specified above). \n\nQueen from Q, J, 10, etc., or Q, J, 9, etc., also as \nthe top of a short suit {e.g., Q, J, 4). \n\nKnave from J, 10, 9, etc., as the top of an inter- \nmediate sequence (A, J, 10 ; K, J, 10 ;) or as the top \nof a short suit {e.g. J, 10, 6; J, 10). \n\nTen from a head sequence of 10, 9, 8, any number \nin suit. Also as the top of a short suit {e.g. 10, 9, 2 ; \n10, 5, 4; 10, 7). \n\n\n\n134 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nThe Nine, as the lovrest of a four suit, can cmly \nbe led from A, Q, lo, 9 ; and as this is a bad combina- \ntion to open from, it follows that the original lead of \na 9, on a truynp declaration, is almost invariably the \ntop of a short suit. From A, J, 10, 9 (if you are \ndriven to start from such a suit), either A or J would \nbe led ; and from the eight other possible combina- \ntions in which a 9 is the lowest of four cards, the card \nto be led falls under one of the preceding heads, as \nwill be plainly seen from the following list , in which the \ncard to lead is marked in each case with a dot : \n\nA, 0, J, 9 ; A, Q, 9 ; A, K, J, 9 ; A, K, 10, 9 ; \nK, Q, X 9; K, 0,10, 9; Q.J, 10, 9; K,J,io, 9. \n\nIn other cases, when leading from fouj- or miore, \nlead the lowest. It is undesirable to practise the lead \nof a fourth-best, or of a lowest-but-one, as such cards \nsimulate leads from short suits, and are distinctly \nmisleading to your partner. \n\nLEADING TO PARTNER\'S DECLARED SUIT \n\nIn every case, lead the highest card, irrespective \nof combination or of number. Yoiu: partner does not \nwant to know how many of the suit you hold ; he is \nonly anxious to see, at the earliest moment, the best \ncard you have got in it. This rule, of coiuse, pre- \nsupposes that 3\'our partner is a sound suit-declarer, \naccording to the principles that have been formulated \nin the present work. \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\n135 \n\n\n\nTHE SUIT ORIGINALLY LED : WHICH \nCARD TO CHOOSE \n\nII. \xe2\x80\x94 When there are no Trumps \n\nThe differences in choice of card in this case result \nfrom the fact that high cards cannot be trumped. \nThere is always a bare possibility that, with over- \nwhelming strength against you in other suits, high \ncards may eventually be wasted if not led out at once, \nbut to start by mapping out your plan of campaign \nwith the panic-stricken idea of saving a slam is only \nmeeting disaster half way. Your aim being to estab- \nlish a suit, it is better to keep back high cards on the \nfirst round, unless yon hold certain three-card \nsequence combinations such as A, K, Q ; A, Q, J ; \nK, Q, J ; A, J, 10 ; K, J, 10 ; K, Q, 10 ; Q, J, 10 ; \nQ> J> 9 \'> ]\' 9 > 9> when the card led is just \nthe same as if there were trumps. \n\nWith A, K and other cards not higher than the lo, \nK should not be led unless from seven or more in suit, \nw^hen there is a fair chance of being able to drop all \nthe adverse cards in two rounds. The same rule \napplies to K, Q and other cards not higher than the 9. \nThe treatment of A, K, J, etc., depends partly on the \nrest of the hand. With only four cards it is advisable \nto hold the lead until you can see Dummy\'s cards, \nwhen you miay decide not to part with the tenace, \nbut to try another suit. To save the game on a four- \ncard suit the best chance is to husband its resources \nas carefully as possible. With five or six cards the \n\n\n\n136 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nchances of establishment by lead of king are good \nenough if you have a re-entry in another stcit, and you \nwill then continue with ace on second round unless \nyou see good reason to play otherwise : which will be \nbut seldom. With seven in suit king and ace are \nnaturally led as when the J is not present. With \nfive or six in suit and no re-entry, do not start with \nthe head sequence ; if you have five it is d priori five to \none that your partner has two cards, but only six \nto five that he has three. When he has only two you \nmust not begin by taking one from him under a \nwinning card of your own. \n\nHolding A, Q, J, etc., some players lead ace if they \nhave re-entry, but here a uniform rule is preferable. \nFollow the general rule for an intermediate sequence \nby leading the queen unless you have seven in suit \nwith re-entry, when you may start with the ace. \nWith eight in suit and re-entry you may lead ace \nwhen the other cards are small ; otherwise, it is \nimperative to retain the ace in the hope that partner \nmay be able to put you in. \n\nFrom K, Q, lo, king should be led, any number in \nsuit ; you thus prevent the knave making single or \nsingly guarded and you retain tenace if knave and \ntwo small \xe2\x80\x94 or A, J, and one small \xe2\x80\x94 should be on \nyour right. If the dealer has both ace and knave he \nwill frequently hold up the ace on the first round. \nIt is so difficult and so important to defend yourself \nagainst this device (known as the Bath Coup,\'\' pro- \nbably from the name of the town where it first came \ninto notice at Whist) that third hand holding the ace \n\n\n\nROYAL RUCTION BRIDGE 137 \n\n\n\nshould play it on the king; and holding the knave \nshould generally play it underneath. This being the \nunderstanding : if neither card falls on the first \nround, the leader discontinues the suit and waits \nfor partner to lead it the second time. The following \nis one of many instances that have com.e under my \nnotice where this precaution would have materially \nchanged the current of affairs : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\nThe Bath Coup. Neglecting to Change Suit \n\n\n\nV A, Q, 9, 8. \n4> 9> 5, 4. \nX 5, 3. \n\xe2\x99\xa6 K, Q, 8. \n\n\n\n9 K, 10. \n^ 3, 2. \n\nK, Q, 10, 9, 8. \n\xe2\x99\xa6 7. 5, 3. 2. \n\n\n\n\n^ 7. 4. 3, 2. \n* A, J, 7, 6. \nOA. \n\n4 A, J, 10, 6. \n\n\n\n^ J, 6, 5. \n\n* K, Q, 10, 8. \n7. 6, 4. 2. \n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 9. 4- \n\nScore : love all. Z. caUs One No-trump. All \npass. \n\n\n\n138 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nThe Play \n\n\n\nTrick \n\n\nA \n\n\nY i B \n\n\nz \n\n\nI. \n\n\n^ K \n\n\n4= 2 \n\n\n4\xc2\xbb 4 \n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa21= 6 \n\n\n2. \n\n\n<^8 \n\n\n*3 \n\n\n^5 \n\n\n\xc2\xb1J \n\n\n3- \n\n\n2 \n\n\n8 \n\n\n03 \n\n\nOA \n\n\n4- \n\n\n\xe2\x9d\x96 4 \n\n\n42 \n\n\n4 8 \n\n\n<^ A \n\n\n5- \n\n\n^ 9 \n\n\n\xe2\x99\xa6 3 \n\n\n4Q \n\n\n^ J \n\n\n6. \n\n\n^ 10 \n\n\n09 \n\n\n^ 9 \n\n\n4\xc2\xbb A \n\n\n7- \n\n\n04 \n\n\n^5 \n\n\n4 K \n\n\n^ 10 \n\n\n8. \n\n\n6 \n\n\n\xc2\xb12 \n\n\nJ \n\n\n^ 2 \n\n\n\nTricks 9-13. \xe2\x80\x94 Y. makes his two diamonds and the \nspade. B. makes ace and queen of hearts. \nResult : YZ. win two by cards. \n\n\n\nComments \n\nTrick 2. \xe2\x80\x94 A.\'s continuance of the club suit is singu- \nlarly unfortunate. Had he been able to infer (from \nB.\'s not playing ace or knave) that both were in the \ndeclarer\'s hand, he would here have led ^ J. AB. \nwould certainly have defeated the contract ; and \nunless YZ. play carefully, are likely to win eight \ntricks \xe2\x80\x94 four hearts, two clubs, and tw^o spades (or \nfour hearts, three clubs, and one spade,) as may be \nseen by playing out the hand that wa}\'. \n\nTrick 6. \xe2\x80\x94 B. has nothing better. He dare not open \nhearts and let Y. in to make the diamonds. . \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 139 \n\n\n\nTrick 7. \xe2\x80\x94 Z. plays to leave Dummy with the win- \nning spade on the fourth round. \n\nSummary of the card to be led originally : \n\nWhen there are no Trumps \nAce from A, Q, seven in suit, or from. A and small \ncards eight in suit, but only if holding a re-entry. \n\nKing from A, K, Q, etc. ; from A, K, J, etc., four in \nsuit ; from A, K, J, etc., five or six in suit, only if \nholding a re-entry ; from A, K, etc., or K, Q, etc., \nseven or more in suit ; from K, Q, J, etc. ; from K, Q, \n10, etc. \n\nQueen from A, Q, J, etc. (unless seven or more in \nsuit with re-entry) ; from Q, J, 10 or Q, J, 9. \n\nKnave as when there are trumps ; also from A, K,. \nJ, 10, five or six in suit without re-entry. \n\nTen as when there are trumps. \n\nThe Lead of the Fourth-Best \nIn No-trumps, when leading from all combinations \nother than are specified above, it has become the \nuniversal practice to lead the fourth from the top, \ncommonly spoken of as the fourth best card. I \nhave already expressed the opinion that it is disad- \nvantageous to give precise information as to number \nin leading from high-card combinations, and it is \nrather an open question whether it is not likewise \nundesirable to do a similar thing in leading a low card. \nBut the difference is that, in a high-card combination, \nyou do in reality give the m.ost essential item of infor- \nmation by opening with the high card itself ; yoa \n\n\n\n140 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\ndefine the nature of the strength which heads your \nsuit. When your long suit is not strong enough \nto open high it becomes of increased value to your \npartner to be put into possession of the exact length \nthereof. \n\nExamples of the Lead of the Fourth-Best \n[The card to he led is dotted) \n\nK, 10, 8, 7, 3. \nA, J, 9, 8, 6, 2. \nK, Q, 6,5,4. \n\nThe fourth-best lead often gives equally useful \ninformation concerning what the leader cannot hold \nas concerning what he does hold. The lead of a deuce \nproclaims four cards exactly, and no high card com- \nbination stronger than A, K, lo. The lead of a 4 \nconveys the same message if the 3 and 2 are seen in \nDummy or elsewhere, and so on. \n\nThe disadvantage that may result from the infor- \nmation, equally precise, which the same rule supplies \nto the declarer is strikingly shown in Illustrative \nHand No. XXIV, where the lead of the 2 of spades \nenables the declarer to count every card in the hands \nof both his opponents at the second trick of the deal. \nHe is thus in a position to plan with complete confi- \ndence for a Grand Slam. The whole of this chain of \nreasoning rests on the fourth-best convention. \n\nWe can thus see how, when this convention is \nadopted, the lead of even a very small card may give \nfar-reaching information. When a medium card is \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 141 \n\n\n\nled it is often possible to count all the higher ones \nwith facility. For instance : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nYour partner leads the 7 of diamonds ; Dummy \nlays down 10, 6, 5, 3 ; you hold J, 8, 4. , There are \nonty four unseen cards higher than the 7 {viz., A, K, \nQ, 9), and three of them exactly must be in the \nleader\'s hand. Hence the declarer holds one of the \nhigh honours (for if your partner had had all three he \nwould have led the king), and no other card higher \nthan the 7. If Dummy does not play the 10 you play \nthe 4, being sure that A or K or Q will be forced and \nthe suit established. Had you carelessly put the J \non the 7 Dummy must have made the 10 and a trick \nwould have been lost. If partner has led from K, Q \nhe knows, when his 7 forces the ace, that you hold the \nJ and 8, and if he gets in before you he will under- \nplay " by leading a small card. \n\nA simple arithmetical method, known as the \n" Eleven Rule," is in common use for quickly count- \ning up kow many high cards are outstanding against \nthe leader without staying to inquire exactly what \nthose high cards may be. \n\nThe Eleven Rule \n\nDeduct from eleven the number of pips on the card \nled, and the residue will he the number of cards higher \nthan the one led which are not in the leader\'s own hand. \n\nExample : \n\nPartner leads the 8 of clubs ; Dummy puts down \nQ, 7, 6 ; you hold K, 10, 5. Eight from eleven leaves \nthree. The three cards, higher than the 8, which are \n\n\n\n142 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nnot in the leader\'s own hand, are all in sight. If \nDummy does not put on the queen first round you \nneed play nothing higher than the 8, for you know the \ndeclarer cannot beat it. \nAgain : \n\nPartner leads the seven of diamonds ; Dummy \nplays in the king from K, 9 only ; you hold Q, J, 6. \nSeven from eleven leaves four, and the four are all in \nsight . You know the suit is established and you must \nnot fail to play the J under the K. If partner gets in \nagain and leads out the ace you once more get out of \nhis way by throwing the queen. This method of play, \nby which you m_ake sure of not obstructing any of the \nleader\'s diam.onds, is termed \'\'unblocking/\' \n\nAgain : \n\nPartner leads the 6 of spades ; Dummy lays down \nthe J, 7 only ; you hold Q, 9, 2. Dum^my plays in \nthe J ; you cover with the Q, won by the declarer with \nthe ace. Six from eleven leaves five, and you know \nimmediately that the suit is established and that three \nor more tricks will be won in the suit as soon as either \npartner regains the lead. \n\nThat the declarer also may be helped to a sure \nfinesse is, of course, equally evident. Say that Y. \n(Dummy) holds K, Q, 5, 2 ; Z. has 10, 8 only ; A. \nleads the 7. Knowing that A. must have A, J, 9, Z. \nlets the trick come up to his own hand. Had a smaller \ncard been led, Z. might easily play in the Q from \nDummy and win one trick fewer. Yet here again the \nargument cannot be pressed too far. If Z. needs \nthree tricks in the suit he will, even if the 2 or 3 be \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 143 \n\n\n\nled, assume that A. holds the knave and will let the \ntrick come up on speculation. \n\nThere are positions where the declarer derives little \nor no advantage from the information afforded. Say \nthe 7 is led as before, Dummy lays down Q, J, 6, 4 ; \nthe declarer has A, 8, 3. The latter can win in his \nown hand with the 8, but bj^ so doing he does not make \nan extra trick. If the 2 be led and dummy puts up \nthe knave, YZ. v/in three tricks just the same. \n\nFurthermxore, although the declarer can tell how \nmany cards higher than the card led are held by third \nhand, it by no means follows that he can see which \ncards they are. As before, A. leads the 7 ; Y. \n(Dummy) has K, 9, 5 ; Z. has the 6 and 4. Y. plays \nthe 9 won by the 10. B. then gives the lead in another \nsuit to A., who continues the original suit with knave. \nZ. cannot tell whether A. has ace and B. queen, or \nvice versa ; he is therefore obliged to cover with the \nking. Should B. be found with ace and one small \ncard the result is that the first six tricks of the hand \nare lost by YZ. straight away. Had the dealer \nknown, he could have postponed his king and blocked \nthe suit. \n\nOn the whole, I conceive the advantage to be \nslightly in favour of the lead of fourth-best on a No- \ntrump call. At all events, the great majority of good \nplayers have adopted it, and it is advisable that \npractice should be uniform. But most people exag- \ngerate the importance and value of the convention. \nAgainst opponents of equal calibre they would not \nderive nearly so mxuch benefit from it as they imagine. \n\n\n\n144 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nLeading to Partner\'s Declared Suit \nWith not more than three of the suit, the highest \nmust in all cases be led. Holding four or more, \nwithout a head sequence, the practice of the best \nEnglish players seems to be to lead low, for the reason \nthat it is important that partner should be able to \ncount your holding as accurately as possible. In \nAmerica, the rule of leading from the top is observed \nindependently of number. \n\nThere is one situation, however, in which it is never \nright to lead a high unsupported honour from more \nthan two in suit. When the declarer (on your right) \nhas overbid your partner\'s suit call with No-trumps, \nhe has shown at least one stopper " in the suit [see \np. 8i). By leading low from ace or king to three \nor more, you may be able to kill that stopper when \nthe suit is returned by your partner, who may hold \nking or ace respectively. It is better for you to block \nyour partner\'s suit than for the declarer to do so. \n\nTHE ORDINARY CONVENTIONS \n{only applicable to the opponents of the declarer). \nI. In following suit, when you play one of two or \nmore cards in sequence, play the lowest of the se- \nquence. As regards the winning of that particular \ntrick, it does not matter which card you play. As \nregards information to partner, it matters a great \ndeal. That he may be able to draw correct infer- \nences, it is absolutely necessary that you foUow a \nstrict rule. \n\nExample. \xe2\x80\x94 If your partner leads the 3 through \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 145 \n\n\n\nDummy, Dummy plays the 6, and you hold Q, J, 5 ; \nyou play the J, not the Q. \n\nSimilarly, if your partner leads the 3, Dummy plays \nthe K, and you hold the 7, 6, 5 ; you play the 5, not \nthe 6 or the 7. \n\nSimilarly, with cards not in sequence, when dis- \ncarding, or when following suit but making no effort \nto win the trick, you play the smallest card. If your \npartner leads J, Dummy plays the Q, and you hold \n6, 4, 2 ; you play the 2, not the 4 or the 6. \n\n2. There are certain cases when you depart from \nthe preceding rule, with the special object of enabling \nyour partner to count the number of cards that you \nhold in the suit. In such cases, you are said to \n\nsignal,\'\' or to call/\' Instead of your lowest \ncard, you then play an unnecessarily high one. When \nyou play or discard a lower one to a later trick, your \n\nsignal " or call " is completed. \n\nThe exact meaning of a signal" varies according \nto circumstances, as is explained belov/. \n\n3. When there are trumps : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nTo signal in a plain suit {i.e.y in a suit other than \nthe trump suit) is to indicate two only of the suit, \nand a desire to ruff the third round. \n\nExample, \xe2\x80\x94 If spades are trumps, and your partner \nopens with the king of hearts, and follows with the \nace of hearts ; and you hold the 7 and 3 only ; you \nplay the 7 on the first round. When the 3 falls on \nthe second round, your partner knows that you have \nno more hearts, and can trump the third round. \n\nWhen the higher of your two cards is an honour, \n\n\n\n146 ROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE \n\n\n\nit is better to play the lower on the first round, when \nmaking no effort to win the trick. The honour may \nbe of use later on ; and if it has to be played under \na higher honour, it will still convey its own natural \ninformation : that it is the lowest card which you \nthen hold. Some players, however, signal when the \nhigher of their two cards is the 10. \n\n4. When there are no trumps : \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nTo signal in your partner\'s suit shows the holding \nof four or more. If you have four only, it may be \nnecessary to unblock \'\' the suit by signalling with \nthe two middle cards. \n\nExample. \xe2\x80\x94 Your partner opens, against a No- \ntrumper, with the king of clubs. Dummy holds the \n8 and 6. You hold the 10, 9, 7, 5. You should play \nthe 9 on the first round, and the 7 on the second. On \nthe third round (unless there is special reason to the \ncontrary) you will play the 10 ; and the 5 which you \nhave retained will not obstruct or block \'\' the con- \ntinuous run of the suit. \n\nIf ever you have to discard twice from a strong \nsuit, at No-trumps, you may intimate strength in \nthe suit by throwing unnecessarily high on the first \noccasion. \n\n5. Whether there are trumps or not, in discarding \nfrom a suit in which you have complete command, \nyou can indicate the fact by discarding the best. \n\n6. Generally speaking, there is no hard-and-fast \nrule for your first discard. You should discard what \nis least likely to be of use. Your partner will in most \ncases credit you with weakness in the suit from which \n\n\n\nROYAL AUCTION BRIDGE 147 \n\n\n\nyou first discard, unless the declarations or the course \nof play give indications to the contrary. \n\nGENERAL PLAY OF THE HAND \nThis will be best taught by typical examples of \nactual play, exhibited under the same conditions as \nactually obtain at the Bridge-table. A collection has \ntherefore been prepared of Forty-Five Illustrative \nHands (some of which have already been referred \nto in the body of the present work), issued by the \nsame publishers. \n\nBy those who wish to pursue the subject this sup- \nplementary volume will be found an indispensable \nguide. \n\n\n\nPrinted in EngTand \nby Butler & Tanner, Selwood Printing Works, Frome, Somerset, \n\n\n\nLIBRARY OF CONGRESS \n\n\n\n\n029 604 574 3 \n\n\n\n'