Bridge tables with 5, 6 or 7 players

2356 views

htchess

Nov 29, 2008, 12:06:31 PM11/29/08
to
Dear bridge players,

Our bridge group contains 7 bridge players, max.,
but 5 or 6 players most of the time. Therefore I am
looking for bridge tables for 5, 6 and 7 players.

Let me give few examples:

Table with 5 players

1. four deals: 1 2, 3 4 plays
2. four deals: 1 5, 2 3 plays , etc.

Table with 6 players

1. four deals: 1 2, 3 4 plays
2. four deals: 1 5, 2 6 plays , etc.

After three-hours-research, I could not find any info so far.

TIA,

With best regards, Harun Taner
Dr Harun Taner
Founder, Scientific Backgammon Club
Founder, Scientific Billiards Club
Founder, Scientific Bridge Online Club
Founder and Editor, SSiSS Online Magazine
Founder, Chess Engines Testing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chess_Engines_Testing

Dave Flower

Nov 29, 2008, 12:42:06 PM11/29/08
to

With seven players, there is the option of floating a dummy, where
whoever is dummy goes to the other table to make up a four

Dave Flower

henry...@yahoo.com

Nov 29, 2008, 2:09:44 PM11/29/08
to

I have no real idea of what you want. Are you looking for a way to
make sure that all 5 or 6 players get an equal chance to play? (The
solution to the group of 7 is to either get an 8th or use a floating
dummy as Dave has suggested.)

If so, then the simplest (?) solution would be to play some form of 4-
deal bridge and substitute one player (with 5) or 1 pair (with 6) at
the end. It would be a bit more challenging to make sure that every
player plays with everyone else, but it isn't clear to me that this is
what you want to accomplish.

Henrysun909

Art Hoffman

Nov 29, 2008, 2:54:43 PM11/29/08
to

"htchess" <kr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Just play (real) rubber bridge with partials carrying forward. Let's say
the basic stake is 1c per point. With 5, it's 3 against 2. The 3 side is
in for two hands, out for one; the 2 side plays throughout the rubber. The
2 side is playing for 1 1/2 c per point while the 3 side is playing for 1 c
per point.

With 6, it's 3 against 3. Both sides are in for 2, out for 1. Everyone
plays for 1 c per point.

With 7, it's 4 against 3. The 3 side is in for two hands, out for one. The
4 side is in for two hands, out for two. The 3 side plays for 1 1/3 c per
point. The 4 side plays for 1 c per point.

For all players, 5, 6, or 7, you can cut for new partners (2 highest against
3 lowest with 5 players, etc.) after each rubber or you can have a rotation
so that everyone gets to play with all other players in each possible
combination.

It's lots of fun partly because if you are out of a hand, you can (severely)

Chicago is not for real bridge players.

htchess

Nov 29, 2008, 5:34:58 PM11/29/08
to
On 29 Kasım, 21:09, "henrysun...@yahoo.com" <henrysun...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Henrysun909- Alıntıyı gizle -
>
> - Alıntıyı göster -

We want to play bridge, not for money, only for our
enjoyment, with equal chances for all the participants,
technically speaking, with least waiting times. Our host
who plays bridge more than fifty years just asked all of
us to find a solution for this problem. Another experienced
player has come up with a new system instead of
classical two rubbers system.

I try to explain below table with 5 player system:

player 1 *******

player 2 *******

player 3 *******

player 4 *******

player 5 ******

every "round" consists of four deals.
1 : no zone, 2,3 : zone one side 4: zone all
Plus simplified point counting method.

1. round : players 1 and 2 against players 3 and 4
2. round : players 1 and 5 against players 2 and 3
3. round : players 1 and 4 against players 2 and 5
4. round : players 1 and 3 against players 4 and 5
5. round : players 2 and 4 against players 3 and 5

well, something like above. I am searching for
documents or forms that I can use or print out for
our "new" system.

Best,

htchess

Nov 29, 2008, 5:39:42 PM11/29/08
to
> Chicago is not for real bridge players.- Alıntıyı gizle -
>
> - Alıntıyı göster -

Very interesting system. I'll try to explain this to our group.

Best,

htchess

Nov 29, 2008, 7:24:03 PM11/29/08
to
> Dave Flower- Alıntıyı gizle -
>
> - Alıntıyı göster -

Two tables + changing dummy.
This is not an option in our group.
I am the youngest one. Almost all others
are around 70 years old or older.

Well, if I could invent a(n electronic) system
for seven players, each sitting octagonally
on the same table with the least possible
kibitzing times and enjoying active competition.

Ugh. I should think a little more.

Best,

CBFalconer

Nov 29, 2008, 10:12:54 PM11/29/08
to
htchess wrote:
> Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@AOL.COM> wrote:

>> htchess <kr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Our bridge group contains 7 bridge players, max.,
>>> but 5 or 6 players most of the time. Therefore I am
>>> looking for bridge tables for 5, 6 and 7 players.
>>
... snip ...

>>
>> With seven players, there is the option of floating a dummy,
>> where whoever is dummy goes to the other table to make up a four
>
> Two tables + changing dummy. This is not an option in our group.
> I am the youngest one. Almost all others are around 70 years old
> or older.

What's the problem? I'm considerably older, and we do it all the
time. 5 players is trivial, 6 is slightly more awkward since two
have to sit out and play gin, cribbage or klabberjass.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

CBFalconer

Nov 29, 2008, 10:16:22 PM11/29/08
to
Art Hoffman wrote:
>
... snip ...

>
> Chicago is not for real bridge players.

Chicago is fine if you play dealer not vulnerable on 2nd and 3rd
hands. It has the disadvantage of removing the partner
preserving/dumping strategy, and the advantage of a known period
before getting back in the game.

htchess

Nov 30, 2008, 4:15:36 AM11/30/08
to
>
> - Alıntıyı göster -

Yep. 5 players is not really a problem. I could be the kibitzer :)
In the case of 6 players, we could build three teams and
play rubber.

Then remains only one issue: How to count points on both
tables? I suppose each table has a seven players list. After
every deal points scored are added to the players' record.
Summing both table scores after the last deal up could
determine the final classement.

Am I almost right? :)

Best,

Dec 1, 2008, 2:18:41 PM12/1/08
to

"CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:493204B6...@yahoo.com...

> htchess wrote:
>> Dave Flower <DavJFlo...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>> htchess <kr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Our bridge group contains 7 bridge players, max.,
>>>> but 5 or 6 players most of the time. Therefore I am
>>>> looking for bridge tables for 5, 6 and 7 players.
>>>
> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> With seven players, there is the option of floating a dummy,
>>> where whoever is dummy goes to the other table to make up a four
>>
>> Two tables + changing dummy. This is not an option in our group.
>> I am the youngest one. Almost all others are around 70 years old
>> or older.
>
> What's the problem? I'm considerably older, and we do it all the
> time. 5 players is trivial, 6 is slightly more awkward since two
> have to sit out and play gin, cribbage or klabberjass.
>

Problems can arise if one or more of the group has mobility problems and
cannot easily keep getting up and sitting back down all evening.

htchess

Dec 8, 2008, 8:28:28 AM12/8/08
to
On 1 Aralık, 21:18, "Adam Lea" <asr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> cannot easily keep getting up and sitting back down all evening.- Alıntıyı gizle -
>
> - Alıntıyı göster -

Just completed writing score tables for events with 5, 6 and 7
players.

http://rapidshare.com/files/171428285/BridgeTableswith567players.7z

With best regards,
HT

drsc...@gmail.com

Jan 14, 2019, 11:23:34 AM1/14/19
to
Or BBO with robots

johnphil...@gmail.com

Jun 21, 2019, 2:47:15 PM6/21/19
to
I can’t connect - anyone have individual movements for six players?

Ed Greene

May 31, 2021, 10:45:07 AM5/31/21
to
5 payer rotation:
1/2 and 3/4
1/5 and 2/3
1/5 and 2/5
1/3 and 4/5
2/4 and 3/5

Bertel Lund Hansen

May 31, 2021, 11:53:29 AM5/31/21
to
Den 31.05.2021 kl. 16.45 skrev Ed Greene:

> 1/5 and 2/5

A bit difficult.

--
Bertel