The Laws of Auction

R. F. FOSTER

The Prospects for a Better Code, Now that the A. W. L. Has Taken the Matter in Hand

AT the last Congress of the American Whist League, it was voted to recognize the game of Auction Bridge, and to nominate a committee to revise the laws of that game, with a view to adopting an official code to govern it, on the same lines that the A.W.L. code now governs all duplicate whist matters.

At an executive meeting of the A.W.L. in New York on Jan. 18th, with the new president, H. E. Bid well, of Hartford, in the char, it was resolved to adopt the laws published by the Whist Club of New York for auction bridge, and the laws of the Knickerbocker Whist Club of New York for duplicate auction. These to be official until such time as the committee should be ready to report, at the next annual meeting, to be held at the Mohican Hotel, New London. The first two days of this meeting, Friday and Saturday, June 27 and 28, will be devoted to auction bridge contests exclusively. The following week, June 30 to July 5, will be all whist, unless the tournament committee find the demand for auction bridge justifies more of it.

The Auction Bridge Magazine has offered a silver trophy, similar to the old Hamilton whist trophy, to be competed for by teams of four; and there will be special prizes for all sorts of pair and individual playing, besides. Any member of the A.W.L. is eligible to compete, and membership cards may be obtained from Mr. Bid well.

THE most interesting part of this meeting will, naturally, be the proposed changes in the laws of auction; and some of these will probably be radical. Among those already discussed by members of the committee is the advisability of simplifying the game by changing the scoring value of the suits, making all the tricks over the book worth 8 for suits, 10 for no-trumps, and making all honours multiples of 10. This would not interfere in any way with the present rank of the suits in bidding, as one diamond would still overcall one club; one spade would be a higher bid than one heart, and no-trumps would outbid anything.

Four odd would be game from zero in any suit bid; three odd in a no-trumper. Simple honours in suit, 20 points; four honours, 40; live between partners, 50; four in one hand, 80; five in one hand, 100; and live divided,90. Notrump would remain as at present.

When it comes to the law's with regard to the details of the game, the committee has a man's job ahead of it. The present code is only half laws, the other half being a sort of dictionary, or glossary, of technical terms, which would be all right in a text book, but seem quite out of place in the laws, which are for those who are supposed to know the game. Strictly Speaking, a law is something that carries with it a penalty, because if there is no penalty, it is simply a suggestion as to what should be the etiquette of the card table. If it is considered necessary to include definitions of technical terms, they should be entirely separate from the laws, which are seldom referred to except by those who are familiar with the game.

The imperfect arrangement or language of the present code is shown, among other

Problem LVIII

There are no trumps, and Z leads. Y and Z want six tricks. IIow do they get them? Solution in the Mav Vanity Fair.

QUESTIONS OX AUCTION

Bridge players everywhere are invited to send to Vanity Fair their votes on the following points in the laws of Auction:

1. Do you prefer the present method of scoring, or would you like to see it changed to an equal value for all the suit bids, in the scoring only; the present rank still holding for the bidding?

2. Do you prefer the present revoke penalty, or would you make it the same for either side, the transfer of two actual tricks, and score the hand as the tricks lie at the end?

3. Do you prefer the present revoke penalty, which cancels the entire trick score of the side in error, no matter when the revoke occurred; or would you prohibit the taking as penalty of any tricks that were won before the revoke was made?

Just the number of the question, followed by the word "Present", or the word "Changed", will suffice. Address Bridge Editor. Vanity Fair, 10 West 44th Street. New Vork.

things, by the fact that it takes no less than 78 footnotes to explain what is said in the text. As there are only 68 laws, this is an average of one and a quarter footnotes for every law. The English law makers can do better than that, as there is not a single footnote in their entire code, although it contains 110 laws.

In several instances, we find a law only six or seven lines in length requiring four footnotes to explain it, and some of these footnotes read like jokes. That, in connection with Law 44, for instance, which says the declarer may not forbid the lead of more than three suits. Why not say at once that he cannot prevent the opponents from leading something, or the game would have to stop?

Another curiosity is Law 42, which states that the player who "inadvertently" says one thing and then changes it to another shall be at liberty to do so if it was a slip of the tongue, and not a change of mind. Who is to decide which it wras?

One of the greatest defects in the present code of laws is their want of cohesion. Part of the subject is dealt with in one law, and another part of the same subject in another law-. What is the penalty for a double out of turn, for instance? I have seen ten minutes spent in looking this up. Law37 (c) says it is the same as a bid out of turn, and refers the reader to Law 34. What is the penalty for giving improper information to the partner? We have not only to read along to the last law, but on in the code. No. 61 (d), before we find it is precisely the same as in the two preceding cases.

SUPOSE the dealer says, "Two hearts", and immediately corrects himself by saying, "Three hearts". Was the first bid a slip of the tongue,or a change of mind? Is this a bid out of turn, or giving improper information? There is nothing in the laws to decide such a point promptly, exactly, and to the satisfaction of both parties to the dispute. Even the chairman of the committee that drafted these laws declined to decide it "off-hand", when it was put to him. Law 42 might settle the point, but for the fact that it says than an "attempt" to change may be penalized. But this is not an attempt. It is an accomplished fact. He has bid three hearts.

The want of proper arrangement, ability to condense, and at the same time to finish a subject, is shown in an ext raordinary number of cross references, of which there are 96 in the code. There are no less than five cross references to one law, No. 35, and six cross references to Law 43. By the time all these have been looked up, with cross references of their own, all interest in the point under discussion is lost.

Returning to the question of bidding three hearts, why could not the three laws referred to be grouped together in one brief statement to the effect that giving improper information to the partner, whether by bidding or doubling out of turn, or illegitimately changing the bid, should bar the partner of the player in error from further bidding during that deal, unless the side not in error failed to call attention to the error before proceeding with the declaration?

THERE are several laws that state an offence, but prescribe no penalty. Law 44 says that a player whose partner exposes a card during the bidding must pass when it is his turn to declare. But suppose he does not pass, what is the penalty? A footnote to Law 31 says that no player can bid more than seven. What is the penalty if he does? If there is no penalty, why mention it?

There is too much redundant matter in the present laws. It takes their authors six lines to tell us that an imperfect pack is one in which cards are missing, duplicated, or marked. The law on declaring starts by telling us that spadesare high.and then puts in a footnote to say that no-trump ranks above spades, Some persons never bother to read footnotes. Law 6 tells us that each player turn does not contribute cigarette butts pencils to the current trick, but plays card. In case this is not understood, footnote is appended to explain the motions that a player goes through in playing a card to the trick. What is the penalty if he does not go through those motions?

(Continued on page 92)

(Continued from page 74)

Law 13, which is an attempt to change the meaning of the term "rubber , has been a joke now for three years. No one pays any attention to it. The term rubber, as applied to games of the whist family, has stood for more than two hundred years. We are asked to believe that it is a fallacy to consider the players winners of the rubber if they actually lose points in the final settling. If it is so important, then the scoring should be so adjusted that the winners of the rubber could not lose points.

That was the way in whist. The highest score above the line for honours was 4 points, and 5 was game. If either side was 4 up at the beginning of any game, it could not score honours, but had to win the rubber by tricks alone. Consequently, if the losers of the first game scored 4 by honours, and their opponents won the second game, they would score at least 1 for each game; and, as the bonus for winning the rubber was 2 points, they lost nothing. If there is anything wrong with our system in scoring at auction, that is the thing to change; not the English language.

THERE are a number of minor oversights in the code. 1-or example, in Law 22, which required a couple of footnotes to make it clear, there is no restnction as to the part of the pack from which cards may be drawn in cutting for seats or partners. In every other card game in the world, a certain number of cards at each end of the outspread pack are barred. A very good player was expelled from one of the most prominent clubs in New York for taking advantage of tins omission in the laws of auction; a fact with which the members of the committee that drafted these laws must have been fa miliar.

All through the laws, there is much complication on account of allowing either adversary to demand penalties. The whist law is much better, restricting that duty to the player who will be fourth hand on the trick in question, or the one about to be played.

The laws referring to dummy need a good deal of clearing up. Law 49, about dummies "intentionally" looking at the cards held by an opponent is in line with the slip of the tongue and the change of mind. Who is to decide whether he looked at hand intentionally, or accidentally, or could not help seeing them? The proper place for dummy is in the next room, and it is to be hoped that some day the laws will be so amended as to keep him out of the game entirely.

Every few days some question arises that the laws do not cover. Here is an example. The dealer bids no trump. All pass, and the player on his right leads, out of turn, but immediately snatches the card up again. The declarer elects under Law 54 (alto call a lead, instead of having the card played in error left as exposed, The leader declines to comply until he has seen the card led out of turn, as he had not time to notice it before it was snatched up again. Must it be shown to him? If not. why not?

Law 54 (e) allows the declarer to call upon an opponent under certain circumstances to play his highest, or lowest, card in a named suit. Suppose he does not comoly, what is the penalty? Whitehead fills five columns of the Auction Bridge Magazine discussing the revoke, but fails to include in his definition of a revoke the "failure to comply with a performable penalty". Our present code of laws probably led him to overlook that part of it. as it confines revokes to "renouncing in error". Then there is no penalty for failure to comply with a performable penalty,

THE revoke penalty in auction is one of the most absurd things that is to be found in the laws of any game. The worst feature of it is its fluctuating value, Sometimes it costs the offender nothing; sometimes it costs him a thousand points, While it is the most severe penalty in the game, it is inflicted for an offence that is nothing but a trifling oversight or inattention. I kept account of the revokes at the Knickerbocker Whist Club for a year, and while there were not enough of them among that class of players to base a conclusion upon, I found that about 8 times out of 10 the revoke made no difference in the result, and was usually made in the last two or three tricks,

I have always insisted that the only fair penalty for the revoke is to lake two actual tricks from the side in error and give them to the opponents, making up the score as the tricks lie at the end of the hand. We should then settle a point upon which the late C. A. Henriques, secretary of the Whist Club, thoroughly agreed with me: that if the contract was doubled, the revoke penalty should be doubled with it. The logic of the situation is too evident to need discussion,

The most unjust part of the present revoke penalty is that it is retroactive. That is, it takes away from the player tricks that were won before the revoke occurred, and which could not by any stretch of the imagination have been affected by the revoke. The laws of the A.W.L. with regard to duplicate whist corrected this error years ago. The same law should be made to apply to the reyoke at auction. No tricks 'to be taken from the revoking side that were won before the revoke occurred. To take away five or six tricks, allowing no score except for honours held, as a penalty for a revoke made on the eleventh trick in the hand, is too unjust to need argument,

Answer to the March Problem

This was the distribution in Problem LVII, which illustrates the importance of being prepared for a quick jump on the part of the defence:

There are no trumps and Z leads. Y and Z want six tricks. This is how they get them:

Z starts with a spade, intending that Y should throw B into the lead with a heart; but B discards the heart on the spade trick, so Y shifts his plan and leads the ace of clubs, and A has to discard, It is clear that A cannot part with a heart, and if he discards a spade, Z will make his two top diamonds and then put Ain with a spade, so that Yean make two heart tricks.

This forces A to shed a diamond, which is of no use to him in any event. Y then leads the jack of hearts, which forces B to discard a club. Y then leads the diamond, which Z overtakes with the king and leads a club, putting B in. Now Z makes two tricks in diamonds.