Page 0032


QED Shuffling

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 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


  1. Issue 233
  2. Page 0002
  3. Page 0003
  4. Page 0004
  5. Page 0005
  6. Page 0006
  7. Page 0007
  8. Page 0008
  9. Page 0009
  10. Page 0010
  11. Page 0011
  12. Page 0012
  13. Page 0013
  14. Page 0014
  15. Page 0015
  16. Page 0016
  17. Page 0017
  18. Page 0018
  19. Page 0019
  20. Page 0020
  21. Page 0021
  22. Page 0022
  23. Page 0023
  24. Page 0024
  25. Page 0025
  26. Page 0026
  27. Page 0027
  28. Page 0028
  29. Page 0029
  30. Page 0030
  31. Page 0031
  32. Page 0032
  33. Page 0033
  34. Page 0034
  35. Page 0035
  36. Page 0036
  37. Page 0037
  38. Page 0038
  39. Page 0039
  40. Page 0040
  41. Page 0041
  42. Page 0042
  43. Page 0043
  44. Page 0044
  45. Page 0045
  46. Page 0046
  47. Page 0047
  48. Page 0048
  49. Page 0049
  50. Page 0050
  51. Page 0051
  52. Page 0052
  53. Page 0053
  54. Page 0054
  55. Page 0055
  56. Page 0056