THE MORALITY OF BRIDGE.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."1
Sra,—Will you permit me one meek word of protest against your remark (Spectator, November 21st, p. 844) that "it is not the game [bridge] but the gamble that most players care about" ? Whether or not there is any truth in the accusation as levelled against those who play at bridge, it is certainly unjustified as regards the vast majority of those who have any right to be called bridge-players. The accusation rankles, because many bridge-players, like myself, abominate gambling. I am sure that all moderately good players would agree with me that it is not from the chances of the game, the " gambling " element, that they derive their amusement ; that there is no comparison between the satisfaction given by the most lucrative " no-trumper "—a hand that can be played equally well by a novice and an expert— and the joy resulting from an odd triok won by some judicious coup, or by the skilful combination of the two hands. Nobody ever used to call whist gambling, and it is a moot point whether luck tells more at whist or at bridge. My own opinion is that there is more opening for skill in the older game, but better judges than myself take the opposite view. Perhaps, however, the columns of the Spectator are not available for so trivial a discussion. There- fore I will not argue the point ; I will only state our case. We may be frivolous, but we are not criminal. Regard us with contempt, if you like, but do not condemn us as immoral. Otherwise you will incur the risk of being rightly entitled
what I wrongly sign myself.—I am, Sir, &e., reckpurrir. [We confess to having -written hastily. There are no doubt plenty of bridge-players to whom `the game's the thing.' Unfortunately, however, this fine game of skill can be, and is, used as an excuse for gambling far more than ever whist was. For fear of misapprehension, let us say that we have no desire to condemn all playing of cards for money. The essence of gambling is excess, and that excess is, from every point of view, deplorable.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
