Page 0031

The June 2011 Issue LETTERS TO THE

I VERY much enjoyed the 75th I HAVE just spent five minutes I WAS fascinated by Simon EDITOR

Anniversary edition of English with the June issue, which Cochemé’s article ‘The Lan-

Bridge, and appreciate the arrived today. Nothing in it I’ll guage of Bridge IV’ (English

effort that went into it. It was go back to, so it’s ready for the Bridge, June 2011), in which he

eye-opening and occasionally recycling bin. discusses bridge terminology

surprising, and some modern- Can I have my money back? from times gone by. I was sur- Send your letters to the Editor,

Elena Jeronimidis, 23 Erleigh Road,

day observations were insight- Steven Gibbs, by e-mail prised, though, when Simon Reading RG1 5LR, or e-mail

ful. The one thing that might said that ‘A’ (‘West’ in modern

have been missing was a good I THOROUGHLY enjoyed this terminology) was also known (please include your postal


historical perspective on that month’s magazine. as ‘Eldest Hand’.

The editor reserves the right to

year for bridge. It was barely Please do keep up the green As a child growing up in the

condense letters. Publication

ten years into Contract Bridge; ‘Did You know . . . ?’ boxes once late fifties, one of my most does not mean the EBU

it was largely played at home the celebrations have ended. trea s ured possessions was agrees with the views

as what we call ‘rubber’ bridge. Tim Greenhill, Billingshurst Hubert Phillips’s Book of Card expressed or that

the comments are factually

The big challenge of this new Games. Throughout the book correct.

variety of bridge was that A GREAT issue! My favourite the term ‘Eldest Hand’ was

games and slams had to be bid articles were those by Richard used in the description of a

as well as made. The great Fleet and Matt Betts. One small number of games including

minds of the day had to regret: Matt made no mention bridge. In each case I under- Oddity

grapple with methods of hand of the German long jumper stood it to be a generic term

evaluation combined with a Lutz Long’s advice to Jesse meaning, quite literally, the RECENTLY I played at the

bidding ‘system’ that would Owen to adjust his run up in hand that had been in exis- King’s Lynn Congress, using

enable a partnership to find the long jump quali fy ing. tence for longest – in other EBU dealt boards. In discus-

not only the best suit or no- Having had two foul jumps, words, the hand dealer dealt to sion over a beer with team-

trumps to play in, but also Owen did as Long suggested first. That would mean that in mates, we got to looking

make a good judgement as to and qualified for the final, bridge ‘Eldest Hand’ would carefully at the hand records.

whether a game or a slam which he won. (Hitler might always be the player sitting to There was comment about a

should be called. I think what not have appreciated Long’s dealer’s left. particular feature of the distri-

we see in the multitude of sportsmanship!) Keith Sheppard, butions. I have then kept an

bidding systems in use in 1936 Bob Rowlands, London Wokingham eye on the hand records for my

is different ideas still fighting club – Norfolk and Norwich –

it out for supremacy. But and seen a similar feature. I am

amongst those sys tems are no mathematician but from

surely all the essential ele - ‘feel’ the feature is odd and is

ments of modern bidding. way beyond what my unskilled

There are no-trump bids expectations would anticipate

show ing a range of point- – and I would like to have an

counts, forcing bids, doubles assurance from someone with

that are not intended for mathematical skills that what

penalty, an understanding of is occurring every time I exam-

the pre-emptive value of high ine the hand records is in fact

bids. within the boundaries of

So, in response to the senti- normal distributions.

ment expressed of ‘haven’t we So what is this oddity?

come a long way’, I would say Within five-card or longer

rather that they had come a suits, I find that there are four

long way. The pioneers we ‘consecutive’ cards of a five-

witness in 1936, doing things card block around 30-35% of

we might find even comical at READING the June edition of the magazine was of interest all five-card or longer suits.

times, were doing the hard to me, as my father is mentioned and he won the Gold Cup Just to clarify, (x-)x-6-5-3-2 or

work of finding out what in 1936; I can remember cleaning it! A-K-Q-J-x would count as

worked well and what didn’t I have a replica of the Gold Cup and a photo of the team four consecutive cards but

work so well. Their efforts (above) but only the names of Harry Ingram (my father, on 10-8-6-5-3 does not.

enabled others to refine their the far right) and Stan Hughes. Does someone know who the Can a mathematical expert

ideas into the robust and other two men are? Patricia Dry, Ferndown tell me that 30-35% is normal

effective bidding systems that The team was (from the left): Stan Hughes, Tommy Simmons, Herbert – or is there some oddity in

we take for granted today. We Newmark, and Harry Ingram. In 1936 they not only won the Gold Cup the dealing system that is in

owe them our gratitude. but were also selected en bloc for the European Championships. common use?

Mike Fisher, Woodbridge Roger Cortis, Norwich Ú August 2011 English Bridge 31


  1. Page 0001
  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