Evening star., 1932-01-09

ten of contract bidding The score
per rubber is thus 2,2<5 points.
Again last night, as in the last three
with 8 majority of the aces and kings
and also with the favors of distribution.
In all 879 hands were played in this
historic match. When this Is con-
trasted with the so or 40 hands which
have determined championship tests,
the fairness of this test of systems is
conclusively demonstrated
The last hand, as a matter Of history,
was played by me, and it was an un-
usual hand, one Of those freaks which,
like rare comet in the armament,
gravitates on the outermost bounds Of
distribution.
Misses Point of Contest.
I had letter today from friend in
Seattle who complained because I had
stressed in my articles the superiority
OF approach-forcing system, while CIV
ing credit TO the skill Of players Of my
opponents
My Seattle friend in his letter missed
the point Of this contest The only
reason that it was played was to test
the comparative methods of the ap-
proach-forcing and official systems OF
contract bidding. II that question were
not in issue, the match would not have
been played, and If did not believe in
the superiority Of the approach-forcing
system over any other system of con-
tract bidding l would not have been
a participant in this match. These $50
rubbers Of contract bridge, then, were
played to test the merits of the two
systems, and I maintain that it is fair
argument to present the strength and
the weaknesses of the systems as de-
veloped in the acid test of play. 1t is
neither poor craftsmanship nor Is 1t
braggadocio to emphasize these points.
Lem Had Choice.
Lenz had the opportunity to play
this match at duplicate with team
of four and at odds of 10 to l instead
Of odds of 5 to l which were offered
in the pair match. The match would
then have been much shorter, but for
reasons satisfactory to Lenz he pre-
ferred the pair match to that Of the
team-of-four. The result was a Cruel
ing contest covering 81 sessions in
which nearly 900 hands were dealt.
When play started last night We were
in the lead by s,77o points, although
our opponents had held 3,5011a honor
tricks, as against $500 honor tricks
held by us. The blind fates which
determine distribution had been more
than passing kind to them. They had
held 1,708 aces and l $40 kings, as COM
pared with 1868 aces and 1,706 kings
held by us, and yet despite the buffet
ings Of high cards and unfavorable
distribution we had won "a rubberS, as
against 10 rubbers for LenZ and his
partners, and had maintained a lead
Of 877o points
The by-product of this match is the
fact that deserving charity, the New
York Infirmary for Women and Chill
drcn, Is the richer tonight for $1,000, the
stake put up by LenZ and also for
sum, the exact amount of which I do
not know, perhaps somewhat unwill-
whom I wagered $500 in the coin of
the realm.
Winnings to Charity.
assume that every one knows that
in no sense whatever did I directly
profit from this match. I offered to
wager, but only with the thought that
whatever money should accrue to me
from 1t would go to worthy cause.
When play started last night two dia-
metrically opposite forces were at work
Lenz and Liggett were torn between the
desire to bid slam, grand or small, and
the fear Of penalties that would make
our lead even more commanding. On
the other hand, we represented the con-
servative element. / suggested to my
favorite partner, my wife, that we re-
frain from bidding altogether and that
our only conversation at the bridge table
be that most eloquent of all bids, Pass"
But in this. as In many other matters,
she overruled me and insisted that we
play our regular game.
My favorite partner had an opportu
nifty to display the soundness and bril-