Talk:Auction bridge

Errors and Omissions
The article states that dealer is required to make an opening bid, but that isn’t entirely true. It was true when the game was first developed from bridge-whist, but the rules evolved dramatically during the Auction Bridge era until, when Contract Bridge was devised, the rules of Auction were entirely retained but only the scoring was changed.

For evidence of this, I have found two editions of a reference work called ‘Complete Auction Bridge’ using a google search. The 1911 edition includes the rule that dealer is required to make the first bid, and in fact dedicates an entire chapter to dealer’s options and strategy for his opening bid, but the 1922 edition of the same book makes clear this rule is gone, and dealer may pass and anyone may make an opening bid, or the hand may be passed out. Both of these editions include the complete laws of the game that were in effect at the time of publication.

Another fundamental change that occurred during this same time period is the rank of suits. In 1911, the highest rank is hearts, followed by diamonds, then clubs, then spades. By 1922 the ranking had changed to what we know today. Also, the auction made a crucial change, from scoring value to number of odd tricks being the determinant of which bids outrank which other bids. I have not researched this enough as yet, but my understanding is that the auction calls were ranked by trick scoring values, and major suits so radically outranked the minors that in some cases a lower number might outbid a higher, depending on suit. So a 3-heart bid might overcall 4-spades, for example, because spades was the lowest minor and hearts were the highest major. Then as now, no-trump outranked all suits.

The 1922 edition is especially fun to read if you play bridge, because it is so interesting to see how much of the bidding strategy has changed, yet how much it has stayed the same. You can read about the earliest versions of things like forcing bids, weakness bids, takeouts and penalty doubles, bearing in mind that bidding to game or slam was not necessary to winning a game or slam.

I’m going to look for more sources and eventually make edits to this article. Auction Bridge was quite a dynamic game during its era, and we should include some of its history in this article. Berberry (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Developed
Where was it developed? Why is a reference to 500 relevant?? Jagdfeld 10:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Difference from contract bridge
The description of this is very unclear. What does it mean? Use of the word "score" twice is part of the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.129.235 (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Image
I propose replacing the image of the bidding box with this image of bridge players:

This painting ("The Bridge Players" by George C. Aid) is dated "before 1914", and so the game being played in it could be either Auction or Bridge Whist. Even with that uncertainty, it seems a more appropriate choice to me than the definitely anachronistic bidding box (even with the carefully phrased caption). If no objections are registered, I will make this change in two months or so. JBritnell (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hellespont on Bridge
I have a copy of Hellespont on Bridge published by De La Rue, London 1901. "Hellespont" (pseud.) covers both "dummy bridge" (p34), passing the option to dealer's partner (p9/10), and the possibility of the defenders doubling (p10/11). De La Rue were makers of cards, and important publishers and supporters of all forms of bridge. What this shows is that the main items of Auction Bridge were probably played in London by 1900. Hellespont does not write as if these were suggestions, but as if they were (to him) present-day actualities. The central point, that the number of tricks in the contract does not have to be specified in order to count bonuses, is present throughout. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)