Bridge in USA in 2188

by David Stevenson

In the USA on the 30th of February, 2188, the computers show us that 1 was raised to 2 on 12,371 occasions in "simulated" Bridge tournaments. [They are called "simulated" to distinguish them from "real" Bridge tournaments which are of course played completely by computer and you never see partner/opponents/TD/AC: of course even in "simulated" the bids were still entered into the computer: "simulated" tournaments died out early in the 23rd century.] The computers show that the bid was slow on 4,872 occasions. The TD was called on 815 occasions. Game was reached and made on 472 out of the 815 occasions and the computer decided that pass (over 2) was a logical alternative on 386 out of the 472 occasions. 2 was passed and eight tricks were made on 85 out of the 815 occasions and the computer decided that bidding over 2 was a logical alternative on 49 out of the 85 occasions. The remaining occasions were deemed to be irrelevant.

In the 521 occasions where the final contract could have been affected by UI the computer applied the Willner rule of 1998: "Where there is more than one possibility as to the reason for a hesitation or the like no conclusion may be reached and no adjustment may be considered."

4 pairs appealed to the AC (Appeals Computer). Since the computer decided the Willner rule was clear and well known these appeals were deemed to be without merit so all eight players were shot dead.

One person argued that 2 was more likely to be strong than weak (as the statistics suggested). He is in hiding and is being sought by the Bridge police. "There is no point in hiding" said the police spokesman. "Castration is the worst thing that is likely to happen to him: he probably won't even be suspended from a single tournament."

So what happened to the opponents? In the 386 occasions that the UI might have led to the 4 contract, no fewer than four would have led to the pairs concerned winning their particular tournament. One pair would have gone on a two year round the world tour: they came second and won a week in Detroit. [Third place won a month in Detroit.] One pair would have won a house (each) in Florida but they will now have to be satisfied with a left shoe each (next month they can play for the right shoe). One pair did not really mind: who wants to be President anyway they said bravely. Custer and Smyth were duly executed for murder: the pardon was only given for first place in each direction.

This was of course unlucky but as everyone in the USA knows the victims are of no importance: at least none of the pairs who hesitated were treated unfairly. As Steinbrigger said, after the ruling in his favour against Custer and Smyth, "The Willner rule made sure that we got that pardon not Hennessey and Bradley, which is obviously fair". Who can disagree with that?

Editor's note:

• If you want to comment on this article, why not write direct to David Stevenson?
• I shall be pleased to hear from you!

Last article	Bridge menu	Main index	Top of article	Local menu	Next article