BRIDGE, AUCTION

as the game of bridge had succeeded whist among card players, so in turn, after 1908-10, did the first form of simple or straight bridge give way to auction bridge. even before 1908 it had been recognised that the great weak- ness of simple bridge was the restriction of the trump-making power to the dealer and his partner, and their inability to evade that privilege at will, a ruling which enforced the playing of too many poor hands and the forfeiture of too many good ones. hence arose the plan of putting up every hand to auction. the dealer must open the bidding; every player had a chance to buy the declaration, naming at each bid the suit which he desired to play, and this was sold to the highest bidder, or to his partner in the event of that partner being the first to name the final suit, in which case the second partner was considered merely as the raiser, not the bidder. bidding continued until three successive players had passed in licu of bidding, doubling or redoubling; any player might abandon his original suit and switch on to a new suit, to his partner’s suit or even to his adversary’s. the bidding having closed, the partner of the buyer became dummy, and the buyer’s left-hand adversary became the leader. at first the original suit values and ranks were retained as at straight bridge, but many vital changes were made. the rubber bonus was raised from 100 to 250. the adversaries of the buyer, hereafter called the declarant, were debarred from scoring points towards game, or below the line, taking their profits invariably in the honours column or above the line at 50a trick regardless of suit. the book for the declarant remained at six; over that he had to take as many tricks as he had bid. if he took more, he could score them all; if he took fewer, he could score nothing except for possible honours, his adversaries scoring 50 for each trick stolen from his contract. the book for the adversaries varied with the size of the bid, being always the number of tricks that the declarant dared to lose; it was determined by deducting the bid from seven; in a 2-bid the adverse book was 5, in a 3-bid 4, and so on. in a doubled hand the adversaries scored 100 for each trick over their book; in a redoubled hand 200. but if a declarant, who had been doubled, succeeded in keeping his contract, his trick points were doubled; he received a s50-point bonus in the honours column, and an addi- tional 50 points for every trick over contract. if he had re- doubled, each of these 50’s was raised to 100, and his trick points went to four times their normal value. doubling was restricted to one double for each side. changes in the game.—all these points remain in the game bridge, auction as played in 1926, but meanwhile the next move after 1910 was to change the suit values, as competition in bidding had proved that their discrepancy was too great, and had shown also that a good spade hand was invariably wasted. the dealer being still forced to bid, his solace on a poor hand was provided by spades at 2 a trick and a stop-loss of roo honour points, while good spades were to be bid as “ lilies ” or “‘ royals ” and at 9 a trick. the suits thus ranked: clubs 6, diamonds 7, hearts 8, royals 9 and no-trumps ro, with the merely nominal spade at 2. all went well until certain american players seized the chance to use the low spades as codes, telling their partners the exact make-up of their hands without assuming proper responsibility or risk. it was thus that the first “ false’ bids appeared. a system of high spade bids came into vogue in american play ranging from 2 to 7, inclusive, and forming a code; 6 spades, for instance, meant “ partner, take your choice between hearts and no trumps; i can play either.”” the point value being but 12, the partner was enabled to make a comparatively low bid with- out serious risk. though this became known temporarily as the american game about 1912-3, the sobriquet was really unfair to the majority of amcrican players. these false bids received no support in england and they were equally anathema to the majority of american players, though accepted by most of the contemporary american writers on the game. eventually, however, the system was killed and of necessity the game was re-made. spades at 2 vanished, and spades at 9 took the place of royals, the latter term disappearing. the dealer’s refuge in the case of a poor hand having been thus removed, the forced opening bid was also abolished. three suc- cessive passes still closed the bidding, except in the case of three opening passes, when the fourth player was still given his chance to bid. an entire hand might be thrown. it was thus that the game was played in 1926. variant games.—certain variants were experimented with during 1913-21, but without discstablishing the recognised game of auction. nullos were an early variant, their object being to destroy the undue advantage of high cards. the nullo player had to lose tricks on a poor hand, a much harder thing than to win them on a good one. the idea had long been discussed, but had been deemed impossible, as no player could contract to lose all the tricks while carrying an exposed dummy of whose make- up he knew nothing when bidding. miss f. irwin evolved the plan of allowing 6 safe tricks to the bidder of 1 nullo, 5 safe to the bidder of 2 nullos and so on. she became an ardent cham- pion of this difficult and scientific variant, collecting a large fol- lowing. but it was a losing fight; the nullo game was far too difficult for most people. another variant appeared in america under the name of pi- rate auction, but it never received any official recognition, and died almost before it lived. more support was given in some london and paris clubs to contract auction, of which the essen- tial point is that no more tricks can be scored toward game than the declarer has contracted to make, a special system of scoring, different from that of ordinary auction, being adopted; but it failed to penetrate beyond a limited circle. in amcrican play the method of false bidding was meanwhile revived under the form of a false double. in this system to double any low bid is not meant as a genuine double, but oper- ates as a code. the person who doubles a one-trick bid in any particular suit practically says, “‘ partner, i have a no-trumper except that i do not stop that suit. do you?”’, while the person who doubles one no-trump says, “ partner, i, too, have a no- trumper. bid 2 in your best suit, for i have general assistance.” laws of the game.—the american laws have always followed the english laws in substance, with one important exception. in england, the total of a bid must exceed the total of the pre- vious bid, or must equal it and contain more tricks; in america, it is merely necessary to equal it with more tricks, or to out-bid it in number of tricks regardless of total value. thus in 1925, in england, it was still necessary to bid 5 clubs (30) to out-bid 3 no-trumps (30) and 6 diamonds (42) to out-bid 4 spades (36); whereas in america, 4 clubs and 5 diamonds suffice. the amer- bridge, auction ican laws have also reduced the revoke penalty and abolished chicane as having no place in a bidding game; and they make a touched card in dummy a played card. | the laws of 7926.—in the spring of 1926 the american whist league appointed a committee to revise the laws and eliminate some of the defects of the existing system. the two most impor- tant changes are a different method of scoring honours and a new penalty for revoking. up to 1926, honours, that is, the ten, jack, queen, king and ace, had had different values for the four suits, the basis for that value being that of the trick. thus, for exam- ple, four club honours in one hand were worth 48 above the line, while the same holding in spades amounted to 72. the fault of this system was that a good minor suit in diamonds or clubs, was not played, while a poorer heart or spade hand was played for the sake of the score above the line. the new law gives all suits the same value for honours, making for more even bidding and, since they are scored in multiples of ten, greatly simplifying the scoring. the revoke laws had always been complicated and con- fusing. the law now stands that the sole penalty for the revoke, whether it be made by declarer or an adversary, is two tricks. there is no alternative point penalty as in the earlier system. these tricks are taken from those of the revoking side and count exactly as if they had been won in play. see alilton c. work, auction bridge complete with the 1926 rules (1926). (f.1.) developments in great britain the original laws of auction formulated by the portland club and bath club, london, followed closely on the laws of the old game, only such alterations being made as were necessitated by the new method of declaration. the values of the suits were the same as in bridge (spades 2, clubs 4, diamonds 6, hearts 8 and no-trumps 12). a brief experience of the game showed that the value of 12 given to the no-trumps bid restricted competition in the bidding and that the low values of spades and clubs (2 and 4 a trick respectively) practically prevented the holders of them from taking part in the bidding. from america was introduced the royal spade or lily idea which gave to the spade suit a double value and altered also the values of the suits, thus: spades 2, clubs 6, diamonds 7, hearts 8, royal spades 9 and no-trumps 10. the metropolitan club of new york and the somerset club of boston were responsible for its introduction. it was afterwards taken up by the racquet club of philadelphia and was finally adopted by the whist club of new york early in 1912. in the same year it was intro- duced into england where it rapidly became popular. after a comparatively short trial it was found that the double value of the spade suit had many inconveniences and, when the english laws were revised in 1914, the lower value was alxindoned alto- gether and the spade suit was given one value only, viz., nine points per trick. in the framing of the english laws the card com- mittee of the portland club had the co-operation of a represent- ative of each of the following clubs—baldwin, bath, st. james’, turf and white’s. the laws were finally approved and adopted by the committee of the portland club in may ro14. the revised method of scoring was soon adopted in amcrica and the whist club of new york framed a new law doing away with the lower value of the spade suit. changes in the laws.—after the publication of the english laws in may 1914, further experience of the game led to a de- mand for further revisions. it was realised that, just as the laws of bridge were merely the whist code revised, so the laws of auc- tion bridge were little more than the english laws of whist twice revised. some more drastic revision was demanded. in jan. 1924 the portland club issucd a new code of laws under its own authority, not calling into consultation any representative of the five clubs which co-operated in the framing of the laws of ror4. there were no drastic revisions. the new laws numbered roo as against 110 in the previous code. there were many verbal alterations. the term “ bid ” was substituted for “ declaration,” it being recognised that in auction bridge only the final bidder whose bid is accepted by the table, can be said to make a dec- laration. the meaning of the laws was in many cases made 435 clearer. they were re-arranged and an alphabetical] index was added. the american numerical count was rejected deliberately, but american precedent was followed in making all the cards rank in order of their suit values for cutting, and in the reduction of the revoke penalty from 150 points to 100 points. the amer- ican code of 1920 reduced the revoke penalty from 100 points to so or from 3 tricks to 2. an alteration of importance was making a pass rank as a bid. heretofore a player who said no bid out of turn was subject to no penalty. under the new law a player passing out of turn is liable to the same penaltics as a player making any other bid. legal bids were clearly defined and a new option given about an under call. further a player who looks at a trick which has been turned and quitted incurs a penalty of 50 points above the line for each offence. the new laws met on the whole with a good reception and were adopted by most clubs throughout the coun- try. in jan. 1925 the portland club issued an eighth edition of the laws bound up with cases and decisions which had reached them during the year. there were no less than 84 important decisions involving correct interpretations of the laws. when framing their revised code of laws of 1924 the portland club had before them the american whist club laws of 1920 which con- sisted of a code for the first time written for the game of auction. the american laws of 1920 have been again subjected to revision and a new code became effective in the united states in the spring of 1926. the existence of two distinct code laws in the bridge world is unfortunate. on the european continent for example, american laws are usually followed, while the english laws are not even universally accepted in british dominions. in canada, while both codes are used, the american is more popular as is the case also in india. in australia both codes are also in use, but the english is more widely played. apart from questions of law english theories and practice in xidding and play have been largely influenced by american prin- ciples during the 1o years 1915-25. in spite of vigorous opposi- tion the amcrican informatory doubling system was introduced and in 1925 the portland club, which was the stronghold of opposition, capitulated. the informatory double has now be- come part of the recognised english method of playing auction bridge, although all the variations of it practised in the united states have not yct been adopted. informatory bids—the two doubles of an informatory con- ventional character recognised in england are (a) the double of a no-trumps bid and (@) the double of a suit bid. the informa- tory double of a no-trumper applies only to a bid of “* one no- trumps ’—not two or more. the doubler should have consid- erable strength, at least four or five tricks, and probable support in either of the major suits. the partner of the doubler should take out the double into his longest suit, should no intervening bid have been made, even though the suit be only four, unless his hand is so strong that he can sce substantial penalties in icav- ing in the no-trumps bid. if the player on the left of the doubler, however, makes a bid the doubler’s partner is under no necessity to call and should not do so unless he has a very strong hand. the informatory double of a suit bid of one or two announces strength in the other three suits, but probably none in the suit that is doubled. the doubler tells his partner that no matter which of the three other suits he bids, he will find a helpful dum- my, while if he has two stops in the suit doubled he can go no- trumps, however weak the rest of his hand. the result of the procedure is frequently to make the player who has not got the no-trumper play the hand, and the advantage is that the first lead of the adverse suit comes up to instead of through him. this may make a no-trumper successful which would otherwise fail. the requirement for the double of a suit bid of one is that the doubler should have the three undoubled suits stopped and a hand containing better than average high cards. (a, 3. me bibliograpiy.—e. bergholt, royal auction bridge: the art ana practice (1918); a. e. manning foster, auction bridge table tatk (1gig9), anction \bridge variations (1923), auction bridge do's and 436 don'ts (1924) and auction bridge made clear (1924); a. d. elwell, new auction bridge (1920); ‘‘ yarborough,” royal auction bridge (1921); f. irwin, complete auction player (1922); m. c. work, auction bridge (1923); j. c. h. macbeth, conzimon sense in auction bridge (1924); k. f. foster, foster on auction (1924); “ bascale ” royal auction bridge (1924) and advanced auction bridge (1924). bridgeman, william clive (1864- ), british politi- clan, was born in london dec. 31 1864 and educated at eton and trinity college, cambridge. he was elected conservative member for the oswestry division of shropshire in 1906, and became a frequent speaker in the house of commons, especially on educational and agricultural questions. from 1911 he acted as an opposition whip. he was a junior lord of the treasury in the first coalition govt. and afterwards assistant director of the war trade department. under mr. lloyd george he became successively parliamentary secretary to the ministry of labour (1916) and of the board of trade (1919) and was secretary of the mines dept. (1920-2). in 1923 he became an ecclesiastical commissioner. in the conservative ministry of mr. bonar law and mr. baldwin he was home secretary. his action in ordering the deportation and internment in ireland of irish prisoners in england was declared illegal by the court of appeal, and an indemnity bill was passed for his protection. ilaving become, in nov. 1924, first lord of the admiralty in mr. baldwin’s sec- ond ministry, he revived the proposal for establishing a dock- yard at singapore. he represented the govt. in the abortive negotiations with the miners in the summer of 1025. bridgeport, conn., u.s.a. (see 4.532).—after the outbreak of the world war this city received large orders from the allics for firearms, ammunition and other articles, and within two years (1914-6) the population increased 40 to 50%. the con- gestion in dwellings, schools, streets and trolleys became serious and there were numerous strikes. before the end of the war, housing developments to provide for 2,000 families had been undertaken by the remington arms co., the u.s. housing corp. and a limited dividend company which was organised at the height of the demand. a city plan was prepared in 1916 and a vice commission made a thorough study in rgr5—6. after the armistice the industries readjusted themsclves to normal de- mands. the construction of schools and houses was able to over- take the increase in population. the general death-rate fell from 15-1 per 1,000 in rg10 to 10 or rr in 1923 and 1924; infant mortality from 110 (deaths under one year of age per 1,000 births) to 56-2. the federal census (1920) found the population to be 143,555, an increase of 4o-7% in the decade, of whom 46,782 were foreign-born. the value of manufactured products was $65,609,000 in 1909; $208,090,000 in 1919; $108,400,255 in 1921; $148,856,051 in 1923. the average number of wage-earners in the factories in the same years was 25,775; 42,862; 25,892; 33207.