[kaboboom]

First up, I am amazed at the rapid and thoughtful responses this topic has garnered. And now I think I have some resolution.

BBO should provide a "button" when things get particularly strained with respect to bidding with a new partner. It would ask "Convert his hand to Spades?" before Opener bid.

[jtfanclub]

kaboboom, on Aug 25 2008, 08:55 AM, said:

First up, I am amazed at the rapid and thoughtful responses this topic has garnered. And now I think I have some resolution.

BBO should provide a "button" when things get particularly strained with respect to bidding with a new partner. It would ask "Convert his hand to Spades?" before Opener bid.

Actually, I think BBO should simply offer Spades as well. Mechanically, the game is very similar to the play of Bridge, so why not? I hate playing in the MBC because bidding with an unfamiliar partner is often terrible. I'd rather play Spades while waiting for a tournament to start or a regular partner to show (or just to spend time). It would be nice if I could do that on BBO.

[SoTired]

ArcLight, on Aug 25 2008, 08:50 AM, said:

>Mechanically, Spades and Bridge are almost identical. They're both trick taking games. They both have trump suits. Sure, there are some cosmetic differences, but the core elements of the game are pretty much the same.

I don't agree. In bridge you have the Dummy for the defenders to see and the declarer to control. You have the bidding as a guide. This is very different from Spades. How frequent are squeezes in spades? Trump coups? Even end plays aren't that common.

In Spades you have Nil Defense/coverage, plus the concept of avoiding overtricks.

You are right. There is no dummy in spades because there is no bidding. But there is deductive reasoning based on bidding, just not as complex. There is squeezes and endplays, but even more difficult because you must deduce 3 hands rather than just 2.

That is why I think 3 handed is so skillful (remove the ♣2 before playing). One thing is because more bridge skills are involved with only 2 unknown hands to deduce. Some of the play is even more difficult because not only must you determine the most vulnerable player to attempt to set, but the 3rd player must come to the same conclusion and cooperate.

Maybe you have never played 3-handed Spades at a high enuf level for high enuf stakes.

[EricK]

If the bidding in bridge is too complicated then it seems clear to me that it is the scoring system that is to blame. Because of the way the scoring table is structured various contracts are almost never worth bidding to naturally, and so they are better used as conventional bids. I am sure that one could construct a scoring system which would allow one to keep all the main features of bridge except for the massive complexity of the bidding.

[Apollo81]

fred, on Aug 24 2008, 05:50 PM, said:

TimG, on Aug 24 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

onoway, on Aug 24 2008, 12:29 PM, said:

Perhaps one approach might be to have a totally split game, one  highly regulated game for people who are interested in playing just for fun and some challenge on a casual basis and the other more of a free for all where a multitude of systems are allowed. Right now there isn't anywhere  for people to go that they are  "safe" 
to play a relatively simple form of bridge.

Players (at least in the ACBL) have voted with their entries: they don't like the Yellow Card events (and whatever was tried before that).

There may be a market for such games, but I expect it is small and local.

Well supposedly there are many millions of Americans who play bridge but are not ACBL members. I suspect most of these people, assuming they really exist, use bidding systems along the lines of what Goren and Culbertson taught.

If these rumors are true then the market for such games is large and global (on an American scale at least).

I suspect most of these people would not be interested in competitive bridge, and are only interested in it as a social activity, which is not to say that there isn't a market for them.

[jdeegan]

I am surprised when skimming through the postings on this thread that nobody has stated the simple theory - actually a paradox or conundrum - that defines this problem. To have a proper context for a competition three things need to be true:

1. Each pair should have the maximum latitude to use the bidding system they believe to be the most effective for their side - this (can) make the game better and more interesting.

2. The opponents should understand this bidding system and all of its ramifications as well as the pair playing it - the better to construct countermeasures..

3. Both players in each partnership should understand thoroughly the system they use - no partnership 'misunderstandings'.

Reconciling #1 and #2 has been done fairly effectively in face-to-face games by limiting conventions and systems more severely according to the fewer boards played per opponent and the skill level of the competition - long team matches at the highest level have few restrictions. The alert procedure augments this.

Everything goes all to hell when #3 does not hold, at any level of bridge. I play a lot of indies on BBO just to keep in practice. In the better indie games ones card defaults to BBO's version of SAYC. Everyone plays the same system. This works amazingly well. In BBO pairs games one has a problem even when playing BBO's SAYC. With no time for discussion, how do we defend against a strong 1♣ opener, et.al. BBO might help by expanding BBO's SAYC and 2/1 systems to include more defenses against commonly used non-standard systems.