The Waterbury Democrat., 1931-10-24
ARTICLE SIX

h1kllSLC SAA
 In introducing the official sys- tenn let -s state that, until public opinion is crystallized, two sys- tems and two only will be tried and tested in the crucible of actual play. The official system and the system which has been labelled the approach-fo-- ing system.
 The approach-forcing system compared and recognized in this presentation is the system de- veloped at the Cavendish and Knickerbocker Whist clubs by a number of members. The mod!- fication of the approach-forcins system is an adoption of this sys- tenn, eliminating t fine points and very :urate valuation tables of the Knickerbocker Whist club.
 While we do not agree that the official system is any less an ap- proach-syst.. .a or any less a fore ing system than the approach-for- cling system, for the sake of clarity we will designate the approach forcing system" by the term.
 Books will be written-many books. Thou, nd of articles and essays will dissect the two systems t,-ere will still stand revealed two systems, essentially one and the same in principle. except as relates to the amendment provided by the introduction of the game invitation bid.
 In its final analysis the official system differs from the approach forcing system o..iJ in one import ant al. This essential relates to the treatment of fairly strong hands. the potentialities of which may not be --lmunicated to the l spending ha--. with a bid of one-hands not powerful enough to qualify as sound game-demand bids, but t~o strong to justify the negative and insufficient informa- tion conn.,. unicated to the partner by a mere opening bid of one; hands where there is a probable game if the partnership can get together on their best bid.
 Wl.ere the l; ,roach-forcing sys- tenn makes no distinction between a minimum and a really powerful bid of one-the spread being from two and one-half (2h) to five and one-half (5hl high card tricks the fiji, al system p, ovides an in- termediate game-invitation bid of two, to identify strong hands where game is likely. if the responding hands hold a fair amount of as- sistance but which are not strong enough to require the partner, with practically a bust hand, to keep the bidding open.
 Now to clarify the subject furth- CT I'd to assist with the study of the official system, we will maRe a brief but comprehensive compar- ison of the official system with the approach-forcing system.
 ComparisI-i of the Two Systems.
 Opening suit bid of one: Mini- mum high card and probable trick requirements ar" approximately the same.
 Raises: Approximately the same except that the official system designates three small trumps or AK, Xxx, or QJ as neutral trump support. In other words, where Q partner has no other biddable suit, a singleton or a hand ob- viously unsound for i.o-trump, he may give one raise in his partner s suit on neutral trump support.
 Actually, all advanced players using the approach-forcing sys- tenn do this and ''ironclad" trump support rules are subordinated to card sense. Some current writers. however, have turned the normal trump requirements into manda- tory rule. which Is very mislead- ing to the general public.
 Take-cuts' Approximately the