[kaboboom]

The new participatory Web enables new things like BBO-playing casual bridge on-line with partners you will never meet, and may never play with again. Yet the bidding systems we carry into these sessions were based on a totally different premise - that partnerships are fairly enduring, so there is time for partnerships to assimulate these complicated systems over the course of play and reflection.

The "flip test" is a thinking approach that asks: what if we had the Internet before we had bridge?" How would bidding systems have evolved differently?

I think I can offer some possibilities having only recently picked up bridge playing on-line after previously (70s) played rubber bridge with a tight foursome.
* There would not be nearly as much complexity and artifical bids
* The emphasis would be on avoiding disasters...and not finding the best contract
* Natural bidding would be harder to replace with conventions

My parents played Culbertson (Honor Tricks) with 2 & 1/2 needed to open (no three cards suits)

2 Honor Tricks
AK
1 1/2 Honor Tricks
AQ
AJT
KQT
1 Honor Trick
A
KQ
KJx..
Kx + Qx in another suit
1/2 Honor Trick
Kx
QJx
Qx + Jx in another suit
Plus Value
K (singleton)
Qx (not already counted)
Jx (not already counted)

2 Plus Values = 1/2 Trick
A total of 2 1/2 Honor Tricks would qualify the hand for an opening bid of 1 of a suit. 3 1/2 would be a 1NT opening.

What if we added Stayman and Blackwood as the only conventions to Culbertson's system to open, and let all other bidding be natural for new, on-line players? Would most of these impromptu partnerships be better off?

Just a topic to provoke some discussion about how on-line bridge is different.

[awm]

The issue is that bidding has advanced a lot since the time of Culbertson and Goren. Casual partnerships of advanced players are now better bidders than the top expert pairs of that time.

It's true that a lot of this advancement in bidding has been pushed by established partnerships, such as Roth-Stone and the Italian Blue Team.

I think most modern players would not like to give up these bidding advancements and play "stone age" methods in a pickup game. It might be that a pair of novice/intermediate players who are not really familiar with modern methods would do better with simpler agreements (especially if they are from different countries where different methods are the standard). But I think an advanced/expert pair who sit down and agree "two over one" without much discussion and have a half-decent idea of what that means will consistently outbid a Culbertson or Goren pair.

[onoway]

My understanding is that Goren became so hugely popular because he evolved a system that anyone could sit down and understand in short order. I think it is because everything has become so complicated that bridge has lost ground, it used to be much more popular than it is now. It has reverted to being a sort of " elitist" game, people have to meet certain criteria to be able to enjoy success playing..for one, lots and lots of time to learn/practice.

I have played bridge off and on since I was about 12, and watching vugraphs is a bewildering experience, many times. People talk about a pair having 100 pages of agreements.. and there still are misunderstandings and miscues. Why would anyone want to get into a game that needs to be that complicated?

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.

[jillybean]

Im not sure what you mean by “Right now there isn't anywhere for people to go that they are "safe"
People can play in any number of places from the BIL, the relaxed bridge club, tournaments, teams to the cayne matches. The different games already exist, here in Vancouver you can play at many live, social games played with only very basic agreements. Perhaps its more of a problem of matching up like minded players, I have the same problem finding a live partner.

[hrothgar]

onoway, on Aug 24 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

My understanding is that Goren became so hugely popular because he evolved a system that anyone could sit down and understand in short order. I think it is because everything has become so complicated that bridge has lost ground, it used to be much more popular than it is now. It has reverted to being a sort of " elitist" game, people have to meet certain criteria to be able to enjoy success playing..for one, lots and lots of time to learn/practice.

I have played bridge off and on since I was about 12, and watching vugraphs is a bewildering experience, many times. People talk about a pair having 100 pages of agreements.. and there still are misunderstandings and miscues. Why would anyone want to get into a game that needs to be that complicated?

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.

Serious question:

Have you ever considered taking up Spades? You might prefer the game.

[TimG]

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.

[fred]

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).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[helene_t]

I don't think you can come up with anything simpler than bbo-de-facto-standard-somewhat-abusively-referred-to-as-sayc.

I have read some of the old books of Wei, Goren, Culbertson etc. They are way more complex than modern methods. SAYC and other simple, modern systems are phrased in terms of suit length and high card points. Those concepts are easily understood by beginners. Much easier than suit quality and honor tricks.

[ArcLight]

hrothgar, on Aug 24 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

onoway, on Aug 24 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

My understanding is that Goren became so hugely popular because he evolved a system that anyone could sit down and  understand in short order. I think it is because everything has become so complicated that bridge has lost ground, it used to be much more popular than it is now.  It has reverted to being a sort of " elitist" game,  people have to meet certain criteria to be able to enjoy success playing..for one, lots and lots of time to learn/practice.

I have played bridge off and on since I was about 12, and watching vugraphs is a bewildering experience, many times. People talk about a pair having 100 pages of agreements.. and there still are misunderstandings and miscues. Why would anyone want to get into a game  that needs to be  that complicated? 

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.

Serious question:

Have you ever considered taking up Spades? You might prefer the game.

Richard,
Don't underestimate Spades.
I doubt you are anywhere near as good as you think you are.
Try playing against top Spades players (some are quite good Bridge players) and likely they will clean your clock.

[hrothgar]

ArcLight, on Aug 25 2008, 01:34 AM, said:

Richard,
Don't underestimate Spades.
I doubt you are anywhere near as good as you think you are.
Try playing against top Spades players (some are quite good Bridge players) and likely they will clean your clock.

Comment 1: My suggestion about looking at Spades was being offered sincerely. I agree with you: its a good game. Moreover, it doesn't force players to learn bidding conventions.

Comment 2: If you look back at my posts, I doubt that you will find many examples where I claim any great prowess at bridge. I don't believe that I am particularly skilled at the game, and don't recall make such claims. (I do believe that I reasonable well informed about bidding systems, but this more stems from the fact that I have a quite a lot of experience with mathematical modeling, game theory, and the like)

However, its nice to know that you're actively looking for a pissing match...

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Aug 25 2008, 12:09 AM, said:

However, its nice to know that you're actively looking for a pissing match...

Never heard of that game. Is it as fun as spades?

[onoway]

Chess is a very simple game to learn the basics but it can become as complex as the abilities of the players make it. Bridge has developed into a game where memorization of bidding codes and conventions has overtaken and to a degree devalued playing skills, imo. at least at levels of the average /+ player. Often good players don't even bother playing out the hands..they play one or two rounds of cards and claim. Perhaps in another 50 years, bidding will have developed to the point where that is virtually all the game is.

Quote

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.

There are indeed players out there who don't belong to ACBL. My family all play bridge. None of them nor any of their bridge friends belong to ACBL, They may not even know it exists. All my neices and nephews play bridge, all Goren based. A couple of them could give most of the advanced I have met on BBO a very good run for their money, even without the toys, ( They'd be crunched by experts, obviously)
I also have met a couple of people who successfully play excellent competitive modern bridge and their kids won't go near the game. Since I see a couple of "dynasties" on BBO it's probably coincidence.

Have you ever considered taking up Spades? You might prefer the game. 

Is it very ego building to suggest to somebody who doesn't want to work out 100 pages of special agreements with a dedicated partner - should they be able to find one- that they perhaps best go play some other game? Aside from reflecting the rather odd notion that it is ok to be condescending to people who maybe don't share your values, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish. All I am doing is trying to bring forward a point of view which I know is definitely out there and which won't otherwise be represented. OTOH it is a perfect example of exactly why some people won't go near duplicate bridge more than once.

[Rossoneri]

hrothgar, on Aug 25 2008, 07:09 AM, said:

However, its nice to know that you're actively looking for a pissing match...

Don't feed the troll.

onoway said:

Is it very ego building to suggest to somebody who doesn't want to work out 100 pages of special agreements with a dedicated partner - should they be able to find one- that they perhaps best go play some other game? Aside from reflecting the rather odd notion that it is ok to be condescending to people who maybe don't share your values, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish. All I am doing is trying to bring forward a point of view which I know is definitely out there and which won't otherwise be represented. OTOH it is a perfect example of exactly why some people won't go near duplicate bridge more than once.

hrothgar said:

Comment 1: My suggestion about looking at Spades was being offered sincerely. I agree with you: its a good game. Moreover, it doesn't force players to learn bidding conventions.

I am starting to understand why they say only 7% of communication is through words.

[SoTired]

I think Goren's methods were mostly Culbertson's converted to point-count. Culbertson's problem was that Honor Trick Count was inaccurate. It was not uncommon for the bidding to go 1N-3N down 4. It also involved doing mental math with fractions.

Anyway, the answer to your question is RIGHT HERE on BBO. There are many players on BBO that learned bridge from the Internet and have never played F2F. They don't read any books and only learn by playing. They play with others like themselves and develop an ad hoc natural system that only loosely looks like SAYC/ACOL. They also appear to be constantly reinventing the wheel. Sometimes they develop some very poor habits and misconceptions that inhibit their growth.

[TimG]

fred, on Aug 24 2008, 04:50 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).

Perhaps I misused the word "market". There may be millions of kitchen bridge players out they, but I think the number of them that would be willing to pay for the pleasure of playing the game is very small, even if the tournament game offered is similar (or even identical) to their kitchen game. If they're not potential customers, they're not part of the market.

If I develop a shampoo for cats, my market is not all the millions of cat owners out there, but rather a small subset of cat owners who would consider giving their cat a bath. That probably reduces the market to those who show their cat and those whose cat has encountered a skunk. This example is meant to describe my understanding of "market"; I would not be surprised to find students of economics to have a different understanding of the word.

I don't think making the bidding simpler will get the kitchen bridge players to attend bridge tournaments any more than establishing a six-letter maximum length for words will increase attendance at Scrabble tournaments.

Of course, if the ACBL could get just 1% of these "many millions" of bridge players to join the ACBL, that would be a significant addition to the membership.

[ArcLight]

>Is it very ego building to suggest to somebody who doesn't want to work out 100 pages of special agreements with a dedicated partner - should they be able to find one- that they perhaps best go play some other game?


While I see the attraction of massively complex systems and designing them, I personally don't care for it. I am attacted to Bridge because of the card play and deductive reasoning. By cardplay I don't mean complex squeezes, just simple precautions to retain trump control in case of a 4-1 break, or some side suit breaking badly, or maybe a Trump Coup.


Larry Cohen doesn't seem to love complex systems, though I'm sure he does use some complexity. Same for Bobby Wolff. Both are considered excellent players. Complexity may make a difference at their level (perhaps Meckwell owe a little of their success to their system), but until we get to that level I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Some players I have played against will offer a defense to a system or convention I'm unfamiliar with. Others will not, thinking they are "winning" because of their unfamiliar system. I see some postors scoffing at the idea that you should provide a defense if opponents ask.



>>Aside from reflecting the rather odd notion that it is ok to be condescending to people who maybe don't share your values, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish.

1. to be insulting
2. start a flame war

You saw through it.

[hrothgar]

onoway, on Aug 25 2008, 12:39 PM, said:

Have you ever considered taking up Spades? You might prefer the game. 

Is it very ego building to suggest to somebody who doesn't want to work out 100 pages of special agreements with a dedicated partner - should they be able to find one- that they perhaps best go play some other game? Aside from reflecting the rather odd notion that it is ok to be condescending to people who maybe don't share your values, I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish. All I am doing is trying to bring forward a point of view which I know is definitely out there and which won't otherwise be represented. OTOH it is a perfect example of exactly why some people won't go near duplicate bridge more than once.

My post was not intended as condescending...

Your original post included the following:

1. A comment / complaint about the amount of time that players need to invest learning bidding conventions

2. A trial ballon about bifurcating the game: Create one version of bridge for casual/social players. Create another version for the system freaks.

My posting about Spades was intended as a constructive suggestions:

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.

Moreover, there is no such thing as a bidding system in Spades. This entire section of the game is missing. There is no need to spend a great deal of time and effort learning bidding. You can focus on your card play / play socially / whatever.

One of the defining characteristics of bridge is the auction. I don't find it at all surprising that folks who play competitively try to structure their bidding methods to give themselves a competitive edge.

Conversely, I find it very strange that folks continually try to restrict this portion of the game rather than taking up any one of a number of other trick taking card games that would seem to be a much better stylistic match.

[SoTired]

I took the "play spades" comment as a constuctive comment, also. I think spades is an excellent game and it is the most skillful card game for 3 players.

And if you know someone that wants to learn bridge, but does not have the time nor inclination to learn the bidding, but might later, have them learn and play spades. Much of the knowledge and experience gained will be transferable when they want to transition to bridge.

[ArcLight]

>I took the "play spades" comment as a constuctive comment, also. I think spades is an excellent game and it is the most skillful card game for 3 players.

3 Player? Hmm.. Iv'e only played it 4 player. I would think it loses a lot in a 3 player game.. The 4 player verion requires pards cooperation and understanding what is going on. Whether trying to set the opponents or avoid bags (overtricks). Plus Nil defense/nil busing is pretty interesting, and I don't see how you do that in a 3 player game.


> I took the "play spades" comment as a constuctive comment

You should not have

[ArcLight]

>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.