LETTERS CONTINUED from page 31
IN issue 231, p32, David Bird ALL methods of hand shuffling
writes: ‘A general guideline is to tend to produce too flat hands.
Send your letters to the Editor,
Elena Jeronimidis, 23 Erleigh Road,
The Debate bid no-trumps as soon as
possible.’ This is news to me.
This is why duplimated boards
appear not to be properly
Reading RG1 5LR, or e-mail I play Acol, where one nor- shuffled. Of course it is the
firstname.lastname@example.org WHEN the bridge playing mally bids four-card suits from hands dealt at the table that
(please include your postal
ability of women versus men the lowest upwards, so after are not properly shuffled.
The editor reserves the right to
was first suggested as a topic for 1®, I’d bid 1t. If partner now You can check how badly
condense letters. Publication does ‘the Debate’, I was horrified bids 1™, we have found the fit you shuffle, without becoming
not mean the EBU agrees with the that, in these supposed enlight- in hearts. If partner now bids a bore, by asking your oppo-
views expressed or that ened times with legislation that 1´, I know (s)he hasn’t four nents how many cards are in
the comments are factually correct.
recognises the equality of the hearts, and I can bid 1NT, their longest suit, and if they
sexes, someone should actually which also shows I don’t have have a singleton or void.
raise this. I hate generalisations, four spades. If partner bids In 100 hands you should
Moan so, on this occasion, I have 1NT, I know (s)he hasn’t four find:
decided to abstain. Further- hearts or four spades, but has 4 cards 35.08%
WE had our mixed pairs cham- more, I had resolved not to read 15 or more points, and I can 5 cards 47.89%
pionship at the club last Friday. the arguments put forward but raise no-trumps. If partner bids 6 cards 17.87%
Despite playing well through- then decided perhaps I should 2®, now I can bid 2NT. If all others 4.03%
out, my partner and I only before commenting. I find I partner raises my diamonds singletons 30.77%
came fourth, which rather fully endorse the positive views (showing four diamonds and voids 5.08%
surprised me until I looked expressed by both Ian Payn and not more than three cards in Of course a single set will only
more closely at the results. Frances Hinden, and hope this either major), I can now bid approximate to this. When I
Sitting East-West until the final matter can now be laid to rest. 2NT, showing my point count tried it, seventeen were too flat,
round, for which there was an Bridge is a wonderful game and that my diamonds aren’t and only three too long suited.
arrow switch, we played that people can enjoy playing at brilliant, and it’s now up to Doubling the shuffling time
twenty-seven boards scoring all levels regardless of their partner to decide on the final will make things much better,
59.26%. gender and that, I feel, is what contract. but for a truly random set, you
The winners were a North- really matters. All very logical. should use computer dealt
South pair scoring 65.1%. Michael Gwilliam, Fareham Peter Calviou, Amersham deals – such as Duplimate.
Second were a North-South They are more fun to play.
pair scoring 60.65%. NO contest – whatever argu- Sandra Landy (see August ‘Debate’) David Haig-Thomas,
Third were a North-South ment could be made for the would disagree . . . J Clacton-On-Sea
pair scoring 60.19%. women, Mr Payn didn’t make
The bottom four pairs all it. Even his final point was
played East-West, scoring
39.35%, 37.85%, 37.5% and
hopeless, bigging up Auken –
Von Arnim (who are one of the
The Debate continued
36.46%. great women’s pairs). A perusal WITH reference to the Dec- defence took all thirteen tricks.
Something tells me there is of Sabine Auken’s I Love This ember Debate, many years ago Mentioning this to Sarah
something wrong about the Game would show that they I played in the National Men’s Teshome, she said: ‘Oh, yes, I
scoring methodology. If I’m have given up trying to qualify Teams. This was run in parallel made the “man’s bid” of 3NT
right, and with modern tech- for the German open team. with the Women’s Teams. I as well, but I made the con-
nology, couldn’t a different, Bill March, Hartlepool picked up: tract. LHO led ™A and another
perhaps more equitable, way be ´ Qx ™ Kx t Qx ® AKQJ10xx. heart. I ran the clubs, and the
found of scoring? For example, I RARELY write to the media, RHO (Chris Jagger) opened defenders dis carded wrongly
after a first pass through of the but on this occasion was so 1™ and I made the ‘man’s bid’ in the end game.’
results would it not be fairer for annoyed that I felt obliged to of 3NT, passed out. So, the indisputable proof is
those pairs in the bottom half do so. The latest debate was LHO declined to lead his there. Women bid the same,
to have their results removed deeply offensive. Surely nowa- partner’s suit and they cashed are better declarers, but worse
with the top half having their days sexist arguments like this nine tricks in spades and dia- defenders. Oh, but they’re a lot
results reworked to give a new are completely out of order, monds before leading a heart luckier, so they come out
ranking? tasteless and inappropriate. through my king up to dum- winners.
I’m not saying it would have It is not even remotely amus- my’s J-x. I misguessed and the Bill Townsend, Leeds r
altered Friday’s results – 65.1% ing to argue such a proposi-
is a big score – but there must tion. I think that an apology is
be occasions when a few players due to bridge players of both THE DECEMBER DEBATE
adversely affect the results of genders. Thank you for your votes and comments. This time,
the top few. Ian Murray-Watson, there were lots of comments . . . but no votes!
Alan Bailey, by e-mail Peterchurch
32 English Bridge February 2011 www.ebu.co.uk