Chapter 3

A very different case arises, however, when all the suits are stopped; the Dealer is then, the game being probable with either declaration, justified in bidding either the No-trump or the suit, as he may prefer, and the value of the honors he holds should be an important factor in guiding his decision. When he has more than five Spades or Hearts, the suit declaration is generally to be preferred, even with all suits stopped, unless the hand contain four Aces. A few examples follow:--

Spades Ace, King, Queen, X, X While this hand contains three Hearts Ace, Queen, X Aces, it is more apt to score Diamonds Ace, Knave, X, X game with Royals than without a Clubs X Trump. With the Spade and Club or Spade and Diamond suits transposed, it is a No-trumper.

Spades Ace, King, Queen, X Not having five Spades, this hand Hearts Ace, Queen, X, X is a No-trump bid. The fact that Diamonds Ace, Knave, X, X it contains a singleton is an Clubs X argument in favor of a suit declaration, but with only four Spades it is safer to risk the Clubs than long adverse Spades with one more trick required for game.

Spades Knave, Ten, X, X A No-trumper, as it has three Hearts Ace, Queen, Knave suits stopped and contains an Diamonds X Ace. A transposition of the Clubs Clubs King, Queen, Knave, X, X to Spades or Hearts would make it a Trump declaration.

Spades King, Queen, Knave, X, X Can be declared either Royals Hearts Ace, Queen or No-trump, as four suits are Diamonds Ace, X, X stopped and it has five strong Clubs Ace, Knave, X Spades. The 30 Aces as compared with 18 honors in Royals and the absence of a singleton make the No-trump more attractive. If, however, the Ten of Spades be substituted for a small Spade, the 72 honors would make it a Royal.

Spades King, Knave, X While the four Suits are stopped, Hearts King, Queen, Ten, X, X, X the length in Hearts makes the Diamonds Ace, X suit call the more advisable. Clubs Ace, X

Spades King, Queen, Ten The Diamond is tempting, as a Hearts King, Knave, Ten score of 56 honors is compared Diamonds Ace, King, Queen, Knave with possibly 30 adverse aces. Clubs King, Queen, Knave If, however, the three missing Aces be held by the adversaries, game cannot be scored in Diamonds, and a game is always worth more than 100. It is therefore a No-trump.

SUIT DECLARATIONS

For some reason the Dealer is more apt to make faulty suit bids than unwarranted No-trumpers. It seems as difficult for the old Whist and Bridge player as it is for the novice to realize that even excessive length does not justify an original suit call, unless the suit contain either the Ace or the King. It, also, is just as important to remember that if the suit does not contain _both_ the Ace and the King, the hand must in addition have at least one other honor in the suit named,[3] and one other sure trick. By "sure trick" in this connection is not meant merely a suit stopped, but a trick that can be won not later than the second round; in other words, either an Ace or a King and Queen, or King and Knave, of the same suit.

[3] While, as a general rule, to justify an original suit declaration, "one other honor" should accompany either Ace or King, it is not necessary to blindly follow such a requirement to an absurd extreme.

If the suit be headed by the Ace, either unusual length (six or more) or considerable strength in another suit (Ace and King, or Ace, Queen, Knave) would justify a call without "one other honor."

If, however, the suit be headed by the King, the presence of another honor is essential unless the length or additional strength be extraordinary.

Stating in another way the combination of high cards requisite for an original suit bid, it may be said that a suit should never be originally declared unless the hand contain two sure high-card tricks, one of which must be in the suit named. These sure high-card tricks must be either two Aces or their equivalent in value for trick-taking purposes. The reason is obvious. The declaration of a suit by an informatory bidder tells the partner, not only that the bidder is satisfied to have that hand played with the suit named as the Trump, but also that his holding will be helpful to the extent of at least two tricks, one of which is in his suit, should the declaration be shifted to No-trump. This is one of the simplest and most vital rules of bidding, yet it is probably the most frequently disregarded. Innumerable points have appeared in the adverse honor column because a partner has properly assumed that an original suit call showed the high-card strength just mentioned, only to find out too late that the bidder, with perhaps a couple of Kings, had yielded to the lure of length. Even at the risk of seeming repetition, it is necessary to be a little more explicit upon this subject.

When the Dealer bids a suit, he says: "Partner, I have great strength in this suit; it is probable that I have both the Ace and King, but if not, I have either the Ace or King, supported by at least one other honor,[4] and the Ace or the King and Queen, or King and Knave, of some other suit; you can bid No-trump or double any adverse declaration, positively assured that I will support you to the extent named."

[4] See footnote, page 31.

The holding in the suit which is declared, is vital. Take, for example, such a hand as Queen, Knave, and five small Hearts; and the Ace and King of Clubs. Of course, the Dealer wants to play this hand with Hearts as Trump, but he should not bid a Heart at the start, as he has not the Ace or King. The fact that he has both the Ace and King of Clubs does not justify a Heart call without either the Ace or King of Hearts. With the hand cited there will be plenty of time to bid Hearts later.

The rule which governs this case is the foundation of modern bidding; it is without exception, is not affected by the score, and is the most important of all Auction conventions.

Every player should resolve that, whatever his other shortcomings may be, he will treat it as a veritable law of the Medes and Persians, and that never, as Dealer, will he call a suit unless he hold the Ace or King of it, and the other requisite strength.

The combination of high cards above mentioned, however, is not in itself sufficient to justify a suit declaration. There must, in addition, be length in the suit. This is just as essential in Clubs or Diamonds as in Hearts or Royals. The partner may have great strength, and yet be unable to stop the adverse suit. A No-trump being thus eliminated, he, acting on the assurance given by the original call, may carry the suit to high figures. This is sure to prove disastrous, unless the original bidder has length as well as strength.

As a general rule, five is the minimum length with which a suit should be called, but with great strength, such as Ace, King, Knave; Ace, Queen, Knave; or King, Queen, Knave, in the suit, coupled with another Ace; or a King and Queen, a bid with a four-card combination may be ventured. A four-card suit, headed by Ace, King, Queen, may be called without other strength.

A short suit, that is, one of three cards or less, should never be bid originally, regardless of its strength. Even the holding of Ace, King, Queen, does not justify the naming of such a suit.

While the doctrine above enunciated as to the minimum strength required for a Trump bid is unquestionably logical and is now regarded as conventional by a very large proportion of the expert players of Auction, it is only natural that there should be some dissent. There is a certain character of mind that always desires to carry any sound theory to dangerous extremes, and, consequently, some players and writers have seen fit, while adopting the theory which has altered the old system of always starting with one Spade into the modern informatory game, to advocate extensions which would practically eliminate the defensive declaration.

These extremists desire to permit a Dealer to bid whenever he has a long suit, regardless of whether it be headed by high cards, and also whether it would aid a No-trump. One system suggested is that a Trump be called whenever the Dealer holds any suit which counts 7, on the basis of an Ace or face counting 2, and any lower card, 1. The believers in this doctrine would, therefore, bid a Club from such a hand as Queen, Knave, X, X, X, without any possibility of another trick; or even from Knave, X, X, X, X, X. The absurdity of this becomes obvious when it is remembered that the only real object in bidding a Club or Diamond is to show strength which will justify the partner in declaring one of the three game-going declarations. Any such holding as that mentioned not only does not help any other declaration, but as a matter of fact is a hand so far under the trick-taking average that, if any method could be devised by which weakness could be emphasized more strongly than by making the defensive declaration, such a hand would fully justify employing it. It is difficult to conceive what benefit can result to a partnership from any such weakness being, for the purpose of the declaration, changed into alleged strength. If a player declare with any such combination, his power to give information when he really possesses strength of course immediately ceases to exist, and the entire structure of informative bidding thereby drops to pieces.

The system of suit declarations above outlined, and upon which all that is hereinafter suggested in relation to bidding is based, must be followed by players who wish to give their partners accurate data, and while it may be tempting at times to depart from the conventional, the more frequently such exception is made by the Dealer in his bid, the more often does misunderstanding between the partners ensue.

VARIOUS IDEAS OF THE TWO SPADE BID

Every game of the Whist family has some point upon which experts disagree, and which, consequently, produces apparently interminable discussion.

In Auction, it is the two Spade bid, and no less than four recognized factions have widely divergent views concerning it. These views may be briefly stated as follows:--

(_a_) With the border-line No-trumpers now in vogue, a hand not strong enough to bid No-trump is too weak to warrant any call but one Spade. The two Spade bid is, therefore, useless and should never be made.

(_b_) The two Spade bid should be used as a No-trump invitation with any hand not quite strong enough to justify a No-trump call. Having this meaning it does not matter whether the hand contain any Spade strength.

(_c_) The two Spade bid should be used as a No-trump invitation, but must also give the additional information that the hand contains at least one trick in Spades.

(_d_) The two Spade bid should be used to tell the partner that the hand has the high-card strength to bid one Royal, but not sufficient length. It thus becomes either a No-trump or Royal invitation.

All these systems have their advocates, most of whom refuse to see merit in any plan but their own. It is only fair, however, before reaching a definite conclusion to accord to all a fair and dispassionate consideration.

(_a_)

The argument that, as long as light No-trumpers are conventional, any hand not sufficiently strong to call No-trump is too weak to justify declaring more than one Spade, has considerable force. Beyond question, many followers of plans "_b_" and "_c_" call two Spades when their holdings do not warrant such action, but the fact that a declaration is at times abused is far from being a sufficient reason for wiping it off the Auction map, and saying to those who desire to use it rationally, "No, because some players see fit to make this bid with two Knaves and a Queen, it is not safe to allow you the privilege of using it sanely, wisely, and at the appropriate time."

The supporters of "_a_," however, go further, and say that the hands in which a No-trump cannot be called, but with which the invitation should be extended to the partner to bid it, are so rare that the retention of the two Spade call merely encumbers the catalogue of the Declarer with a bid that is practically obsolete.

This, if it be true, would be most convincing, but it is so surprising a statement that it should be examined before being accepted.

Every hand that class "_d_" would bid two Spades would be similarly called by "_b_" and "_c_," and at least ninety-nine per cent. of expert Auction players concede that such a bid is sound. For example:--

Spades Ace, King, Knave Hearts X, X, X, X Diamonds X, X, X Clubs Ace, Queen, X

has strength which deserves, if possible, to be shown.

This is merely a sample of a hand which would be a Royal, if length in Spades accompanied the strength. Such hands come within the "_d_" classification, and are not rare. This must be admitted when it is considered that three- or four-card suits are much more frequently held than suits of greater length. Therefore, two Spades should be bid more often than one Royal. With the single exception of No-trump, Royals is the call most frequently played; consequently, as a preliminary call, two Spades must be used more constantly than any declaration, except No-trump.

Experience bears out this argument, and it, therefore, seems that the "_a_" allegations are not supported by examination.

It is obvious that the more original calls with which it is possible to equip a Dealer, the more accurately can he distinguish for the benefit of his partner between the different classes of holdings. It therefore seems absurd to contend that the bid of two spades should be eliminated.

(_b_)

The argument presented by the "_b_" school is also at first quite convincing. Take such a hand as

Spades X, X, X Hearts Ace, X, X Diamonds King, Knave, X Clubs Knave, X, X, X

It is just too weak for a No-trump, but at first glance seems too strong for a Spade.

Why, however, should it be too strong for a Spade? It is under the average, which means the holding of the partner must be quite a bit better than the average to get one odd. If he have such a hand he will declare it in any event, and the dealer can then help. Furthermore, this system does not point out any one suit as stopped, and, therefore, gives the minimum degree of information. It is practically saying, "I bid half a No-trump." It is quite doubtful whether the holding essential for such a bid can be properly limited and whether it will not tempt bidding with too great weakness.

Furthermore, it must be taken out. The Third Hand cannot allow his partner to play two Spades, and if he be weak, all he can do under this system is to call three Spades, which only makes matters worse, as it is sure to be doubled, and the dealer must in turn take that out. To do this with the hand above cited, he must either call two Clubs with four to a Knave, or one Diamond with three to the King, Knave.

The trouble is evident--the result apt to be unfortunate. If the partner with average strength accept such a No-trump invitation, the contract cannot be fulfilled; while if he be strong, he will bid in any event, so where is the advantage of the call?

For one purpose, however, this system of bid seems sound. If the dealer be a poor player and the Third Hand an expert, it is for the benefit of the partnership that the Third Hand be the Declarer. When the Dealer holds a real No-trumper, but wishes his partner to become the Declarer, the two Spade,--not invitation, but command,--has real merit, but as few players either concede their own inferiority or are willing to allow their partners to play a majority of the hands, this apparent argument in favor of the plan will not appeal to many, and will, therefore, seldom prove of service.

(_c_)

This comes nearer being logical, as it shows one Spade trick, and, therefore, indicates help for a partner's Royal, but with that exception, it is subject to the same objections as "_b_." It is troublesome to take out, and when compared with "_d_" gives extremely limited information.

It may, however, be of distinct advantage for a player who does not approve of light No-trumpers. Followers of the theory that the call of one No-trump means four or five sure tricks will certainly find "_c_" or even "_b_" an advantageous system, but the advantage of "getting to the No-trump first" is so manifest that the light declarations have become generally popular, and but few of the "I-will-not-declare-unless-I-have-the-'goods'" bidders are now to be found.

If a player believe in calling No-trump with the minimum strength now considered sufficient, he has little use for either "_b_" or "_c_."

It is self-evident that "_c_" cannot be used as often as "_b_," so the Declarer who likes always to say something will prefer "_b_," but the bidder who wishes, when he calls, to have distinct value attached to his announcement, will elect in favor of "_c_" rather than "_b_," and for the same reason will find "_d_" the best system of all.

(_d_)

It is toward this system that the evolution of modern bidding is turning. True, two Spades cannot be declared as frequently when "_d_" is used as when "_b_" or "_c_" is employed, but the "_d_" bid conveys information so comprehensive and important that one call is of greater value than several "_b_" or "_c_" bids, which, at best, furnish the partner with indefinite data.

It makes the weakness take-out of the partner, namely, one Royal, easy and logical, and in every way seems the soundest, safest, simplest, and most conducive to game-winning of all the plans suggested.

It invites equally the two most important declarations, makes easy the position of the partner when he holds long, weak Spades, and is doubtless destined, in a short time, to be the only two-Spade system in use, unless it be found advisable to include in the repertory of the original declarer both "_b_" and "_d_."

This can be readily accomplished by calling two Spades for "_b_"; three Spades for "_d_"; and four Spades for the combination hereinafter given, for which the declaration of three Spades is suggested.

No serious objection can be advanced to this plan, except that it is somewhat complicated, and for a light No-trump bidder, possibly unnecessary. It is a totally new idea, but believed to be of sufficient value to entitle it to a trial.

As it is impossible to declare or play intelligently when any doubt exists between partners regarding the convention employed, and as it is wise not to follow unsound theories, no further reference will be made to "_a_," "_b_," or "_c_" plans. The "_d_" system will be fully described, and all suggestions that hereinafter appear will be based upon the supposition that it is being used.

THE TWO SPADE BID[5]

The bid of two Spades is a showing of Spade strength, with a hand which does not contain Spade length sufficient to justify the bid of one Royal.

[5] See page 89, as to how the partner should treat this declaration; also table on pages 68 and 69.

The latter is the more advantageous declaration, and should be made whenever five Spades with the requisite high-card strength are held. When, however, the hand contains the strength, but not the length, for a Royal call, the bid of two Spades is a most useful substitute.

It may be made with three or four Spades in any case in which, with five, one Royal could be declared, except the solitary instance of holding Ace and King of Spades without another trick of any kind. A Royal may be called with five, headed by Ace, King, as, should the bid stand, the three small Trumps would surely take one trick. Every original offensive declaration is based upon a minimum of three tricks. This principle applies to the bid of two Spades, and, therefore, a hand containing less than five Spades, headed by Ace, King, and no other winning card, is a one Spade call, as it is one and one-quarter tricks below the average.

When a player bids two Spades, he sends his partner a message which gives information about as follows: "I have three or four Spades with two or three high honors, and in addition, unless I have Ace, King, and Queen of Spades, I have one other suit well stopped. My hand does not warrant a No-trump, because I have only two suits stopped. As I have not more than four Spades, I do not wish to bid a Royal; I am too strong to be satisfied with one Spade, so I bid two for the purpose of encouraging you to call No-trump or Royals."

Such a declaration certainly gives very accurate information, and should be used whenever such a hand occurs, but not under any other circumstances.

THE THREE SPADE BID[6]

The declaration of three Spades by the Dealer is a very recent idea and is also most informatory. It says: "Partner, I am anxious to have Royals the Trump, but I cannot make that declaration now, as I have not the requisite high cards. I probably have not the Ace of Spades, and the chances are that I am without the King also. Either because the balance of my hand is so strong that I fear I will be left in with one Spade, or for some other reason, I do not wish to open with the defensive declaration and wait for a later round to show strength. You can count on me for five or more (probably more) Spades and other strength."

[6] See page 90, as to how the partner should treat this declaration.

WHEN TO BID TWO IN EITHER ROYALS OR HEARTS

Another case to consider in bidding by the Dealer is when more than one of any game-scoring suit should be declared.

The original theory of declaration was to withhold from the table as long as possible all information regarding the strength of the hand; therefore, to start with one in the real suit was regarded as most unwise, and to bid two would have been deemed the act of a lunatic.

Now, however, the original suit declaration of more than one is generally acknowledged to be an important part of the finesse of the skilled bidder, and such bidding, when justified by the hand, is recognized as eminently wise and proper.

When the "two" and "three" original Trump bids first came into vogue, they were used indiscriminately with great length, regardless of whether or not high cards headed the suit. The meaning of the bid was "Do not take me out," and it was made under widely divergent conditions. No distinction was drawn between a hand which might be trickless as an aid to, or defense against, a No-trump declaration, and one which would produce seven or eight tricks under such circumstances. This kind of bidding was found to be much too confusing for the partner, and prevented him from rendering intelligent support.