Bridge--how good is it really?
Patronius
try another. Here's a question for anyone who cares to voice an opinion:)
Contract Bridge has been all the rage in the card-playing world for generations
now. To many, it's *the* card game. What do you think--is its reputation well
deserved? Is Bridge the best card game in the world? Why, or why not?
--P. C.
(remove "55" from address to send E-mail)
Mergle29ub
For some reason, at least in my experience,
very few people play Bridge here in the Buffalo
area. Maybe I'm wrong, but...
Most people here play Euchre or Pinochle.
I hear a lot about Euchre tournaments here,
but never bridge.
Five Hundred, the other trick-taking game,
is supposed to be similar to bridge...I guess you
could call it a combination of Euchre,
Auction Pinochle, and Bridge. I like the
game, but know no one else who plays that,
either.
I see some of the syndicated Goren-based tips
in the newspaper, and the articles always seem
to have a snooty air to them...I don't know if
I'd call the bidding in bridge any more scientific
or difficult than Oh Hell or 500. The only thing
that makes it intricate are the 'semi-crossboarding'
jump-bids and 'semi-mandatory' call-bids that
bridge players have evolved. To me, it doesn't
sound earthshattering.
And as for the play, hey, it's a trick taking game.
Just like any other. I think Hearts has the greatest
variation in play because you may change strategies
right in the middle of the game. (Take All, cut throating)
Oh Hell is second, because once your limit is reached you
must lose tricks. Or lose a lot of them on purpose.
Games like bridge, 500, pinochle, spades, and Euchre
are all similar because all you try to do is win as many tricks
as you can. Big deal. :^)
Just my opinion....
William Priester Jr.
Buffalo, NY USA
sear
is a 'clue' for someone else. I prefer pinochle.. not too hard for a newbie to
learn and you don't have to be a pro to enjoy it. btw.. any other pinochle players
in here? :)
diane
Kelson
Kelson
Kevin Weiss
little thinking involved. In fact, much of "the play" following melding is
a simple matter of thoughtlessly following the rules. For a truly
thought-provoking, challenging game, I would personally recommend bridge.
It's much better than euchre, which is based more on the draw of the cards
than anything else, especially with only 5 cards being dealt to each player,
as opposed to an entire poker deck in Bridge.
Kelson wrote in message <01be0fe0$0cbdaa40$07fddfd1@vanyel>...
sear
forced to play to win you can force people to do all sorts of things.. :) i did
like bridge, but the bidding part got to me. If i have to read an entire book
(or 2.. or 3.. ) on the bidding process its too complicated.. i play more for
fun than anything else.
btw.. im new here (i posted the other day for my first time) and i like playing
pinochle (double deck 4 and 5 man), spades, hearts, cribbage, and almost every
other card game. even whist! we call whist the game you play while waiting for
the other players to show up..hehe anyway.. im a 26 year old female from the usa
(seattle washington to be exact)
glad i could join the group :)
Kevin Weiss
sear wrote in message <364FDB07...@jps.net>...
Bo Bernvill
I've tried bridge but it didn't do much for me...
Maybe I'm not smart enough... :-) I could think
of a dozen card games that I'd prefer...
I agree with Diane that when learning a game
involves too much reading it's not that much
fun anymore...
I prefer a game that combines luck with thinking,
and also a game that doesn't get you stuck with
the same partner all night... With a game like
Tarock, Schafkopf or Nomination Whist your
game night is given more variation as you may,
at the end of it, have teamed up with all three of
the players at various deals... And I don't understand
why it would be a better game just because a larger
amount of cards is used...
bb
>
Bill Taylor
and game-theoretically. Probably it is the only card game that could be so
called, though perhaps poker might be added, if it's called a card game;
(I tend to agree with the fellow who said there was no real "cardy" element
in it, cards being essentially just a framework for bluff-gambling).
Why is bridge so predominant among card games?
IMHO the answer is obvious - the PARTNERSHIP element. Sure, other
games have "partners", but essentially these are mainly just people
being on the same team - there's usually little if any information
theoretic content to it.
In bridge, defensive co-operation is subtle, informed, and extensive.
No other game seems to have developed this feature, though others such
as 500 could well have done. They simply haven't.
But of course, it is in the bidding that the true information-theoretic
value of having a partnership appears. No other game has anything even
REMOTELY approaching the auction stage of bridge, with its vast scope
for exchange of information under opposition pressure.
Unless and until another game appears with this feature, bridge will
be unique among card games, and indeed games in general.
There is a sense, though, in which it can't possibly be "the best game",
in that it could be substantially *improved* in very obvious ways:-
Minors and majors being on the same footing, for a start.
A scoring system that doesn't reward overtricks as at pairs, thus removing
a lot of the "safety-play" element of bridge - one of its key features.
A rationalized scoring system in toto.
A decent approach to the whole area of "unauthorized information",
"partnership declarations", "secret agreements" (re psychs),
"hesistations" etc. This is a complete mess at present,
and probably the single feature most off-putting to learners.
No good posting this on rec.games.bridge, though - one thing experts
usually LOATHE considering is ANY change to their own game!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Taylor W.Ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last words of Edward II: "That Roger Mortimer is a pain in the AAAAAARRGHH!!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark S. Bassett
happens to use cards, then I think I can summarise my dislike of
Bridge by saying that often it appears to be a game of auctions and
bidding conventions that also just happens to use cards.
Bill Taylor wrote:
> But of course, it is in the bidding that the true information-theoretic
> value of having a partnership appears. No other game has anything even
> REMOTELY approaching the auction stage of bridge, with its vast scope
> for exchange of information under opposition pressure.
>
And the good side and the bad side of this is that many bids are quite
unnatural. (Bridge players would say "conventional" !) I have this
nagging feeling that a bid to win seven tricks with clubs as trumps
should mean just that, not "Partner, please tell me as much as possible
about your hand, using the system of artificial bidding conventions we
agreed on earlier".
And there is the weird feature that the opposing team are always
entitled
to ask what your artificial bids really mean, so you're not actually
keeping anything secret from them; you're just using a very contrived
system to find out how many Aces your partner has, do they have a good
heart suit, and so on.
It's very information-theoretical I agree, but it does seem to me to
be just that, information theory and nothing else. The connection with
card-play appears tangential at best..
I wouldn't think of anything of Bridge at all, if it weren't for it's
one great feature that, oddly, Bill Taylor didn't even mention!
In Bridge the declarer gets to play *two* hands of cards, her own and
her
partner's (dummy), which is placed face up on the table where everyone
can see it.
The card-play possibilities this introduces are unique to Bridge (as
far as I know) and lead to some great play. The "squeeze play" whereby
you
deliberately force an opponent to discard one of their winning cards,
can't be performed in any other game. Tactics such as finessing and
trump management are also a lot sharper in Bridge. And the defending
team
have a much more interesting challenge because they can see half of the
attackers cards in plain view!
Obviously Bill Taylor and I have different tastes when it comes to
card games, but I can't quite get over my aesthetic dislike of Bridge's
bidding. Fortunately I have games like Tarock/Tarot and Ninety-Nine
to fall back on, and one day the inspiration for a perfect "dummy"-
style card game will come to me (!)
Regards,
Mark Bassett
Nick Wedd
<ma...@iisc.co.uk> writes
> I have this
>nagging feeling that a bid to win seven tricks with clubs as trumps
>should mean just that, not "Partner, please tell me as much as possible
>about your hand, using the system of artificial bidding conventions we
>agreed on earlier".
You and you partner are allowed to play like that if you prefer.
< snip >
>Obviously Bill Taylor and I have different tastes when it comes to
>card games, but I can't quite get over my aesthetic dislike of Bridge's
>bidding. Fortunately I have games like Tarock/Tarot and Ninety-Nine
>to fall back on, and one day the inspiration for a perfect "dummy"-
>style card game will come to me (!)
When you refer to "Tarock/Tarot", which game do you mean? There can be
plenty of the information-theoretical stuff which you dislike in
Hungarian tarokk. A declaration of "four kings" there does not mean "I
expect our side to capture four kings", but "I hold the highest trump
(other than the 21 and Skíz) whose position is not yet known".
I believe that such conventions are likely to arise in any partnership
card game which allows bidding. Our group already has some conventions
which we use in Mü.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Bo Bernvill
one great feature that, oddly, Bill Taylor didn't even mention!
In Bridge the declarer gets to play *two* hands of cards, her own and
her partner's (dummy), which is placed face up on the table where everyone
can see it.
The card-play possibilities this introduces are unique to Bridge (as
far as I know) and lead to some great play.
Actually this feature also appears in Russian Prefence (3 players),
where the two opponents to the highest bidder, decide whether to play or
not. If only one of the opponents decides to play, he also plays with the
other
opponent's cards, both players having their cards open on the table for the
declarer to see...
bb
Mark S. Bassett
> Actually this feature also appears in Russian Prefence (3 players),
Thanks for the tip! I shall look out the rules of this game
immediately.
Regards,
Mark Bassett
Mark S. Bassett
> When you refer to "Tarock/Tarot", which game do you mean?
Tapp Tarock (3 players) and French Tarot (four players).
Both thse games have bidding, and then the defenders are
in temporary partnership against the declarer.
Regards,
Mark Bassett
Bo Bernvill
> Thanks for the tip! I shall look out the rules of this game
> immediately.
You'll find one variant (the so called Leningrad) at
http://www.stanford.edu/~lauer/preference.html
You can also find a PC game (of the Sochi variant)
(in Russian) at
http://www.marriage.ru/soft.htm
bb
John McLeod
The bidding in both these games is fairly primitive, but the play in
French Tarot has been developed to a level similar to Bridge, including
artificial signals such as attaching a meaning to whether an odd or an
even card is played. French Tarot is also one of the few games other
than Bridge which is commonly played in duplicate tournaments.
As Nick Wedd said somewhere in this thread, Illustrated Hungarian Tarokk
has artificial bidding and announcement conventions. I would not claim
that they are as advanced as those in Bridge, but it does have the added
interest that you do not initially know which of the other players is
your partner. See my new Illustrated Hungarian Tarokk page at
http://www.pagat.com/tarot/illusztr.html and the example deals at
http://www.pagat.com/tarot/ihtex.html if you are interested to know how
this works.
--
John McLeod For information on card games visit
jo...@pagat.demon.co.uk http://www.pagat.com/
Christian Joachim Hartmann
mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote:
>Bridge is undoubtedly one of the world's great games, both socially
>and game-theoretically. Probably it is the only card game that could be so
I'd like to offer some thought on this topic.
>Why is bridge so predominant among card games?
>
>IMHO the answer is obvious - the PARTNERSHIP element. Sure, other
>games have "partners", but essentially these are mainly just people
>being on the same team - there's usually little if any information
>theoretic content to it.
>In bridge, defensive co-operation is subtle, informed, and extensive.
This I understand least. As has been already noted in this thread,
there are other games which involve intricate partnership play.
Indeed, most card games are partnership games and for most of them
it is crucial for the partners to play _together_ to win.
And this is achieved by deriving information from the play of the other
players.
As example, Skat comes to mind, at least to my mind.
Of course, Skat isn't a real partnership game, only the defenders playing
in a temporary partnership, but those two _do_ exchange information about
their hands through conventional leads.
As has been mentioned too, the 'informational theory' _in_play_ was
inherited by Bridge _in_full_ from its precursor Whist.
Many other games have got this co-operative element between partners,
some may've developed it according to the model of Whist.
>But of course, it is in the bidding that the true information-theoretic
>value of having a partnership appears. No other game has anything even
>REMOTELY approaching the auction stage of bridge, with its vast scope
>for exchange of information under opposition pressure.
Yes, the bidding conventions are the real distinguishing element of
Bridge, an element which Whist hadn't got.
But other games got bidding, too. Bidding serves basically the same
purpose in Bridge as in other games: Information exchange.
Every kind of bidding in card games has a twofold objective: The one
party can make their game more valuable and choose favourable conditions
for play (trump suit, etc.), but on the other hand the bidders are revealing
information about their hands to the partners _and_ to the opponents alike.
Again, I think of Skat as an example. The information derived through
the bidding about the hand of the sole player is crucial for the play
of the opponents.
I think that the -- undeniable -- difference between the bidding in Bridge
and in other games is very much a question of "scope", as you put it.
The auction in Bridge has a much larger _scope_ than that of other games,
but its not essentially different in nature and in effect from those of
other games.
>No other game seems to have developed this feature, though others such
>as 500 could well have done. They simply haven't.
Yes, now we're approaching the core of the problem: It's true that other
games got the _potential_ to be played on a level similar to Bridge --
but it's also true that the _players_ haven't wished for these games to
be developed that far.
Thus, the real difference is between _Bridge-players_ and _players_
of other games, not between Bridge and those other games!
And since one isn't born a Bridge player or a Pinochle player, it is evident
that the players having a taste for a rather advanced partnership co-operation
will end up playing Bridge, while players looking for a distracting - but
also sociable! - game will end up playing other card games.
>Unless and until another game appears with this feature, bridge will
>be unique among card games, and indeed games in general.
Following my above line or thought, it might well be that there won't
ever appear another game like Bridge for the simple reason that all those
looking for something _like_ Bridge will play Bridge and those wanting
something different will play other card games without feeling the urge
to develop these game in the direction of Bridge.
Considering this, the prospects for another 'high-end' card game are
looking quite bleak, at least in those countries where Bridge forms a
rather too tempting alternative.
--
To explain the above statements, I'd like to compare Bridge to Doppelkopf.
Doppelkopf is a rather young game, since only in recent years has it begun
to be played in regular tournaments and only then was a standardisation
of the rules agreed upon.
Three aspects of this modern 'tournament' Doppelkopf compare to Bridge:
1.
Doppelkopf is a partnership game, played by two against two. But they aren't
fixed as in Bridge. Indeed, at the beginning of most games, no players knows
who he's playing with. The partnerships only become gradually evident _during_
play.
For most Doppelkopf players, this 'hidden partnership' element adds much
to their enjoyment of the game.
As has been already mentioned in this thread, a lot of players - of other
games too - consider the fixed partnerships in Bridge to be dull, and
especially so the 'Dummy' who, at the beginning of the _real_ play, puts his
whole hand down and leaves the table to fetch some more drinks!
2.
Doppelkopf hasn't got a real bidding like Bridge or Skat. Instead, the
players are allowed to make certain announcements out of turn.
The effect of them is the same as in Bridge, i.e. the player making an
announcement proposes to fulfil a certain task, making the game more
valuable this way.
One difference between these announcements and the bidding in Bridge
or Skat is that these announcements may be made _before_ the play begins
or at any time _during_ the first few tricks are being played!
Certain announcements may be made as late as the sixth trick (of twelve).
This peculiarity has made possible the development of a special system
of information exchange called the "Essener System". This "Essener System"
(which is just being formed and codified) combines aspects of
'conventional bids' and of 'conventional leads' to a unique system of
communication between the partners.
Of course, this system serves also to _recognize_ ones partner in the first
place!
For example, a player may make an announcement before play, which is
'answered' according to the "Essener System" by a lead of his partner,
which in turn may be answered by a further announcement by the first player.
3.
If one examines this "Essener System" more closely, one will find much talk
about 'Information exchange', 'initiative', 'interpretation' etc.
demonstrating that the "Essener System" is definitely _comparable_ to the
bidding systems of Bridge.
Even more so! Most evidently, the "Essner System" is _derived_ from the
bidding conventions of Bridge. Somehow you get the feeling that it's the
sort of thing which comes up when a Bridge player is giving a serious try
at Doppelkopf!
Seen from this point of view, Bridge will _definitely_ remain unique, because
it was the first game for which such an elaborate system of partner
corporation was evolved, becoming so popular and influential that all
later systems of other card games are sure to be heavily influenced by it.
This is a parallel problem to the position of Chess in the area of board
games:
Someone said (somebody studying the psychological aspects of Chess talent)
that we will be forever unable to judge the peculiar aspects of Chess talent,
because we are unable to compare 'Chess-thinking' to a the process of
thought set about by another board-game _uninfluenced_by_Chess_theory_!
Since the theory of _all_ board games has been developed and pursued
according to the model of Chess, there simply isn't a field of comparable
research uninfluenced by the 'Royal game'.
A certain scientist has gone to great paint documenting an African board
game, which was played at a level of sophistication and organisation
comparable to Chess, but in an environment ignorant of Chess.
The results don't seem to be very promising though, but that's only my
personal 'lay' view.
But the general approach seems to be valuable and correct.
How about Bridge then? Do we know any card games of sufficient sophistication
which aren't influenced by Bridge?
Are there any tournaments of any card games which aren't infiltrated by
Bridge players looking for a new and virgin field of expertimentation? :-)
Cheers,
--
* Christian Joachim Hartmann
* <luk...@Null.net>
* <Christian...@uni-duesseldorf.de>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Peter Foster
wrote:
<snip>
>I wouldn't think of anything of Bridge at all, if it weren't for it's
>one great feature that, oddly, Bill Taylor didn't even mention!
>In Bridge the declarer gets to play *two* hands of cards, her own and
>her
>partner's (dummy), which is placed face up on the table where everyone
>can see it.
>Obviously Bill Taylor and I have different tastes when it comes to
>card games, but I can't quite get over my aesthetic dislike of Bridge's
>bidding. Fortunately I have games like Tarock/Tarot and Ninety-Nine
>to fall back on, and one day the inspiration for a perfect "dummy"-
>style card game will come to me (!)
Two handed ninety-nine has an interesting dummy feature. One of the
three hands is face up. This dummy hand is not necessarily played by
the same player throughout, but depends on who won the previous trick.
It is quite a good game, but not quite as good as three hand
ninety-nine.
______________________________________________________________
Peter Foster This sig is dedicated to all those who
Spam protection ON did not dedicate their sigs to themselves.
John McLeod
>In article <72tc8e$c7u$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz>,
> mat...@math.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Taylor) wrote:
>>But of course, it is in the bidding that the true information-theoretic
>>value of having a partnership appears. No other game has anything even
>>REMOTELY approaching the auction stage of bridge, with its vast scope
>>for exchange of information under opposition pressure.
>
>>as 500 could well have done. They simply haven't.
In fact Bryce Francis, the author of the only book I know of about 500,
*has* developed a bidding system for this game. This is for the
Australian version where the bidding can last for several rounds. It
relies on using semi-artificial bids to show your aces. I don't know how
widely it is used. If you are interested you can find a summary of the
system on his web page at http://members.tripod.com/~howto500/
>Doppelkopf hasn't got a real bidding like Bridge or Skat. Instead, the
>players are allowed to make certain announcements out of turn.
>
>The effect of them is the same as in Bridge, i.e. the player making an
>announcement proposes to fulfil a certain task, making the game more
>valuable this way.
>
>One difference between these announcements and the bidding in Bridge
>or Skat is that these announcements may be made _before_ the play begins
>or at any time _during_ the first few tricks are being played!
>Certain announcements may be made as late as the sixth trick (of twelve).
>
>This peculiarity has made possible the development of a special system
>of information exchange called the "Essener System". This "Essener System"
>(which is just being formed and codified) combines aspects of
>'conventional bids' and of 'conventional leads' to a unique system of
>communication between the partners.
Yes. I had not thought of Doppelkopf as an example, but the techniques
described in Bernhard Kopp's book "Gewinnen beim Doppelkopf" (Walter
Rau, Duesseldorf, 1988, ISBN-3-7919-0289-X) already amount to an
embryonic "system".
If and when the "Essener System" is published, I hope you will let us
know.
> Most evidently, the "Essner System" is _derived_ from the
>bidding conventions of Bridge. Somehow you get the feeling that it's the
>sort of thing which comes up when a Bridge player is giving a serious try
>at Doppelkopf!
Probably the same is true of Bryce Francis' 500 bidding system, although
he says he is not a Bridge player.
>
>Seen from this point of view, Bridge will _definitely_ remain unique, because
>it was the first game for which such an elaborate system of partner
>corporation was evolved, becoming so popular and influential that all
>later systems of other card games are sure to be heavily influenced by it.
Each innovation in the development of card games originates somewhere.
So Bridge is unique in the same sense that:
L'Hombre is unique, because it was the first game to have bidding
Tarot is unique, because it was the first game with trumps
>This is a parallel problem to the position of Chess in the area of board
>games:
>Someone said (somebody studying the psychological aspects of Chess talent)
>that we will be forever unable to judge the peculiar aspects of Chess talent,
>because we are unable to compare 'Chess-thinking' to a the process of
>thought set about by another board-game _uninfluenced_by_Chess_theory_!
>
>Since the theory of _all_ board games has been developed and pursued
>according to the model of Chess, there simply isn't a field of comparable
>research uninfluenced by the 'Royal game'.
I have to disagree with this. The game of Weiqi / Go developed in the
orient independently of Chess, and its theory and strategy are at least
as advanced as that of Chess, but separate.
>
>How about Bridge then? Do we know any card games of sufficient sophistication
>which aren't influenced by Bridge?
Not really. Chess and Go reached their current forms in a world where
two games could be developed in parallel in different regions, with
neither game's experts being aware of the other. The development of
Bridge, on the other hand, is relatively recent and is known worldwide.
It is hard to imagine that anyone who was sufficiently interested in
cards to develop a game of similar sophistication could be completely
unaware of Bridge.
>Are there any tournaments of any card games which aren't infiltrated by
>Bridge players looking for a new and virgin field of expertimentation? :-)
Probably not - though Bridge players do tend to be rather parochial, so
might not deign to take part in tournaments of other games. Do many
Bridge players take part in Skat tournaments?
Christian Joachim Hartmann
John McLeod <jo...@pagat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In fact Bryce Francis, the author of the only book I know of about 500,
> *has* developed a bidding system for this game.
When has this book been published? What's its title?
> Yes. I had not thought of Doppelkopf as an example, but the techniques
> described in Bernhard Kopp's book "Gewinnen beim Doppelkopf" (Walter
> Rau, Duesseldorf, 1988, ISBN-3-7919-0289-X) already amount to an
> embryonic "system".
>
> If and when the "Essener System" is published, I hope you will let us
> know.
I'll do my best.
Curiously, this "System" includes tarrying a bit when it's your turn
as one of its signals.
> >Are there any tournaments of any card games which aren't infiltrated by
> >Bridge players looking for a new and virgin field of expertimentation? :-)
>
> Probably not - though Bridge players do tend to be rather parochial, so
> might not deign to take part in tournaments of other games. Do many
> Bridge players take part in Skat tournaments?
No, not really. Skat could well be one of the last games with a
'pre-Bridge' systems of bidding, since the rules and much of the theory
have been pretty much constant till WWI.
But then -- there's not _that_ much bidding in Skat as compared to Bridge.
John McLeod
>> In fact Bryce Francis, the author of the only book I know of about 500,
>> *has* developed a bidding system for this game.
>
>When has this book been published? What's its title?
Bryce Francis: 500 according to Francis (Roulston Greene Publishing
Associates Ltd, Private Bag, Takapuna, Aukland 9, New Zealand) (1984)
ISBN 0 9597683 0 0
josep-lluis pibernat
> >> In fact Bryce Francis, the author of the only book I know of about 500,
> >> *has* developed a bidding system for this game.
> >
> >When has this book been published? What's its title?
>
> Bryce Francis: 500 according to Francis (Roulston Greene Publishing
> Associates Ltd, Private Bag, Takapuna, Aukland 9, New Zealand) (1984)
> ISBN 0 9597683 0 0
joseplluis pibernat
Mythagoes
so much fun. Well, I concur entirely! If I want scientific game play where
someone watches someone else play (ie, dummy!) I can always play chess. 500 is
the thinking man's Euchre by all counts, and just as hilarious.
.sig is currently under construction