the subheads of Dealer,Second Hand, etc., this will be considered more thoroughly, and it is referred to at this time only for the purpose of pointing out that informatory bids from short suits containing high cards are no longer included in the vocabulary of the Declarer.

Another difference between the old and the present game is worthy of notice. In the old game a marked distinction was drawn between the color of the suits in the make-up of a No-trumper, it being more important that the black suits should be guarded than the red. Using the Bridge count, the adversaries, if strong in the red suits, were apt to bid, but the black suits, by reason of their low valuation, frequently could not be called. Black was, consequently, the natural lead against a No-trump, and therefore, required more protection.

Now, as every suit can be named with practically equal effectiveness, the color distinction has ceased to exist. The original leader, when No-trump has been declared, no longer attempts to guess his partner's strength by starting with a black suit, in preference to a red; and in bidding one No-trump, strength in one color is just as valuable as in the other.

When Auction was first played in England, it was believed that the deal was a disadvantage, that the Declarer should disguise his hand as long as possible and use every expedient to force his adversary to be the first to show real strength. This doctrine has been found to be ridiculous. The premium of 250 for winning the rubber is a bonus well worth having, and the player who, when his cards justify a bid, unduly postpones his declaration, belongs to an antiquated and almost extinct school.

It is now conceded that the best results are obtained by that character of bidding which gives the partner the most immediate and accurate information regarding the strength of the Declarer.

There are still the "old fogies" who preach that, as there are two opponents and only one partner, all information is doubly advantageous to the adversary. This "moss-covered" idea was advanced concerning the play in Whist and Bridge, but experience proved it fallacious. In Auction, its folly is apparent, not only in the matter of the play, but even more surely when applied to the bidding.

A moment's consideration causes the realization that the declaration would become an easy task if the exact composition of the partner's hand were known; it should, therefore, be the aim of the bidder to simplify the next call of his partner by describing his own cards as accurately as possible.

True it is that the deceptive bidder at times succeeds in duping some confiding or inexperienced adversary and thereby achieves a temporary triumph of which he loves to boast. For every such coup, however, he loses many conventional opportunities, frequently gets into trouble, and keeps his partner in a continual state of nervous unrest, entirely inimical to the exercise of sound judgment. Nevertheless, the erratic one rarely realizes this. He gives his deceptive play the credit for his winning whenever he holds cards with which it is impossible for him to lose, but characterizes as "hard luck" the hundreds that his adversaries tally in their honor columns by reason of his antics, and is oblivious of the opportunities to win games which he allows to slip from his grasp.

The difference between informative and deceptive bidding is shown in the harmony of a partnership. When the former is practised, the pair pull together; the latter results in misunderstandings and disputes.

It must not be understood, however, that the ability to give accurate information comprises the entire skill of the bidder. It is most important that he possess the judgment which enables him to force the adversary into dangerous waters without getting beyond his own depth.

It is no excuse for a player who has led his partner on to their mutual destruction to murmur, "I could have made my bid." An early bid being allowed to become the final declaration is exceptional. Whether or not it could be made is, therefore, immaterial, but the result it may produce is vital.

In club circles the story is told of the player of experience, who, after he had been deceived by his partner's declaration, said: "Partner, if you were reading the paper to a stranger, you would not vary a word of even an unimportant item. Why, then, should you, in describing your thirteen cards, deliberately misinform a trusting partner?"

Another exploded idea is that an advantage can be obtained by so-called "misleading" or "trap" bidding. There are some players who imagine that, by calling one Spade with an excellent hand, they can induce the adversaries to believe that the bidder possesses a trickless combination, and as a result, some ridiculous declaration will follow, which will give an opportunity for a profitable double. Experience has shown that in practice this idea does not produce satisfactory results. Adversaries will not bid to a point where they are apt to be doubled, except in the face of competition. When the Dealer has called one Spade, his partner, unless he hold very strong cards, will not materially elevate the declaration. If both partners have strength, it is not probable that the adversaries can do much bidding, so that it is only in the unusual case, and against the inexperienced and unskilled, that such a scheme is apt to prove successful. On the other hand, it transfers the advantage of being the first to show strength and abuses the confidence of the partner. It is a tool which should be employed only by the Declarer of ripe experience, and he will limit its use to the unusual hand.

The bidder should remember that part of the finesse of the game, when partners vary considerably in their respective skill, is to so arrange the declaration that the stronger player is at the helm most of the time. A weak player with a strong partner should not jump with undue haste into a No-trump, Royal, or Heart declaration; but rather, wait for the partner, and then back up his call. The weak player should also hesitate before taking away his partner's bid, although of course, there are many situations which thoroughly justify it, regardless of the greatest difference in the skill of the players.

The objection to the game of Auction which makes it the subject of the most severe criticism is the possibility that improper information may be conveyed to the partner by the manner of making the bid.

After starting to bid, by using the word "one" or "two" there should never be any hesitation, as that tells the partner that there is more than one call under consideration. The same comment applies to hesitation when it is evident to the partner that it must be caused by a doubt whether or not to double, and the opportunity so to do still remains with him. An extended delay in passing or bidding one Spade also conveys an obvious suggestion. It goes without saying that no honorable partner would avail himself of such information. Being the unwilling recipient of it, however, places him in an awkward position, as he must cross-examine himself as to whether any questionable bid or double he contemplates is in any way encouraged by it. If he have even a scintilla of doubt, he must pass.

A few principles of bidding applicable to all conditions may be stated at the beginning of the consideration of the subject.

Adopt informatory and conservative methods.

A good player may bid higher than a poor one.

When your partner fails to assist your bid, do not count on him for more strength than a Dealer who has bid one Spade.

Any overbid of an adversary shows strength; an overbid of a partner who has declared No-trump may show weakness.

Overbidding a partner who has declared Royals or Hearts shows weakness in his suit.

Being without a suit, or holding a singleton, is an element of strength for a Trump declaration; of weakness for a No-trumper.

When, if you do not bid, the adversary will be left in with a declaration with which he