Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-01-14

~ with Jacoby.
who had not
Sidney y LEM played my system
until he played with me, lost an av-
erage of 1908 points per session:
with Comdr Liggett. who was my
mariner the very first time trleo oue
the l-2-3 system, my average eau,
every session we played was l,3lo
u ,oi,,{s The readers reaction to this
ap.o+en,ent is natural one: why
didn't YOU play with Liggett at the
start9" NV only reply is that, after l
wae challenged by Culbertson, oswald
Iecobv was the first person to ask me
~ accent him as a partner. | had
cveTv confidence in him at that time,
ord still have Given the same cards
that Jacoby and l held, there Is no
assurance that would have Jared any
better with Liggett,
Distribution Was Factor.
The distribution of the cards was
the guiding factor and by this 40 noV
necessarily mean the aces and kings.
Tn the 150 rubbers We played, the quick
trick values held by Culbertson were
over 200 more than were held by my
mariners and myself. Even this was not
On IInsurmountable handicap, but the
location of certain cards at CRITICAL
times were fatal. A queen with my
right hand adversary would result IN
winning a rubber, while the contract
would be defeated II it were on my LETT.
rubber won or lost is worth about
600 points, so it requires very lew
distributional breaks to make up S,sSo
points. -
We played S7s deals-a matter OF
45,7O8 cards. Holding exactly the same
cards that we did. switch OF only SIX
cards from one adversary's hand to the
other would have been sufficient to WIN
this match. Naturally, the shifting
process must take place where 1t VIII
do the most good, but It clearly Illus
trates the potential value Of favorable
distribution at critical moments.
Official System Natural.
There was little to choose between
the two bidding systems, except that
the l-2-3 official system was natural,
logical and simple. The approach-forc :
ing SYSTEM features an opening bid OF
two in suit as an absolute demand tnat
the bidding be kept open. This BID was
employed twice in 20 sessions OF pay.
Once it terminated in small slam
declaration, which was made, and the
SeCOIO LlIIt IL wac uoCN SiiS
was defeated three tricks. At all other
times, except the few pre-emptive bios
that were made, bid Of one was USED
and there was no way OF knowing
whether 1t was minimum bid or one
that would land the game with the
slightest aid from the partner.
On my system, a great numoer OF
two bids showed strong game posslDln-
ties without forcing the partner 70
respond With trickless hands. the
three bid, which Is the forcing bid IN
this system, occurred very little oftener
than in the other system, but 1t was
always at hand when an absolute force
was required.
The thinking player will readily I'M
derstand how unreasonable 1t would be
to give up this useful, intermediate
two-bid for two-bid that can be used
by good players but once in every 10
evenings of play.
Penalty insufficient.
One thing that was brought out by
this match was the insufficiency OF
penalty allowances for sets on un-
vulnerable hands. The idea Of large
penalties when side Is vulnerable is
intended to give the under-dog chance
to catch up. 1t does not actually work
that way. A side holds all the cards
for three consecutive rubbers, the
losers not scoring one point or even
making a bid. On the fourth rubber,
the luck changes Bit and game is
won by the other side. With an
opportunity to win rubber on the
next deal, the unvulnerable side over
bids and saves the rubber at compare
lively small penalty. I believe the
cho,11I no {nnreaead when not
vulnerable. even If the contract is not
doubled Many psychic bids were made
and doubled, whereupon the "psy-
cheers" escaped in other bids that
could be defeated for hardly enough
points to Offset the probable loss OF
game. 1t would seem that 400 points
would not be too much OF penalty Tor
the fourth trick of a defeated contract,
even If undoubled and not vulnerable.
This would be the greatest damper on
psychic bids that could be devised.
On deal No. 842, this hand appeared
LEM.
SIX 81
H.-K 10 43
do 4 3
CA
CULBERTSON. MRS. CULBERTSON.
S.-A @ 10 3 Sd
H.-Q H.-97s2
D-A Qs75 D.
CO Go rs Il
LIGGETT.
$500
H.-A 8 S
DIX J8
C.-K J 95
The bidding:
SOUTH. WEST. NORTH. EAST.
no tr. Double 2 hearts Pass
Pass 2spades 3hearts Pass
Pass diamonds Pass Pass
Pass
200 Offered to Be Partners.
North and South were a game in and
80 points on the second game. Lig-
gets opening bid was rather weak and
he could not be expected to reb1d. l
did not double the bid of four dia-
mondS, as I was anxious to have my
partner give me an assisting bid, If pos
sible. The contract was defeated four
tricks, an inadequate penalty of 200
points. OF course, we could not have
made four hearts, but with more equit-
able penalty allowances we probably
.~~
[ e! /. OBJ
IRTLING &
: