A lot of players on the Zone object to the Crawford Rule. This states that when one player is within one point of winning the match, the other player may not double in the next game only.

The Crawford Rule was invented in the 1930's by Johnny Crawford, one of the best (and most egotistical) bridge players of all time.

Some players think it is unfair that they cannot double, even when their position is very strong. I thought I'd try to explain the rationale behind this. Consider the three possibilities when one player is at match point:



Permit no doubling Permit unlimited doubling Permit no doubling for one game only.

Consider the effect of the first rule. It would make it virtually impossible to come back from a large deficit. Now consider the second. You are playing a 7-point match and have taken a 6-1 lead. You won your 6 points out of 7 "the hard way." Now, for the rest of the match, your opponent has a free ride. He can double with impunity, with no cost.

The Crawford Rule is the third option. It is essentially a compromise between the first two.

Let's consider what the actual effect of the Crawford Rule is. Remember, that you should double anytime you can when you are trailing and your opponent is at match point.

When your opponent needs an odd number of points as you are going into the Crawford game, the Crawford Rule really doesn't matter much. Say the score is 4-2, to 5. If you could double and did, the score after the game would be 4-4 if you win; if you can't double it will be 4-3 and you'll double in the next game. In either case, you need to win one more game. (Of course, if you win a gammon in the Crawford game it will indeed matter.)

When your opponent needs an even number of points, then the Crawford Rule matters a lot. In effect, it means your opponent needs to win an extra game. Allowing for the effect of gammons, it means your opponent's chances of winning the match are reduced by about 40% - that is, if he would have been 20% otherwise to win, he's really about 12%.

Essentially, then, half the time the Crawford Rule matters only when the trailer wins a single game, half the time it matters only when he wins a gammon. It probably reduces the trailer's chances of winning the match by about 25%.

Really, there is only one other option, which would be to permit a double only when it's a legitimate double. But that is a clearly ridiculous idea. What do you do, have a committee decide when a player is good enough to double?

So just think of the Crawford rule as a reasonable compromise. The doubling cube gives a huge advantage to the player who's trailing in the match. The Crawford Rule just evens it out a bit.

As I mentioned, Crawford was a superb bridge player (he holds the record for most national championships won), with an ego to match. A story is told about Crawford. A bridge player approached him with a bridge hand to ask him what bid he would make, and Crawford said "First, tell me who my partner is." "It doesn't matter" said the friend, but Crawford refused to answer the question. Finally the friend said "OK, assume it's another Johnny Crawford."

Crawford then insisted on knowing who his two opponents were. Again the friend protested that it was irrelevant but Crawford would not relent; the friend finally said "OK, your opponents are two more Johnny Crawfords." Crawford, without even hearing the hand, said "Well, this couldn't happen - I wouldn't play in that game, it's too strong."