CULBERTSON-LENZ
- BRIDGE MATCH
The Bridge Battle of the
Century as it was called when it took place
between December 1931 and January 1932, was a
genuine milestone in the history of the
development and promotion of bridge as it is
known today. Combining as it did every feature
designed to capture and hold the interest of the
then bridge-mad multitudes, and starring the
greatest celebrities then prominent in bridge, it
was predestined to be an exciting and
long-remembered event. These were the years when
bridge was making its impact felt keenly in the
United States for the first lime.
During the previous
decade, many new styles of bidding and play had
come to the forefront, and most prominent among
these was the CULBERTSON SYSTEM. Conceived and
popularized by a man who was a born molder of
opinions and customs, and who was a superbly able
practical psychologist as well, the Culbertson
System took the nation by storm, and was indeed
original in concept and, as practiced by its
leading exponents, a successful and highly
practical method of bidding in bridge. Naturally
its success caused many rivalries and feuds among
those players who were at the very top rungs of
the bridge ability ladder. This resulted in a
strange war, a Systemic War in which 12 leading
authorities. including Sidney Lenz, Milton Work,
Wilbur C. Whitehead and Edward V Shepad, got
together and organized a corporation, Bridge
Headquarters, all forces joined to combat
Culbertson's domination of Contract Bridge.
The principal leader of
the various groups in opposition to the
Culbertson methods was Lenz, a veteran of Auction
Bridge. In his camp were other great luminaries
of the game who also felt that their methods were
superior to the Culbertson System. The name by
which the Lenz forces' system was called was the
Official System. A book on this system, which
acknowledged its debt to Culbertson in that much
of it was derived from his concepts, was later to
be written by Work. Thc actual match was the
result of a challenge made earlier in 1931 by
Culbertson to the Lenz faction. There were many
complications to be ironed out before agreement
as to conditions could actually be achieved, but
essentially the match was finally played on a
pair-against-pair basis, with Culbertson wagering
$5,000 against Lenz’s $1,000 on the outcome,
with the money going to charity no matter who
won. Culbertson promoted the match as the
struggle of a young loving married couple against
the forces of adversity with 12 jealous
authorities, the establishment, combined against
them. Of course it was also billed as a grudge
fight and a battle of systems. As a result the
match was a topic of conversation at every bridge
table and at many dinner tables long before it
began. In all, 150 rubbers were played, and
during 88 of them Culbertson played with his
wife, Josephine. His partners for the balance of
the encounter were Theodore A. Lightner, Waldemar
Von Zedtwitz, Howard Schenken, and Michael
Gottlieb.
Lenz played the first
103 rubbers with Oswald Jacoby, who then resigned
because of a difference of opinion on the play of
a defensive situation. Lenz's partner for the
remainder of the session was Commander Winfield
Liggett Jr. Alfred Gruenther, then a lieutenant
instructor at West Point, was chief referee of
the match.
The Culbertson team won
by 8,980 points. Careful and accurate records of
cards held for each deal were kept, and at the
conclusion it was determined that each side had
held fairly much the same number of high cards as
the other. The first half of the match was held
at New York's Chatham Hotel, and the second part
at the newly opened Waldorf-Astoria. The
conditions of play and of protocol in general
were governed by an agreement to which both
Culbertson and Lenz were signatory, and the
bridge laws under which the match was conducted
were those published by the Whist Club of New
York.
| Bridge Match |
|
Culbertson
|
|
Lenz
|
| Points Won |
|
122,925
|
|
113,945
|
| Rubbers Won |
|
77
|
|
73
|
| Number of
two-game rubbers |
|
37
|
|
32
|
| Size of average
rubber won |
|
934
|
|
866
|
| Largest rubber
won |
|
2,590
|
|
2,825
|
| Games |
|
195
|
|
186
|
| Small Slams bid
and made |
|
9
|
|
8
|
Small Slams
defeated
(not including sacrifices) |
|
9
|
|
5
|
| Grand Slams
defeated |
|
0
|
|
1
|
| Opening Suit bids
of one |
|
366
|
|
289
|
| Opening 1 No
Trump bids |
|
43
|
|
45
|
| Opening forcing
bids |
|
5
|
|
5
|
Small Slams made
but not bid
(many owing to lucky breaks) |
|
20
|
|
19
|
Games made but
not bid
(many owing to lucky breaks) |
|
15
|
|
13
|
| Successful
Contracts |
|
273
|
|
273
|
| Defeated
Contracts |
|
142
|
|
162
|
Number of exact
game Contract
voluntarily bid and defeated |
|
48
|
|
49
|
| Number of
Penalties of 600 plus |
|
7
|
|
14
|
| Points lost in
Penalties of 600 plus |
|
5,900
|
|
11,500
|
| Aces |
|
1,745
|
|
1,771
|
| Kings |
|
1,775
|
|
1,771
|
| Honor Tricks |
|
3,649
|
|
3,648
|
| Points (4-3-2-1) |
|
18,091
|
|
17,898
|
| Value of average
rubber: |
|
899 |
| Hands dealt: |
|
879 |
| Hands passed
out: |
|
25 |
Coverage by the press of
the nation was stupendous. Stories about the
match were on the front pages of newspapers all
over America. Regular correspondents were
dispatched to the scenes of play, and some of the
great newspaper personalities of the time wrote
articles for their papers and for syndicates. The
Associated Press laid heavy cables right into the
Culbertson apartment at the Chatham Hotel,
assigned reporters to the match and gave
play-by-play coverage while Western Union and
Postal Telegraph established branches in a spare
room.
A continuous line of the
rich and famous moved into the drawing room and
out of it, viewing the action through cracks in a
large leather screen, and trying to catch a
glimpse of the players' faces or the flash of a
card being played. Culbertson called it the
greatest peep show in history. A 438-page book,
Famous Hands of The Culbertson-Lenz Match, was
published in three sections with bidding and play
analyzed by Culbertson and his partners, Jacoby,
and Lt. Gruenther. Complete statistics were
collated, and records of every phase of the match
carefully kept. However, the single most
significant feature of the entire proceedings was
the enormous impetus it gave bridge when the
game's popularity was already great.
|
bridgeFILES
