The San Francisco call., 1906-10-25
Copyright, 1905, by r. f. Foster.
No. I5.

The principles of declaring on the
dealers or on the dummy's cards hav-
ing been thoroughly mastered, the stu
the consideration of one of the moot
points OF modern bridge, the "defeE-
sive" declaration
When the dealer declares on his own
cards he does so on the assumption that
there is nothing extraordinary in the
distribution of the remaining cards
among the other hands, and that his
partner viii probably have fair aver
age assortment. When the dummy
cards are particularly good it is called
a fine answer and when they are
very weak it is spoken of as poor
answer" When dummy does not de-
clare, but lays down his hand as an
assistance TO the dealers call, II is
always spoken of as an answer
If the dummy's answer is poor one
the dealer cannot help it; it is too late
to change. He takes his chances on the
general theory of probabilities, and II
upon some occasions the improbable
happens and the dummy turns out to
have nothing, the dealer must console
himself with the thought that 1t does
not happen often, and that in the long
run dummy's answers will justify MS
declarations.
But when it comes to dummy's decla-
rations, he cannot assume that the
dealer, who has refused to declare on
his own cards, can have strong hand;
because the mere fact Of his passing
the make shows that he has not. If his
hand is average it is the most dummy
can hope for.
When the dealer declares he knows
that dummy may be weak, but he also
knows that dummy may be remarkably
strong. 1t is not unusual for the dealer
to call no-trumps and find dummy with
better no-trumper than his own. But
for dummy to go no-trumps and find
the dealer with a better no-trumper is
impossible among good players.
The same is true of trump declara-
tions The dealer may have a very
good heart hand and find dummy with
still better one, but for dummy to
go hearts and find the dealer with the
better hand is absurd.
1t is therefore evident that while
the dealer may expect anything from
strength in dummy answer, dummys
expectations of assistance from the
dealer must be limited. This brings
us to the consideration of the question
What has dummy right to expect?
When the dealer is about to declare,
dummy has no way of warning him
that the answer will be very weak.
Inc dealer compensation lOi AHhih6
this occasional weakness is the occa-
sional finding of exceptional strength.
But when it is the dealer that is un-
usually weak he has a chance to warn
dummy of it and to prevent dummy
from making an expensive declaration,
which will be based on what dummy
has the right to expect.
Now. If the dealer knows what
dummy has right to expect and the
dealer knows that he will be disap
pointed 1t is clear that he should not
ask dummy to declare on false prem
ises. The thing to decide is, What is
the least that dummy should find in
his partners hand, and how is he to be
warned when it is not there?
Granted that dummy knows the
dealer isweak and that his weakness is
probably greater in the red suits than
in the black, that does not mean that
he has absolutely nothing, because the
dealer will frequently pass on a hand
which is good for three tricks in the
black suits, but is not good enough
for a no-trumper.
1t may be urged that IL the dealer
can afford to declare on average ex-
pectationss from dummy dummy should
base his calculations on the same prin-
ciple, and declares on the average prob
ability that his partner has something
between three tricks and nothing.
three tricks, the combined hands
should make great score; when he
turns out to have nothing, they prob
ably lose the odd; and when the deal
er's hand is about half way between
the extremes, or an average passing
hand. dummy's make will probably Just
get the odd trick: dummy's makes in
each not being particularly strong, but
still sound. There are cases, of course,
in which dummy would declare, even if
he knew in advance that the dealer had
not possible trick in his hand.
If the best dummy can expect is three
tricks, and the worst is nothing, the
average upon which he must base his
declaration is a trick and a half from
the dealer This means that he should
have a probability of five and half
tricks himself to justify him in making
an attacking" declaration. 1t does
not require much experience at the
bridge table to tell any one that dunn
my does not usually wait for any such
strength. and seldom has it. On the
contrary he is in the habit of crediting
the dealer with the ability to take
two or three tricks in something or
other and is satisfied if he has three
or four reasonably sure tricks him
self
The question that is still undecided
among bridge players, and upon which
the best Of them disa gree. is this: Is
il worth while to warn dummy that
the dealers cards are unusually weak,
or is 1t better to let dummy declare
on the average expectation of a trick
and half?