60 Years at the Deva Bridge Club.  Some Reminiscences
	By Charles R.Greenwood
	In case they are of any interest to anyone
	Ken Bostock and I joined the Deva Bridge Club in 1951/1952.  The club then had a total membership
	of about 30 and used to play Duplicate in two rooms on the third floor of an old house in Lower Bridge
	Street.  This venue would really delight some of today's Health and Safety officials.  For one thing, the
	only means of escape in the event of fire was a rope ladder which would be thrown out of a third floor
	sash window, and which was found during a test to end about eight feet above the ground.
	Fortunately, as far as I know, there was never an occasion to use it.
	Ken was a men's hairdresser in Chester at this time and in the course of his business, met Jim
	Harrison who was then Tournament Director at the Deva Bridge Club.  Inevitably at some point in
	their conversation, the subject of Bridge came up, with Jim of course saying "Why don't you join our
	Bridge club?"
	To describe our knowledge of Bridge at that time as rudimentary would be stretching things a bit.
	Ken and I had spent a couple of years playing with, and generally beating our less than enthusiastic
	wives, whom we cajoled into making a reluctant "four" on Saturday evenings.
	Having mastered the ability to finesse an ace/queen, we confidently decided that we were now
	qualified to join a club.  And so we joined the Deva.
	On introducing us to the club members at our debut, Jim Harrison, amongst his various quips was
	heard to say, "You want to watch this lot, they'll rook you rotten."
	Ken and I played a "system" which I had picked up piecemeal in Nissen huts and sergeants' messes
	during the war, and which we called "Culbertson" ( Our apologies to Ely Culbertson )
	This produced some puzzlement and head shaking when announced at the club.
	Our very first board was the subject of much comment.
	Our opponents were a very able and experienced couple. They bought the contract on the first board
	and I led the ace of clubs from A,K,x x.  The declarer then asked my partner "Does your partner lead
	ace from ace,king?"   Ken, with Jim Harrison's "warning" fresh in his mind, looked out from under his
	eyebrows and growled "Well, that'd be telling, would't it?."
	Declarer's partner, a lady well known in national Bridge circles of the day, tried to suppress a
	half smothered giggle whilst declarer, a similarly qualified but somewhat humourless Polish gentleman
	looked non-plussed and ended up shrugging his shoulders.
	Later that evening, as E/W we subsequently moved to a table in the second room where we were
	faced by two very scary ladies.  One was very overweight, overlapping her chair on both sides.(never
	in a million years would she have been able to use the "fire escape").  She waited imperiously, a
	whiskey at her elbow, while her partner, of even more intimidating aspect, held a pint of beer in one
	hand and was smoking a cigar.
	However, notwithstanding their intimidating presence, they were really quite kind to us, if a little
	patronising.  On the final board however, they managed to get all tangled up in their complicated
	bidding system and went 1100 down in a doubled slam.  Ken and I moved on in a glow of self
	congratulation and,- in ignorance of the mechanics of match point scoring,-  nursing a fond hope that
	this big score might win the night for us.
	In subsequent weeks, we learned that most of the club members played a system called "Acol",
	although a number of the "better" players were using a new fangled system they called "Nottingham
	Club".
	At the suggestion of various club members, we soon becme immersed in Reese's "The Acol System
	Today" and Ben Cohen and Rhoda Barrow's "Acol Without Tears", so that gradually we became
	accepted as passable Bridge players, joined the E.B.U.,treasured our master points and later proudly
	progressed through the ranks of Club Master, County Master and Master.  After adding a couple of
	stars, it eventually dawned on us that further progress up the master rankings would be possible only
	if we were prepared to travel the country in search of the precious "green" points. We did in fact make
	a couple of forays into this field. I seem to remember a round of the Gold Cup in Liverpool and some
	other event in S.Wales, but I found the atmosphere in such events a bit too tense, and I also felt that
	the behaviour of some players at some tables was less than courteous.  These experiences only
	confirmed my feelings that  I was not really interested in the wider competitive world of Bridge, and
	like quite a few club members, all I wanted was a good game of bridge once or twice a week, at a
	reasonable standard and in pleasant company, all of which the "Deva" provides with just the right degree
	of competition to provide a comfortable level of ego massaging.
	There was a somewhat more relaxed atmosphere in the club in those early days.  Only the grosser
	examples of ethical misbehaviour were really punished, and  a number of fairly extreme cases were
	simply regarded as funny in what seems in retrospect to be perhaps a greater tolerance for "Characters".
	For example, there was one lady who, whenever she was finessed through, invariably hesitated
	significantly when she did not hold the honour being finessed, and always followed promptly whenever
	she held the card.  The club members all knew all about this, and whenever they held a two way
	finesse, would first play through her, and if she played without hesitation they would finesse, but if she
	hesitated, they would go up with the master card and finesse back the other way.  It never failed and
	she never caught on.
	While on the subject of "characters" there comes to mind a certain lady of advanced age and
	dominating character who was noted for her fiery temperament and short fuse.
	I played against this lady and her partner on one occasion when I was playing the Blue Club System.
	On the first board, I opened 1C -  Alerted and explained by partner - 17 or more points
	Partner responded 1S. -  Alerted and explained by me - At least one ace and one king.
	After exploring for a slam, we ended up in 5S. ( on this deal I think I had 8 spades to the A,K,Q )
	On playing the hand, declarer showed out on the first round of trumps.  All Hell broke loose !
	"How could declarer in a trump contract be void in trumps etc. etc."  This lady didn't believe in
	tournament directors, she preferred to bully her opponents herself.
	We eventually got through the board more or less intact, but with our nerves a bit ragged.
	We then bought the contract on the second board, again after a further session of very conventional
	bidding, and in due course were subjected to another nerve shattering tirade about phony bids etc.
	On the final board, the lady herself became declarer and at one stage during the play she led from
	the wrong hand (to her advantage as it happens)
	And neither of us had the courage to tell her !!
	There is one further example I feel is worth the telling.
	At one point in an evening when a move was called, there was a considerable delay because some
	pairs, including Ken and I were somewhat late finishing the last hand.  As we were finally sitting down
	at the next table, the director suddenly shouted "Hold everything" and then proceeded to correct his
	earlier instruction "E/W move up one table"  to  "E/W move up two tables".
	When we all sat down at our new tables, the lady on my left opened 1D which was passed out.
	After the hand had been played, she said "We'd have been better in hearts partner".  Her partner
	said "But you didn't bid hearts", to which she replied "But I did the first time"
	Though I have said things were more relaxed, that is not to say there was no discipline.  The
	tournament directors of those days were all powerful and had much more freedom of action in the
	interpretation of the rules and in their judgement of what was a fair ruling.  Wilf Fearn was our tournament
	director for many years and his rule was at times almost draconian.  For example, there was a time
	under Wilf's rule when you had to be in attendance 15 minutes before the start of play or you would be
	locked out.
	In due course, the club changed its premises to Watergate House where we got a room which
	would accommodate 8 tables, then after about a year we managed to get an additional large room so
	that we could then play about 20 tables.  The club then advertised Bridge lessons and the result was
	an avalanche of pupils.  Lessons were held on two days a week with Wilf Fearn and Eric Dutton as
	tutors.  A fair proportion of the pupils eventually joined the club and within about a year, club membership
	topped 200 and has never looked back.
	I know it is axiomatic that as one gets older, remembered things get rosier, and this is probably
	true as I look back on "the old days" when the social aspects of the club prevailed over its competitive
	functions.  I remember with pleasure the friendly matches we used to have with neighbouring clubs
	like Rossett and Wrexham.  These were much more of a social occasion than are most Bridge
	events of today.  I remember also the Chester Congresses when we used to hire the Blossoms Hotel
	for events of 50 or more tables.  These congresses were always held in the summer and players
	would come from all over the North West, often booking into a hotel for the week-end.  We even used
	to run a well attended pre-Congress pairs event on the preceding Friday night.
	All that sort of thing gradually faded over the years as players became fixated on "green" points
	which were not available at such events, but were becoming more available at E.B.U. green point
	events which were gradually proliferating throughout the country.  The ethos of club bridge changed
	so that players would generally prefer to spend their playing time in a quest for green points in these
	events rather than as previously, in a pleasant Bridge weekend in Chester.
	One noticeable (and possibly laudable) difference between club Bridge then and now as I remember
	it, is the relatively rare occurrence nowadays of "psyches".  In the 50s and 60s psyching was very
	much in vogue.  You could not play a session with some players without knowing that at some time
	during the session, he/she would psyche. Let it be said that even in those days, attempting to "field"
	a psyche was considered a heinous offence and was heavily penalised
	Eventually an attempt was made to bring psyching under control by adopting the E.B.U.'s advice
	and instituting a "Psyche Book". If you committed a psyche, your name and your partner's name
	would go down in "the book" so that if you psyched too often, you would get a warning from the
	tournament director. In practice however, very few club members ever bothered to report a psyche so
	entries in the Deva psyche book were pretty sparse.  This brings to my mind a member of the club
	whose antipathy to psyching bordered on the pathological.  She would declaim loudly and frequently
	against psyches and psychers.  She was a regular partner to my wife who on one occasion, in a
	sudden inexplicable passing fit of summer madness, uncharacteristically decided to psyche against
	of all people, the tournament director. The upshot of it all was that the name of "Edna-" the dedicated
	crusader against psyches, was included amongst the very few names anyone had bothered to have
	entered in the psyche book.
	There was a number of players who achieved notoriety as habitual psychers, and for whom psyching
	seemed to be an almost irresistable temptation. Such was Paul Griffiths.  It is necessary for this tale
	that I mention his name, and I'm sure, wherever he is, he won't mind.  For some reason, a fairly good
	natured "thing" seems to have developed between Paul and myself whereby he would psyche against
	me on every possible occasion, while I would habitually ignore his bids and try to carry on regardless.
	There came one night when, a bit fed up with all this,  I decided to bite the biter and I psyched
	against Paul. As it turned out, this proved to be very effective in getting them into the wrong contract
	and when Paul's hand went down as dummy, his partner, a chap called Jeff Warren made his famous
	declaration, - "We've been done.  We've been out-Griffithed"
	For good or bad, so far as the Deva is concerned, the psyching habit seems largely to have died out
	with a new generation of players.
	Another very noticeable difference between the club now and as it used to be is in the number of
	married couples constituting partnerships in the club events.  I can remember a time when over 70%
	of the places at the tables were occupied by married couples.  Today, that proportion has fallen to the
	extent that the club flitch has been abandoned for lack of participants.  Nostalgically, I do miss the
	sound of marital warfare which was once a feature of club life.
	At the time I joined the Deva, there was no official alerting.  From almost universal usage however,
	a response of 2C to an opening of 1NT was accepted as Stayman, 4NT was ace asking and double,
	if partner had not bid was for takeout up to the three level.
	Some time round about the late 50s or early 60s, alerting was introduced, a good move and timely
	because artificial conventions were proliferating well beyond the generally accepted conventions
	indicated above.  This alerting took the form that the partner of a bidder was required to tap the table
	whenever his partner made a bid which had a conventional meaning.  This basically remained the
	procedure until the introduction of bidding boxes, ( another good innovation ) when the "Alert" card
	replaced the tap.
	In more recent years however,  there have been from time to time, periodic rashes of prohibitions
	and alerting modifications etc. emanating from the E.B.U. and culminating in the "Orange Book" with
	its multifarious rules and regulations, many of which are unknown to most ordinary players, but provide
	good hunting for the cardroom lawyers.
	I must say I do find some difficulty getting my head round some of the fairly recent and to me more
	illogical innovations such as that lower level "doubles" must be alerted only when they actually mean
	"double", and that three card minor openings and conventional bids of four or more must not be
	alerted.  Maybe its just the cussedness of age, or my looking back to a more carefree and less
	complicated time zone. Or maybe its just an ingrained predilection for logic.
	Sometime around 1990, Watergate House was put up for sale and our new landlords, who I suspect
	were not keen Bridge enthusiasts, proposed to put up our rent many times over, making it impossible
	for us to stay.  So, after a lot of good work and negotiation by certain club members, we came to our
	present premises.
	Shortly after this, we took our first steps in the computerisation of scoring and events by the adoption
	of some home produced programmes using a Commodore computer which was soon replaced and
	the programmes re-written to run on a P.C.  This was a great step forward in reducing the time taken
	in the matchpointing, totalling and collating of results and events, but was eventually replaced by the
	all embracing revolution in the computerisation of Bridge events which became available commercially
	and which in effect, does pretty well everything for you.  This is the up to date process with which the
	current membership is familiar.
	A few of our present club members will remember the times when all matchpointing and scoring
	was done "by hand."  It was the practice at the Deva to try to do all this at the end of play on the night.
	Consequently, when play had ended, you would see the tournament director and a small group of
	volunteers all busily matchpointing the individual score slips, recording the match points on the recap
	sheets, totalling them, then checking the totals and finally the grand total.
	Occasionally the grand total would not check, so the matchpointing on every score slip and the
	totals for each pair had to be rechecked until the error was found.  On occasion, an error would be so
	deeply hidden, the director would have to call a halt and take it all home to study and correct at his
	leisure.  This would also be the case when some irregularity necessitated creating percentages in
	order to arrive at the correct rankings.
	It would be interesting to know how many of our present club members could readily matchpoint
	a score slip.  Also, how long today would it take to score up an event "by hand".
	For Bridge enthusiasts, the invention of "Duplicate" was perfect in meeting the competitive instinct
	which lies in all of us, and the conception of the Master Point system was a stroke of genius which
	went straight to the heart of the human ego.
	Duplicate has this great attraction.  That for any event, any pair playing in a club, more or less
	regardless of their place in the club's hierarchy, if the gods favour them and they don't drop too many
	clangers, they can win on the night.
	However, players also know that skilful play on their part can greatly enhance their chances of
	winning.  So while you don't necessarily have to be the best players to win, yet at the same time you
	know that to play well may be decisive in getting you a win. Luck is a factor on the night whose
	dominance varies according to the make up of the field and to some extent the nature of the hands
	and can, especially in club bridge, play a significant and some times dominant role in deciding who
	wins on the night.
	Theoretically, the best players should always win at Duplicate, and probably would if the scoring
	was over a very large number of boards. However, in a typical night's Bridge at a club with only about
	24 boards in the session, the statistical and distributional quirks of the deals over such a small field,
	together with the wide variations in the playing skills of the competitors can have a decisive influence
	on the results.
	Nevertheless, the knowledge that on many occasions, skilful play can often prevail, is a sufficient
	prompt to the ego.  In the end however, although the odds certainly favour the stronger players, the
	fact is that if luck is with us, we are all in with a chance.  Generally speaking, the more often you play,
	the more often you will get the satisfaction of a win, and the more often you win, the more often you
	will collect those master points, if that is your aim.   Such is the appeal of Duplicate.
	Finally a word about our chief Tournament Directors.
	The character and running of a Bridge Club is greatly influenced by its chief Tournament Directors
	and during my span of membership, the Deva has had five:-  Jim Harrison,  Wilf Fearn,  Peter Webster,
	Glyn Ellis and currently John Dawe.
	Jim Harrison retired as T.D. shortly after my induction, so all I can say of him is that he was a very
	agreeable and likeable character.
	Wilf Fearn who succeeded Jim seems in retrospect to tower as a director.  Not prepared to suffer
	fools ( or anyone else for that matter ), he was nevertheless a knowledgeable and very effective
	Tournament Director.
	Having played as his partner in the Championship Pairs event for several years, I can say that
	although a formidable director, he was always most courteous and understanding as a partner.
	When Wilf retired from directing, the reins were taken up by Peter Webster who filled the role until
	he had to give it up due to outside pressure of work.  My outstanding memory of Peter in those days
	before computers, is the skill with which he could manipulate figures,  but mostly I think I remember
	him for an occasion when a fairly celebrated visitor was "slumming" at the club one night and was
	heard to make a derogatory and rather insulting remark about the directing.  Peter won my admiration
	by immediately ordering this revered player out of the club, and he had to leave forthwith taking the
	equally celebrated visitor he had brought with him.
	Peter Webster was succeeded by Glyn Ellis, who did a prodigious amount of work for many, many
	years, including the early moves to computerise the club's scoring and records.  On his retirement
	as T.D., he was made an honorary life member in recognition for all his services to the club.
	Our director at the time of writing is John W Dawe.  John is the man who, with the assistance and
	guidance of Fred Dixon, really pitched us into the I.T. age.  Largely on his initiative, the comprehensive
	range of equipment and software for the complete computerisation of the club was instituted.
	They were instrumental in establishing the Deva web site and John is the author of most of its contents
	which he updates almost on a daily basis.  Added to his other duties as T.D., this amounts to an awful
	lot of work.  It is to be hoped the club can find someone willing and able to take this on when John
	eventually decides to retire as T.D.
	John Dawe shares wirth Peter Webster the unwelcome distinction of having to expel a player from
	the club.  In John's case the offender was a former club president who had upset a lady by his use
	of very inappropriate language.  After several times refusing to apologise, past president or not,
	he was asked to leave.
	I have seen the Deva Bridge Club grow and mature over the last 60 years, and it is with some
	satisfaction I have seen it develop and gain recognition in the world of Bridge.  At the same time, as I
	look back, I cannot deny just a little bit of nostalgic regret that as the natural result of its growth and
	development, "The Club" has to a degree become fragmented, and in part is slanted away from its
	social function and more towards its function for competitive achievement. But that is the inevitable
	price of development.  That is how it is and time cannot be turned back.
	Charles R Greenwood
	Jul-11