Appendix
Queries and Answers
The introduction of the count now in use has produced so radical a change in the game of Auction that of necessity innumerable differences of opinion have arisen among individual players.
Many questions have been submitted to arbitrators for decision. In some cases the author of Auction of To-day has been complimented by being called upon for his opinion, and a few queries that seem to be upon points of general interest, with the answers given, follow.
Query
What is the correct original bid of the Dealer in the following cases?
1. Seven Diamonds, headed by Knave, Ten; Ace of Spades; Ace of Hearts; Ace and three small Clubs.
2. The same hand, except that the Clubs are Ace, King, and two small.
3. The same two hands, with the Diamonds headed by Queen, Knave, Ten.
Answer
These hands are evidently conceived for the purpose of proving vulnerable the rule that a suit should not be called without the Ace or King. They doubtless never did and probably never will occur in actual play, but most aptly illustrate a point of declaration, and are, therefore, worthy of consideration.
It must be remembered that in the extraordinary case any convention of declaration may be varied to suit the hand. Undoubtedly, the last rule to permit exception is that above mentioned. For the purpose of emphasis it may properly be said to be without exception, and yet, if any such holding actually happen, it may become necessary for the Declarer to take a little leeway. It cannot affect the confidence of the partner if a player, only under such extraordinary circumstances, departs from the conventional, and the remarkable character of the hand guarantees that harm will not result in the particular instance.
All of the above hands contain three Aces, yet a No-trump should not be bid, as it would probably be left in, and with two singleton Aces they are dangerous No-trumpers, but strong Diamonds.
The hands are much too strong to call one Spade, as that also might not be overbid. Two Spades followed by Diamonds would be quite satisfactory, would avoid breaking the rule, but would not include the effort to eliminate adverse bidding which, with a hand of this character, might be desirable.
Two Diamonds is not permissible, as that is the conventional call for a solid Diamond suit.
There is no reason, however, that three or more Diamonds or Clubs should not indicate a long weak Trump suit with such additional strength that one Spade is an unsafe call. Such a bid would suggest that a game is probable in the suit named. It is not a recognized bid and would rarely be used, but an intelligent partner would at once grasp its meaning.
The answer to the above, therefore, is
1. Three Diamonds.
2. Three, or even Four, Diamonds. (The bid of one Club might be left in.)
3. Three or 4 Diamonds in first; 4 in second.
Query
Would it not improve the game of Auction and increase the amount of skill required in the declaration if the value of Royal Spades be altered from 9 to 5?
Answer
The basic theory of the present count is to equalize, as nearly as possible, the value of the five declarations, in order to produce the maximum amount of competition in bidding. This has proved most popular with the mass of players, and has been universally adopted not only in this country, but also in England, France, and Russia. To decrease the value of the Royal Spade from 9 to 5, would be a distinct step backward. In that case it would take 4, instead of 3, Royal Spades to overbid two No-trumps; and 6, instead of 4, to overbid three No-trumps. It is not likely that any change, which diminishes the ability of the holder of Spades (or of any suit) to compete with a No-trump, will ever appeal to Auction devotees. The greater the possibility for competitive bidding, the greater the opportunity for displaying skill in that branch of the game.
Query
Should the Dealer bid one Club, holding Ace and King of Clubs, four small Spades, four small Hearts, Ace, Queen, and one small Diamond?
Answer
No. One Club deceives the partner. It indicates length in Clubs, and may induce him to advance that suit too far. In the event of an adverse No-trump, it will probably result in the lead of the partner’s highest Club, which is apt to prove extremely disastrous. One No-trump is far safer than one Club, and might be defended on the ground that with four cards in each of the two weak suits the danger of a long adverse run is reduced.
One Spade, however, places the Dealer in a splendid position to advance any call his partner may make, and is doubtless the sound bid.
Query
Is it not an objection to the count now in use that the Spade suit is given two values, and would it not be wise to make Spades 9, and allow the Dealer to pass the original declaration?
Answer
The advisability of this plan was thoroughly considered before the present count was suggested. It would make a pass by the Dealer equal to the present declaration of one Spade, and in the event of the four players all passing, presumably would necessitate a new deal. It would eliminate two, three, and four Spade bids by the Dealer and Second Hand, and the double of one Spade by the latter.
It would relieve the Third Hand from determining whether to take his partner out of one Spade, and take from the Fourth Hand the decision of whether to play for a penalty of 100 or try for game. It is evident, therefore, that it would take a great deal out of the bidding of every one of the four players, and it is hard to believe that any scheme tending to decrease the variety of, and amount of skill required for, the declaration, is to the advantage of the game.
The objection to having two Spade values is purely theoretical, as players are not in the least embarrassed thereby, nor is the number of declarations at present a part of the game cumbersome or confusing. The argument, that if there be two Spade values there might equally well be two values for each of the other suits, almost answers itself. Having more than one Royal declaration would of necessity result in complications, and, of course, only one defensive call is needed. With the advantages of the Spade bid so numerous and evident, and with no real disadvantage apparent, there does not seem to be any sound reason for abandoning it.
Query
Dealer bids one Royal. Second Hand holds Ace, King, Queen, Knave, and Ten of Clubs; Ace, King, and two small Diamonds; Ace and two small Hearts; one small Spade. What should he bid?
Answer
Three Clubs. The holding thoroughly justifies a No-trump, as the hand contains eight sure tricks. If, however, the partner cannot stop the Spades, the adversaries will save the game at once, while eleven Club tricks is not an impossibility. Furthermore, the partner may have the Spades stopped if led up to him, but not if led through him.
The Declaration of three Clubs (one more than necessary) tells the partner the situation, and accomplishes two purposes:—if the partner have not the Spades stopped, the game is still possible; if the partner have the Spades stopped, if led up to him, it instructs him to call two No-trumps, whereas a No-trump bid by the Second Hand, with the same cards, might fail to produce game, because the position of the opening lead would then be reversed.
Query
Dealer bids one No-trump; Second Hand, two Hearts. Third Hand holds
| Spades | Knave, Ten, and three small |
| Hearts | One small |
| Diamonds | Two small |
| Clubs | Ace, Queen, Knave, and two small |
What should be bid?
Answer
Two Royals. This hand, especially with an adverse Heart call, is much more apt to go game at Royals than at No-trump. Two Royals asks to be let alone; three Clubs practically commands the partner to bid two No-trumps if he have the Hearts stopped.
This is but an expansion of the principle that the original call of one Club or one Diamond suggests a No-trump, while one Heart or one Royal indicates a desire to try for game in the suit named.
Query
Is it fair for partners to agree that the bid of one Spade shall mean weakness; one Club, general strength; and two Clubs, strength in Clubs?
Answer
It is perfectly fair for players to use the above-described, or any other convention, provided their adversaries understand its meaning. Conventions are an essential part of Auction. The lead of a King to show the Ace is a convention—so is every informatory play or declaration. When plays or bids are generally understood, it is unnecessary for players to explain their significance, but the adversaries should have all the information upon the subject possessed by the partner, and nothing approaching a private understanding should exist.
Query
The Dealer bids one No-trump, holding
| Spades | Ace, Queen, Ten, and three small |
| Hearts | Ace, Queen |
| Diamonds | Ace, and one small |
| Clubs | Ace, and two small |
Second and Third Hands pass; Fourth Hand, two Diamonds.
What should the Dealer declare on the second round?
Answer
Two Royals. The hand is far too strong to pass, while to bid two No-trumps is foolish, as, unless the partner hold the King of Spades, it is almost certain that the contract cannot be fulfilled.
Two Royals is safe and presents a good chance of game. A game in Royals is far more valuable than 100 for Aces, which may be reduced, if not wiped out, by penalties for under-tricks.
Query
Score, Love. Dealer bids one Spade; Second Hand, one Diamond; Third Hand, one Royal; Fourth Hand, two Clubs.
Second round, Dealer bids two Royals; Second Hand, three Clubs; Third Hand, three Royals; Fourth Hand, four Diamonds.
Dealer holds
| Spades | Knave, 10, 7 |
| Hearts | King, Knave, 8 |
| Diamonds | 7, 4, 3 |
| Clubs | King, 7, 6, 3 |
Should he double the four Diamond declaration?
Answer
A bid of four Diamonds should never be doubled at a love score unless the Doubler be reasonably sure of defeating the declaration. In this case he may expect to win one Club, and possibly one Heart, although that is not sure. Either the Declarer or the Dummy may be without Spades. The double does not seem reasonably safe and may keep the partner from a successful bid of four Royals. The Dealer, therefore, should pass.
Notes
1 Also known as “the Bid” and “the Call.”
2 With a similar suit in either Spades or Hearts, Royals or Hearts should be the bid.
3 While, as a general rule, to justify an original suit declaration, “one other honor” should accompany either Ace or King, it is not necessary to blindly follow such a requirement to an absurd extreme.
If the suit be headed by the Ace, either unusual length (six or more) or considerable strength in another suit (Ace and King, or Ace, Queen, Knave) would justify a call without “one other honor.”
If, however, the suit be headed by the King, the presence of another honor is essential unless the length or additional strength be extraordinary.
4 See footnote, page 31.
5 See page 89, as to how the partner should treat this declaration; also table on pages 68 and 69.
6 See page 90, as to how the partner should treat this declaration.
7 See Bid of Two Spades by Dealer, page 47.
8 See page 123 as to how the partner should treat this declaration.
9 See page 47.
10 See page 49.
11 See page 72.
12 See page 86.
13 See page 86.
14 See pages 67-72 inc.
15 See pages 88, 89, 90.
16 See pages 65, 66.
17 See pages 108, 109.
18 See page 111.
19 See pages 96-108 inc.
20 See pages 65, 66.
21 See pages 139-142 inc.
22 These suits unless declared by partner should not be opened, as they are disadvantageous leads against a Trump declaration.
23 This is the conventional lead from this combination, but many good players prefer the Queen, especially when the indications are that the hand is not evenly divided. When long suits have been announced, the chances are that the suit led will be ruffed on the third round, if not earlier. If the King be in the Second Hand and the Ace in the Third, a trick can be gained by leading the Queen whenever the suit does not last for three rounds. Therefore, unless the hand indicate that the suits are evenly divided, the Queen seems to be the better lead.
24 Law 84 prohibits the revoking side from scoring slam or little slam.
25 Law 84 prohibits the revoking side from scoring slam or little slam.
26 See Law 14 as to value of cards in cutting.
27 See Law 73.