Contract Bridge
Contract Bridge for All. By A. E. Manning-Foster. (Ernest Berth, Ltd. 3s. 6d.) Contract Bridge and its Development from Auction. By Basil Dalton, M.A. (The Richards Press, Ltd. 2s.) MR. MANNING-FOSTER agrees with Mr. Sidney Lenz that the " worst drawback to Contract is the premium it gives to the expert player." Another school of thought holds exactly the opposite view, but in any case is a game to_ be damned
just because experts play it better than non-experts and reap a commensurate harvest ? Is it only in Contract that experts arc at an advantage ? The same objections and the same gloomy predictions preceded the change from Whist to Bridge and from Bridge to Auction, and we may expect that our insularity will have to capitulate before a game which has conquered the Continent and the Americas.
Of another recent book on Contract we have said that it was altogether too mathematical, quick tricks being reduced to almost decimal values : of the two books under review we are inclined to think that not enough is made of mathematical valuation, and particularly in the case of " No Trumps " a strict quantitative basis of declaration is of vital importance. Mr. Dalton's book need not detain us long. Its grotesque style with its devastating jocularity and well-worn cliches makes it sufficiently formidable to deter the average reader, and it is not a little curious that an author with so few pre- tensions to style should go out of his way to criticize Mr. Foster on a point of style. His summary of Mr. Lenz's summary of Demand Bids is good, but our main criticism is that Mr. Dalton does not sufficiently appreciate the difference between Auction and Contract, and is too apt to draw unsound analogies between the two.
Mr. Manning-Foster's book deserves more space that we have at our disposal, but we can recommend it as a lucid and concise exposition of Contract. His list of Don'ts should be memorised by all novices. We doubt whether the convention
demanding a response from partner, whether he has anything or not, will long survive (the Index, by the way, is deficient in Demand Bids), any more than will most of the arbitrary conventions now being played in America. On the other hand, Mr. Manning-Foster appears to be too conservative when he says that an initial bid of " Two No Trumps " can be
supported without an Ace "provided you have help in three suits." Less cautiously he suggests that an initial bid of " Two No Trumps " is possible with only three suits guarded,
which is dangerous advice to give. A two-bid in a suit is not necessarily a slam invitation, but definitely a game invitation,
which may lead to a slam.
The author rightly emphasizes the necessity for third hand to have unusual strength -before declaring, but he might with advantage have made it clear that third hand has to be stronger than fourth : the latter may reasonably expect an equal distribu- tion of cards between the other three hands, whereas third hand must anticipate the weight of cards sitting over him. Taking
Mr. Milton Work's system of valuation, we find that whereas first and second hands can call " No Trump" on 12, third hand's holding should count 17 for One No Trump " and fourth hand's 15.
In a game which is still in its experimental stages criticism on point§ of detail is easy and differences of opinion may be argued without the attainment of any tangible conclusion. There are so many factors to be taken into consideration and some of them are beyond scientific control. Criticism, therefore, does not imply condemnation but should be regarded as a warning that, even though Mr. Foster's book is a very good one, the last word has not yet been written on the subject, and it may need a great deal of revision within the next twelve months.