Talk:Contract bridge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unorganized stuff at the beginning

Hi folks

I keep getting confused about uppercase and lowercase conventions for cards and suits. I have the feeling that we mixed them up (or was that just me :-( ). Any help would be appreciated, as I am not a native speaker I do not dare suggesting a convention, but I defenitly hope somebody will.

Cheers Robert_Dober 21:06 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

---

Card suits are not really "titles" or "proper nouns", so I don't generally capitalize them. When "East", "West", etc., are used like names, they should be capitalized. Card ranks like "four" and "queen" should be spelled out and not capitalized in running text when mentioning a single card or two. When mentioning combinations of cards, it's probably OK to abbreviate the faces with capital letters and user numerals, so one might say, for example, that "East led the eight of hearts from his K-Q-10-8-5." --LDC

---

Maybe this should be broken up into a couple of sub-pages. There's a large page for rules, but not much on bidding or strategy.

We may be getting close to that point. It depends on how deeply we want to get into the different conventions and techniques etc. Eclecticology 22:10 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

We need to merge Contract bridge playing technique back in here (because that's just a middle tier), and maybe split off all the things on scoring to a new page. -- Tarquin

All of the information on that page was already under the Techniques in the play of the hand section here, so I just made Contract bridge playing technique a redirect. Junkyard prince 18:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

What different sections are needed?

• basic rules (just enough to start playing)
• detailed rules
• basic bidding strategy
• advanced bidding strategy
• basic declarer play
• advanced declarer play
• basic defense
• advanced defense
• tournament play

I think it's important to distinguish between the basics and stuff only an advanced player would care about.

---

Do you think stuff only an advanced player would care about belongs in Wikipedia at all? I don't. The basics should be here, but beginners don't need the advanced stuff, and advanced players either know it already, or will look it up in a good bridge book (or a specialised bridge site). Including advanced stuff here just makes it unmanageable for beginners. --Scaramouche 23:41, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All knowledge belongs on Wikipedia - evetually ;-). Terms like "advanced" and "beginners" are very subjective, different people have very different ideas about what constitutes either, but many "beginners" and "advanced" players will want to use wikipedia for both "begining" and "advanced" content. And there is no reason these two uses should conflict or in any way interfere whith each other- if we are smart about it ;-) In fact they should complement each other. And why should an "advanced" player have to turn to a book or a dedicated bridge site for content? We can have lot's of articles on bridge at many levels, interlinked in creative and synergistic ways. We are limited only by our imaginations ;-) Paul August 00:49, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

"All knowledge" must necessarily include basic knowledge. This article does not present contract bridge, instead it presents "tournament contract bridge". The game is not spelled out for the common person, but presented as an unknowable, difficult to grasp complexity of vastness, beyond the common person and having no entry point to start from. Its not a good article unless you are a tourament director who knows almost all there is to know about it already. This is my opinion and apparently not anyone else's. But it isn't an easy friendly read. Terryeo 17:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% which is why I made my "suggestions ... " below. This article needs to cover the basics of contract bridge and the only scoring that needs to be mentioned is rubber which of course is the original and from which each of the others sprang. We then need spinoff articles (some of which already exist) on duplicate etc. There is a definite assumption in this article that tournament duplicate bridge is the bee's knees and this is very POV.Abtract 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I definitely think we should add a glossary section. Definitions like major suit, finesse etc with a very short explanation and, if appropriate, a link to the detailed description:

e.g.

• Grand coup An advanced manoeuver to manage to avoid the loss of a trick to an unfinessable trump honor by means of a trump reduction play involving the ruff of one or more winners.

• Lead The first card led to a trick, very often used in the context of the first trick.

Robert_Dober 12:37 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)

---

I think this article , and many mathematics articles are almost unreadable unless you already know the information, because they use far too much terminology. For example, take a look at the first line:

"Contract bridge, more usually known as Bridge, is a trick-taking card game for four players who form two partnerships, or "sides". The partners on each side sit opposite one another. Game play is in two phases: bidding and playing."

Now, describing the game as a subset of trick-taking card games (a technical term in and of itself), is very confusing. If a reader doesn't know what that means, he has to go read that entire article to get the point and then return. And its not critical at all for a person to understand and be told right up front that bridge is a subset of a larger genre of game. In fact, many people play other trick-taking games and aren't aware at all that they are part of a shared style of game. I myself can't provide a better alternative to this opening or any part of this article, as I myself know nothing about bridge. But I think this type of thing needs to be discussed in Meta-wiki, as part of an overall stylistic decision. I feel many science and math articles currently in wikipedia are also unecessarily complicated in this same way.

I don't see how you are going to alleviate it. If you're expecting everyone to be able to read every math or science article, it's not reasonable. (Advanced) math is a foreign language that takes years to learn to speak/read. If you expect someone who has only had high school algebra or geometry to easily read through the articles on fundamental domain, topological space or category theory, you're being unreasonable. It's like taking someone who doesn't speak/read French and asking them to read French, and then complaining that they can't read it. As for the quote you gave above, the only unreasonable part I can find is the term "trick-taking card game", which might be shortened to "card game" for the introduction. The rest is fine. I don't know what people expect. The only way to explain things is to explain them, and it's impossible to do that without using technical terms. Revolver 02:09, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

This is just a general question. Why is the following true?

A pair is allowed to try to pass information about their hands, but this is restricted in two ways:

Information may only be passed by the calls made and the cards played, not by anything else. All information must be fully explained to the opponents. Thus, one may have all kinds of meanings for bids, as long as they are told to the opponents.

Why is this required? Is the game really so unplayable if the meaning of bids is kept secret? I'm just learning recently, so following the conventions, but it seems strange to me that these are "unofficial rules". Maybe it comes from my poker background where deception is part of the game. It seems to me that guessing the opponents' "strategy" should be part of the game. There is already a built-in penalty for deviating from these conventions, namely since the conventions have evolved into some kind of optimal strategy, simply deviating from them too much will be punished anyway. Also, this requirement poses difficult questions of play — e.g. how does one distinguish a "unfair deviation from convention" from "an expert deviation based on judgment"?? If the conventions are supposed to be binding, isn't all bidding forced then? And who decides when the conventions have been broken?? Revolver 02:22, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your question spells out what I see to be a major difficulty. It is boldly obvious that the article is NOT written to encourage an easy read, and not written by a player experienced in bridge who is introducing bridge in an easy, friendly manner. There is no secret bidding. "Secret" bidding is unethical. In tournament play (which this article simply can't get out of its craw) partner ships are required to present the meanings of their bids before they sit down to play. In casual play, when a player makes a bid, an opponent may ask the player's partner, "what do you take his bid as meaning". There are no secret bids. Period. If a bid is in any way a secret, it is an unethical bid. Certainly, there are some bids, sometimes which are difficult to understand, but secret? No. Not unless someone is cheating. Terryeo 17:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Suppose your right-hand opponent opens 1NT. Before you stick in a bid, wouldn't you like to know whether they're playing it shows 10-13 HCP or 16-18 HCP? (If you don't, plan on either getting doubled a lot or always passing.) What the article should say is that you have to disclose your partnership agreements. What you actually bid may or may not correspond to your agreement (either by mistake or on purpose), but for fairness partner must be misled just like the opponents are. How would you feel playing against opponents using illegal signals like rubbing their chest to show a heart suit? Secret bids are similar. Deception is allowed (e.g. "psychic bids") as long as it is not excessive. And by the way, these rules are fully "official". Good luck learning this fascinating game! Ray Spalding 03:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter. 1NT means 1NT, nothing more. The point is, if you play against the same people often enough, one of the following will happen. A)they will show a pattern in their bidding, which you can read, which gives you information, and if they deviate from it, it's up to you to figure out how often they do it, B)they will bid erratically, which is self-defeating by the nature of the game (it's non-optimal play, remember, wild bidding is naturally punished!). There is a difference between secret bids and rubbin your chest. It's the difference between bluffing and being a mechanic in poker. Revolver 17:54, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is the difference between bridge played in a social context and bridge played in a duplicate tournament context. In a duplicate tournament, it's a matter to see if you can come up with the optimal play given information you and your partner transmit. In the case of an American Contract Bridge League tournament, the legal meaning of the bids must be public because the types of meanings you can have for bids are restricted. This is done (I believe) to even the playing field so that a particular system that my partner and I use can compete reasonably with a system that another pair is using, especially in the situation where we play no more than six hands or so. Buoren 07:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've moved some material to the Duplicate Bridge page, and tightened that article. Perhaps the duplicate bridge scoring should be there also?

Buoren 07:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The section on probabilites says:

• The probability that a given opponent holds two particular cards, e.g. the king and the queen: 25%

This seems incorrect to me. It assumes that the two events are independent, but they're not. Assuming that we're talking about when everyone has thirteen cards (this should be clarified, BTW), I get 1/2*12/25 = 24%. The 75% for having at least one is similarly flawed. Josh Cherry 01:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, but I would suggest that you're being overly precise. Just having '24%' and '76%' there could easily be confusing to people who don't already understand the real odds. If anything, I would suggest making it something like "(approximately) 25%". Estienne 06:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it should say "24%". I only said that what it says now is factually incorrect and should be changed. "approximtely 25%" is fine with me. I think it also needs to be clarified that this is from the point of view of the declarer once he or she has established that the cards in question are held by the defenders. Josh Cherry 23:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

A natural notrump bid is one that implies a balanced distribution of cards among all suits (no particularly long suit, although many experts will bid no trump with up to five cards in one suit as long as the bidder has no doubletons or singletons)

This is incorrect, so I have made the correction by changing "doubletons and singletons" to "singletons and voids". When I learned the game, there were three hand patterns that are considered balanced for natural notrump bids: 4333, 4432 and 5332. It is the latter that is probably being referred to here. Only the 4333 pattern has no doubletons, singletons and voids, so to exclude doubletons would make notrumps too difficult to bid. I'm also not happy with the revised wording, because it implies that the 5422 pattern is also a balanced hand: it is more like a 2-suited hand. --  B.d.mills  (Talk) 05:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not just list them? Something like ... balanced distribution of cards (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2, or 5-3-3-2).... Estienne 12:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I see the word "forcing" used as a technical term in various places, such as Forcing notrump. Could someone define it, please? As for the complaints at the top of the discussion page, I think the link to a Trick-taking game is fine, because it explains a lot, but there are a few questions not answered :

• Are aces high or low?
• As I understand trump, two in the trump suit beats a king in any other suit, is that right? But in bridge, if you're not leading the trick, you may not be allowed to play the trump suit if you can follow the leader's suit.
• What if two equal-numbered cards in non-trump suits are played? Does the first or the second take the trick?

I've added a few lines that hopefully address your points. I'm not sure about the wording though... Estienne 13:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• • A "forcing" bid in bridge parlance is a bid which is not offered as a final contract; in other words, a bid made with the expectation that one's partner will bid again (it "forces" him/her to bid again). Thus bidding a forcing notrump is a first step in showing various sorts of hands, since there will be subsequent rounds of bidding to complete one's description of a hand. It is a common tool in many bidding systems, most notably Two-over-one (2/1) Game-Forcing.
  • Aces are definitely high.
  • You are correct; any card in the trump suit beats any non-trump card, as long as the trump is played legally. Which brings up your second point; the leader's suit MUST be followed, if possible; if one has no remaining cards in the leader's suit, any card may be played, including a trump (so long as there is a trump suit, of course).
  • The highest card played in the suit led wins a trick, unless a trump is played. Non-trump cards which are not in the suit led have no bearing on the outcome of a trick. For example: I am in the middle of playing a notrump contract; the opponent on my left leads the deuce of hearts, and I play the Ace from the dummy. The opponent on my right has no more hearts, and plays (or "discards") the eight of spades. I also have no more hearts, and discard the eight of diamonds. The dummy has won the trick; the eights played by my opponent and myself had no effect on this trick.

Announcement: Category:Bridge templates

I've created several templates for bridge hands, categorized in Category:Bridge templates. I attached them to all Bridge articles. Also, I made a sub-categorication of Category:Bridge.

I hope you will like the templates. The usage is simple, and you will find example on each template's talk page. Currently, they suffer from a slight problem of alignment, as I put up default align="left", so you have to add a bunch of newlines or <br> tags to start a new paragraph properly; I hope I'll fix the issue when I find out how. I realized (too late) taht I should have better called them BridgeDeal instead of BridgeHand, but they do the job for now.

Category:Bridge players is seriously empty; I hope I'll drag few people from rec.games.bridge to improve the overall quality and quantity of Wiki bridge articles :-).

It would be a good idea to create a Category:Wikipedians bridge players so that we could find each other more easily. Duja 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Can we avoid using nonstandard icons

I had to go through 3 browsers before I found one that displayed ♥ and so on as anything other than thin little bars. I don't think we want to risk that people will not understand the article because the little icons are indecipherable. Can we just go back to "hearts" etc.? Otherwise will have to identify some font that works on all systems/all browsers and force them all to be that font, but I'm not convinced there's any such thing. Elf | Talk 02:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No :-). Sorry, but technology goes on, and &hearts; is a standard HTML 4.0 code. All you need is a relatively modern browser and a proper Unicode font; both are relatively easy to find. I'd consider the texts without proper symbols crippled, and while I'm not a fan of sticking to every newfangled technology, Wikipedia should follow the technology (not go ahead of it). Duja 08:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

---

If a person has reneged and has bid less than game in a suit, where are those revoke tricks scored above the line, making it less than game; or below the line so it is scored as a game?

Above, as usual. Below the line are scored only the tricks that have been bid for. In other words, you can't score a game without bidding it first. Duja 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

there is some confusion here ... if a player reneges (revokes is better) then the revoke penalty (probably 0, 1 or 2 tricks) is deducted before the score is made and only the net score is recorded below or above the line. also Duja states that "you can't score a game without bidding it" is not quite true since a bid of 2 hearts doubled making 8 tricks scores a game (I'm sure he knows it but simply overlooked this point). Abtract 18:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant it in a bit wider sense of the word — if the opponents had doubled you in 2♥, you effectively have bid to a game (even if with opponents' help), as making it is a game.Duja 08:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh Really guys

Really ! this article is so obviously written by people who do not regularly play, nor even know how to play contract bridge. It reeks and smells and spills over that its authors have never sat thourgh 6 hours a tourney in a close rooms with high tempretures and short tempers, and WON ! It is not that any single part of it is badly written, but none of it communicates the game to the reader. Terryeo 22:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The introduction is a little "stiff"

Bridge has been played for years in casual ways. Even the really good players often talk about the "pick-up" games they have played in locker rooms, hallways and so on. The introduction and the article are quite stiff and formal-like. The element of chance which drives people to play casually in foursomes is nearly missing from the article. Instead formal, duplicate play, partnerships of 4 in large tournament play seem to be the kind of play presented. In actuality, it is likely that thousands of casual hands are played for every hand played in the large, international tournaments. Maybe the introduction could at least include the word "chance" somehow since either opposing hand might hold the queen you're finessing for. Terryeo 07:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(Partly) disagree on both points. (And I reverted your changes for the most part, because the information you added is duplicated). I do concur the point about the element of chance; I don't, however, deem the friendly play to be more important and popular than duplicate -- and even if it is, according number of players (which I doubt), it is the high-level, competition bridge that makes it The Game. Duja 12:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the "stiffness" and "formality" of style, this is an encyclopedia, not a magazine. I do not consider the state of the article ideal, but I admit I can't get the order of presentation right myself (I did a major reorganization about a year ago though, when it was in even bigger disorder). However, I also don't think you were on the right track – the intro was really short (as it should be), and game details were explained later. Duja 12:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

One point about your reversion, Duja, I believe the word suit is misued because at that point in the article the discussion is not specific to Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts and Spades and could include No Trump. Therefore the term "strain" should be in place rather than the term "suit". Terryeo 07:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for developing the bridge articles

I am a (very) newcomer to wikipedia but I am keen. I have some expertise in bridge (I run two clubs in the UK and have taught for several years) so I would like to help in the bridge arena. I have started to write an article Hand evaluation - any comments would be appreciated. My main purpose in writing here is to make a suggestion concerning this article. It seems to me that it would be better to have a general "contract bridge" article that barely mentioned "rubber", "chicago", "duplicate", "tournament" etc and left these subsets for separate articles that could expand on the scoring methods and the effect this had on strategy etc. What does anyone think? If enough agree, I would be willing to start this process. Abtract 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it like that currently? There are separate duplicate bridge and rubber bridge articles, and they're referred to in this article only to establish the context (e.g. differences in dealing and scoring). As I replied to Terryeo, the article is maybe not in perfect shape (but I don't deem it overly bad either). My reproaches to the article are on duplicated information and order of presentation, rather than on the overall contents (although I might be biased). Duja 12:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This article, Contract Bridge states: "Its most popular form, duplicate bridge, is played in tournaments, which are set up to maximize a partnership's use of skill and minimize the effect of luck." Well, that is at least an argueable statement I think. Who says Contract Bridge is played more as duplicate bridge than as pick - up foursomes around a card table or on a locker room locker? I have played hundreds (maybe thousands?) of hours and very little of it has been duplicate. Certainly the development of Contract Bridge had very little owed to it by duplicate tournaments. It wasn't until maybe the 1930s that there were enough tournaments to sneeze at. How many little old ladies, Sunday afternoon "bridge clubs" are there, which are never announced except in Church flyer? Terryeo 07:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is why I feel we need to take out most of the stuff on tournaments and duplicate. The basis of contract bridge is rubber bridge and many people still use this method of scoring at home and in socially oriented clubs. The main article on contract bridge should surely include an outline of the basic scoring method (rubber) and simply hint at the others which will then be spinoff articles. Abtract 00:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede the "most popular form" words, but I still don't see that the article contains too many references to duplicate play. I still maintain that the duplicate is what makes the game a mind sport rather than a pastime game; you can call it elitism or a POV, but I disagree eliminating references altogether. I think that rubber and duplicate are fairly represented in this article (and each has its own main article), and omitting those references will left casual readers wander "what's the fuss about this game almost making it to Summer Olympiad"? Duja 09:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are 3 articles. Contract Bridge, Rubber bridge and Duplicate bridge. It is possible there are more and that I've missed something. One article is the parent article, it should include some history of how the game developed from Whist and that article would be Contract Bridge. That there is bidding should be spelled out in the parent article. That there are only 15 useable words which partners may use to describe their hand and to arrive at a contract should be spelled out, the concept of strain or demonination should be presented and the rules of play. But I don't believe it would be appropriate to do more than touch on bidding systems. Rubber bridge is the way Contract Bridge is scored. Then, Duplicate bridge adds another layer of scoring complexity in addition to the already present and continually used, rubber bridge scoring. In addition, Duplicate bridge adds another layer of rigidity to what cards partnerships hold. In this manner the element is skill is boosted while the element of luck (unavoidably present) is made smaller. The Duplicate bridge article could get into the bidding boxes, the curtain used in large, international tournements and so on. But I would very much like to see these articles be friendly and readable so that a person who had never played bridge could read them and could find a logical development of complexity and of expertise required. So that a green player could view both how to begin to learn to play and where the top is too, that people make their living at playing bridge, that there are international tournements of great interest, that some top bridge players are recognized by various public figures and so on. So that a person can follow the logical development of being a beginning player, right through to becoming a top player. And the joy of the intellectual compitition combined with the social intercourse of sitting at a table with 3 people. We could compare that, perhaps, to Chess which is likewise an intellectual compitition but is less social with each board lasting longer and being less casual. You know what I mean? As it stands now a new player isn't introduced to the game in a logical sequence. This article covers too much ground and brings too much stiffness into the game too early. Terryeo 20:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Re "15 words": I kept on removing them because I myself was confused on the intent; I hardly recognized it was about 7levels+5strains+pass+dbl+rdbl. I don't think you can sum up apples and oranges in this way, i.e. counting levels and strains together. At best, we can tell about 35 possible bids/contracts and three other calls. Duja 08:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The English language contains hundreds of thousands of words. It communicates various ideas. The language of bridge bidding contains 15 words. It communicates various ideas. It is an entire language, a complete language and is recognized as the useable language to communicate one's holdings to others at the table. Notwithsanding that several combinations of the 15 words exist, the useable language of bidding is only 15 words. The use of that language is to communicate one's hand to one's partner, and, likewise, partner to self, to arrive at a contract. It is a communication language. Several websites teach bridge bidding in such a wise. Probably anyone who has earned master points would say the same, it is the language of bidding, it communicates with the other players at the table. Terryeo 00:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Bidding is the language of bridge."[4] and "Learning to play Contract Bridge also involves learning a new language to communicate with your partner during the auction period of the game. There are a variety of languages (bidding systems) used for this purpose."[5] 65.147.74.161 00:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If we enter strictly into the language theory (which is appropriate), then let me cite from Word and Morpheme:

A word is a unit of language that carries meaning and consists of one or more morphemes which are linked more or less tightly together.

In morpheme-based morphology, a morpheme is the smallest language unit that carries a semantic interpretation.

In such interpretation, in bridge, a sole level or denomination is not a word (because it's meaningless per se), but a morpheme. See also Word#Difficulty in defining the term. While applying language theory is not inappropriate, I think we should refrain from digging too much into it (other than as comparison) because a) we would probably disagree b) it is not really pertaining to the matter and c) borders with Wikipedia:No original research. Duja 10:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Suit or Strain

Bridge does not use suits, Bridge uses Strains. Hearts is a strain, notrump is a strain, clubs is a strain. Commonly people have used the term "suit" for everything, but Bridge has a fifth, "suit" which is no trump and so, bridge refers to its bids and contracts as "strains". 3 no trump is a contract played for 9 tricks with no trump as the strain. 4 hearts is a contract to take 10 tricks, the strain being hearts. Let us use the word strain in the article. The American Contract Bridge League (the 'authority on bridge in the western hemisphere) states: "Strain -- one of the four suits or notrump; the non-numerical element of a bid; denomination" [6] However, the same page says: " Suit; (1) one of the four divisions of the pack; spades, hearts, diamonds, or clubs; (2) with a trump suit, as opposed to notrump (as in "suit contract")." Let us use the appropriate term where appropriate. Terryeo 07:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I alone in thinking that "denomination" is more commonly used than "strain" to mean the four suits plus NT? I have checked in "The laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997" where it clearly states (page 12) "Denomination - The suit or no trump specified in a bid." whereas it makes no mention of the word "strain". Since the edition I am looking at was published in England, I have checked also in Bill Root's "The ABCs of Bridge" 1998 published by Three Rivers Press a division of Crown Publishers, New York; he defines denomination in an almost identical way - "The suit or notrump named in a bid" - and also makes no mention of the word strain. I have played bridge for many years in the UK (in homes, clubs and tournaments), in homes in Edmonton, Canada, a couple of times at a club in Northamptom, Mass and twice in a club in Rotorua, NZ - I have never once heard the word strain used in this context. I propose we use denomination in place of strain.

I propose we use both. The word "strain" is pretty much exclusively used in the ACBL's literature, including their educational software. Actually, I find the word "denomination" confusing, it sounds like it refers to the level, not the suit/no trump choice. Mangojuice^talk 14:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As Abtract wrote, "denomination" is the official term in the Laws. It does sound a bit legalese though, and is seldom used in colloquial speech, "strain" (somewhat American?) and "suit" (most often, but technically incorrect) prevailing. I also support to use the two interchangeably.Duja 08:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have looked this up on the ACBL web site and indeed both are defined (and cross referred) with strain appearing to be the predominant one from the way they are phrased in the definitions. However I am not convinced that the ACBL speaks for the western world as an earlier comment said or that "strain" is in use other that in the USA. It seems to me therefore that we would be better to use denomination (which after all means "name") since it will have more univeresal recognition ... I would be interested to hear what others think in various countries.Abtract 18:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly the contract bridge glossary puts denomination as the main definition with strain simply being cross referred - "see denomination" . Abtract 11:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, this probably doesn't matter terribly much. We should just pick one and go with it. The important thing is that we be consistent, and that we not lazily use "suit" when denomination or strain would be right, as Terryeo points out. Mangojuice^talk 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a bridge player, but IMHO it would probably minimize confusion among Wikipedia's diverse readership if we were to use suit the "wrong" way to include NT. Obviously we should explain the proper terminology, and then perhaps state that "in this article we will use 'suit' and 'strain' interchangeably". --Doradus (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Important bridge players

This can't go this way — either we select a dozen names and stick to them, or remove the list altogether. I'll revert it to the previous state, as I don't think that Westra, Vriend and Muller (who is that?) deserve that entry -- Auken maybe, but IMO not quite. Duja

Muller is European and World Champion Bauke Muller. What would be the criteria for including someone in the list of 'important bridge players'? Maybe we should indeed remove the list and refer to the category 'bridge players'. JocK 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not decisive yet myself whether it should be preserved. If it's preserved, the criteria should IMO include influence and widespread recognition rather than solely tournament success (or even perceived play ability). Under such criteria, e.g. Reese would precede e.g. Pabis-Ticci, desoute far more numerous titles of the latter. I realize, however, that such criterion is vague still. Duja 13:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This might be one of the few occasions we tend to agree ;) Perhaps we should only mention those people who really are seen as the 'all-time greats' (the bridge legends) and those that did set directions (change the game). As a consequence, I would expect to see in the list people like Harold Vanderbilt, rather than Sam Stayman etc. In total I would expect not much more than a handful of players in the list. JocK 17:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are really great players. Some of the really great players have contributed to the game in ways which make the game more widely played. Goren, for example, with his now-outdated point count system is often written about as popularizing the game, putting the game within reach of the beginner. If we confine our list to people who have been published about as having contributed significantly to the game, I think we fulfill WP:V and fulfill our common wishes for a good article. But if we make a list of people who have been published as being "masters", then our list grows much longer. The people who are "masters" and additionally are known for making the game more popular would be listed, is what I am thinking. The most modern such person I can think of would be Fred Gitelman who has been recognized by various honors awarded to him by various bridge establishments. Those sorts of honors are published, thus a list of such people would be citeable. Terryeo 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there isn't a much easier way of doing this. If a player, writer, personality or even fictional character is considered significant enough to merit a wikpedia article then (s)he should be referenced in this main contract bridge article. I suggest we change "Important bridge players" to "Significant bridge people" and use that one test for inclusion - do they merit a wiki article? Abtract 18:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments I have done the deed.Abtract 08:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I missed your old comment. English is not my mother tongue, but "significant" in conjunction with a person strikes my ears as odd. What was wrong with "important"? Duja 10:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "important" and as you meant the term has same meaning as "significant". But to a reader, I believe, "significant" is a better term. To be significant, something must first be important. We are talking about a history of the game, so "important to the game" might be a player who has won many championships. "Significant" suggests conveying important meaning half down the page. In this context of "significant to the game" would be people who have contributed to the meaning of the game. For example, the game became widely played because of Goren and became popular online because of Gitleman. Terryeo 17:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to solve the problem highlighted by the discussion above and to make it easier to include (those who warant a separate article) or exclude (those not warranting a separate article) people from the list. In so doing I have moved it to a less prominent position and renamed it to slightly downgrade the level of importance ... to me "important" means of great significance whereas "significant" means of note but not quite as high up the scale as important. The word is of less interest to me than the definition of who should be included "those who warrant a separate article" - if we can stick to this then it will be easy to decide who is in and who is out.Abtract 14:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Even by that semantics, the list in this article is supposed to be confined to the important ones rather than merely significant. And each of those significant ones does have a separate article — that still doesn't mean they should be listed here. Duja 14:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But that's my whole point. You say "this article is supposed to be confined to ...." but there was so much inconclusive debate above about who was "important" that it seems to me that we should let Wikipedia decide by including all bridge people (not just players but writers, teachers etc even fictional characters) who are significnat enough to merit their own article. This way we wouldn't have to debate each inclusion or exclusion - if a separate article exists or is promised then the person is included here. This is so simple and it can hardly be wrong since wikipedia methods will rule whether the article in question is allowable. I hope you see I am not trying to argue semantics (although, sadly, I am quite capable of that) I am proposing a new "rule" namely ... To justify inclusion in the 'Significant bridge people' section there must be a separate wikipedia article in existence or about to be written. This would stop all future wrangling about whether a name was "important". If, as I suspect the list grows quite long we can simply move it to a separate article where we might split the list into categories like:

Those who created the game ... pre 1940

Those who developed the modern game ... 1941 - 1999

Modern experts (subdivided into player and teacher/writers) ... 2000 todate.

Bridge players in fiction

or something like that. Abtract 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But this article is not the place to list all the notable bridge players which satisfy WP criteria — there is a couple of hundreds world champions, renowned theoretists or prominent writers. If we cannot agree who is notable enough to earn a place here, the only alternative is to delete the list altogether, not to include every bridge player we write about. I wouldn't particularly oppose a List of bridge players article, but it is already covered by Category:Bridge players and there's a redlink list on WP:WPCB#Tasks.

We should either have a vote to keep some 15 names or so, or delete the section. E.g. Vanderbilt and Culbertson would be linked in the "History" section anyway (alghough I feel we need a longer History of bridge article, with only brief summary here). Duja 07:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The more I read these comments, the more I think that Duja is right ... this is not the place to simply list bridge players however important or significant they are. My new suggestion is that we let the article naturally find a place for any players/wrwiters etc who has contributed to bridge in the main body of the article. This will avoid a constant debate about who is really important because it will flow naturally with the content - and avoiding argument was my main concern. So, I propose that we remove the list altogether.Abtract 09:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the defiinition but can we stick with notable please that is used elsewhere on WP? TerriersFan 23:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From Warren Buffett: Buffett is an avid player of the card game bridge. He has said that he spends 12 hours a week playing bridge ([7]). He often plays with Bill Gates.

In 2006, he sponsored a bridge match for the Buffett Cup ([8]). In this event, modeled on the Ryder Cup in golf (and held immediately before it and in the same city), a team of twelve bridge players from the United States took on twelve Europeans.

Thus, it is not vandalism to add the two richest people in the world as notable Bridge players. --70.111.218.254 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No one said it is vandalism, but the problem is that they aren't in any way notable as bridge players. Actually, James Bond and Hercule Poirot should probably go away as well. Actually, the entire section is on the verge of survival, as the list apparently cannot be agreed upon... Duja► 08:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I added Milton Work to the list of notable bridge people; he certainly qualifiews. I created an article on J.C.H. Marx as a redirect to Stayman convention - he may deserve an article but I'm not qualified to write it. At least it's no longer a redlink. I removed Anne Massey (redlink) from the list of notables - I've no idea who she might have been. If she should be there, go ahead and put her back. -- BPMullins | Talk 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This whole list is redundant Category:Bridge players. It should be deleted and a link to the category added as 'see also". 2005 (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Content" - recent addition

This was a recent addition by User:12.217.168.105:

On a trivial note, the word "content" which is now considered an improper use of the word "pass" was in fact a highly proper way to signal to one's partner that that partners previous bid is deemed appropriate—such that partner East is agreeing with partner West's previous bid and so forth. Consequently, two consecutive signals of the term "content" from opposing team members usually signalled the seal or close of a contract.

I removed it, as this is the first time I ever heard about it and it's unsourced. Does anyone know anything about it? It might be a remnant from Auction bridge but it looks quite odd to me... Duja 19:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't tell you about a reference for that, but it is a practice that is in use amongst experts in some bidding situations. I'm not sure the anon user has communicated the idea as well as it can be communicated, but the idea behind what he is saying is valid and is use today. I would invite him to say a bit more, there is a logic to what he says that is almost present but needs more clarification and there may be some misunderstanding (there is for me) of the context of the word "content". It leaves me slightly confused, but I think I have seen that done by very good players.Terryeo 03:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Online bridge cheating

A recent edit removed reference to this (cheating by using instant messenger to pass unauthorised info); surely this is worth a mention?Abtract 08:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself. As things evolve, ways develop to cheat. Then ways develop to prevent cheating, then ways develop to work around the preventing, etc. etc. Which is probably why, when it comes to international ratings, only a small percentage of the points can have been earned via online play. Terryeo 17:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Techniques Section

The techniques section is a bit patchy atm - someone unnamed has started to have a go (thanks!) at it but it still needs some work to make it more coherent. Any suggestions? I reverted the last change as the article it pointed to doesn't say when NOT to duck but I think it probably should - and when it does the link can be changed. Cambion 17:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Phileas Fogg

Phileas Fogg seems to be from 1870 so wouldn't he have played whist, not bridge? The versio of PF here Phileas_Fogg_(SAJV) seems to be a bridge player but is the guy in the books? Can anyone say for sure? Cambion (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't suppose that the makers of the TV series in which that version of Fogg appeared were too concerned with historical accuracy. The text of the original book Around the World in 80 Days ought to be available on Project Gutenberg, so you could check for yourself whether the word "whist" is mentioned. As you say, it could hardly be bridge. JH (talk page) 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just did so. He does indeed play whist, not bridge. --Doradus (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Mistake?

"Then East and West would be the defenders, South would be the declarer (being the first to bid spades)" - I don't know bridge at all, but isn't in that example North supposed to be the declarer, being the one who bid the final contract? Chjoodge (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is correct. It's not who bids the final contract but whichever partner first bid the suit. (BTW it's usual to add a new comment after the existing ones.) JH (talk page) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. Sorry for posting on the top, as I am writing this I am moving this correctly to the bottom. Chjoodge (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability or otherwise of Cezary Balicki

Cezary Balicki is the 13th ranked played in the world, the highest-ranked Pole, a multiple winner of the European teams championship, winner of the 2000 transnational teams, twice winner of the Spingold, winner of the Macallan, co-inventor of the influential Suspensor system. Mere non-existence of a wikipedia article does not make him non-notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLockhart (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Assertion of notability does not cut the mustard with WP:N. Create an article about him if he is notable, and let it pass the notability of standards of the encyclopedia. Pretty simple. There should be no red links on a list like that. 2005 (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You say "There should be no red links on a list like that". Can you point me at the wikipedia policy that says that? I agree this would be reasonable if wikipedia were a finished product, but it is constant work-in-progress.

This is now done EdwardLockhart (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary bridge

Is there any difference between the games described in Contract bridge and Ordinary bridge? If there is, can you please explain it here; otherwise, "Ordinary bridge" should probably be redirected here. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I had not seen that article before but it is definitely a different game ... one of those early attempts to devise a successor to whist that eventually led to contract bridge. I have put a note on the page to clarify the historial situation. It wouldn't be right to merge but it may be right to move it as I do not think the game was ever called "ordinary" bridge ... I will look into it. Abtract (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Trump article

Currently trump directs to a disambiguation page, but I feel it should go to the article on the term as used for card games. [That Trump (card game) article needs a lot of work by the way.] Please add your opinions: Talk:Trump
--Parsa (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with Opening Lead

Please help me Wikify Opening Lead. I also can't get the templates to come up. Thanks.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eljamin (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo

The picture is fine from a photographic view, but the hand is a little odd - it looks like it is being played at notrump, when a major suit would likely have been much better (4H and 4S are both plausible contracts, whereas 3NT is unmakeable). If it is played at notrump, then a heart is an odd-looking lead.

Perhaps a more straightforward hand would be a better introduction?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLockhart (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dealing

The dealing section was full of detail about travelling slips, boards, scoring and electronic scorers which have nothing to do with dealing and would only totally confuse a non-duplicate player. I have moved the information to the relevant sections and sub articles and edited it down. And rewritten the Rubber article as it was very difficult to follow and said nothing about Rubber bridge except a confused version of how games and rubber bonuses worked. Dewatf (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me ... just in passing, the traditional way is to post new sections at the bottom of a talk page. Enjoy. Abtract (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Favorite vs. Favourite

Per this [change] to the article contract bridge which changed the American spelling of "favorite" to the British spelling of "favourite". Per Wikipedia manual of style (WP:AmE), either form is correct, with two goals: consistancy throughout the article, and typically associating the language form with the cultural group in reference in the article. I did not change the form used, as it could be correct, though when the reference is to the American Contract Bridge League, it may be better to use the American form in this instance. Just a point of interest. Rmosler | ● 13:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the rule is cultural significance, then (if neutral) following the preference of whoever started the article. The fact that the ACBL is mentioned is irrelevant (just happens that more detail about that national body is know so far). One could argue that the game was invented (in the form we now appreciate) in the UK therefore BE is better. AmE seems to be used at the moment, so I say stick with that. Prolinol (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Info Box listing of alternative names

Jhall1 reverted Newwhist's contribution of several alternative names to the InfoBox. These terms are quite common at least in North America, have their own WP pages, and are mentioned quite a bit in this main Contract Bridge WP page. IMHO there's see nothing wrong with them being in the InfoBox also because they all are different ways of playing the basic game of Contract Bridge. Irv (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My argument is that they are not alternative names for the game of contract bridge, so don't belong in the infobox. They describe different forms of the game, which is not the same thing. They should, of course, be described in the body of the article. Peerhaps there should be a section entitled "Forms of contract bridge"? JH (talk page) 20:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I accept that the added/reverted names are subsets of contract bridge and need not be in the infobox if the infobox is intended for synonyms only. The suggestion that there be a section entitled "Forms of contract bridge" is a good one. The proposed section could give a summary description of each subset (duplicate bridge, rubber bridge, etc.) and refer to their own main artilces where the four headings (dealing, bidding, playing and scoring) could be given clearer and more comlete treatment. The way it is now, the main contract bridge article attempts to describe the main variations and gets a bit cumbersome. IMHO the contract bridge main article needs to be shrunk down to a basic and generic description of contract bridge and hand off the details to other articles. Even then, each of the articles would benefit from a distinction between basic and more advanced concepts. Newwhist (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Third para of the lead

I think at present the third paragra[h of the lead is rather mixing up two different things: the importance and the size of duplicate events. Though the Bermuda Bowl and the Olympiad are the most important events, they aren't the largest in terms of numbers of tables, and it's not true to say that they have hundreds of tables. Also as of 2008 the Olympiad has been superseded by the World Mind Sports Games (something which the separate article on the Olympiad fails to mention!). JH (talk page) 08:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Length of the article

I feel that the article has become rather over-long. Some of the detailed information that has recently been added would, I think, be better in subsidiary articles that could be linked to from this one. JH (talk page) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. In addition it has become rather US-centric. I suggest we hive off at least two daughter articles Contract bridge in the USA and Contract bridge in Europe. Abtract (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. While I think all of the info in the article has a place somewhere in wikipedia the article itself is a pretty formidable read. It is tricky to decide what _exactly_ to do as any changes will be massive and probably need careful planning and some time to implement... Cambion (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the bidding and strategy section should have its own page. Something like Contract bridge bidding and play. Hardyplants (talk) 07:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have created List of significant bridge people, books, competitions and awards thereby reducing the size of this article by 35%. If this doesn't meet with general approval then revert it but it seems to me that these lists were a major part of the problem. Abtract (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good start :-). I personally would dump the play techniques section - it merely duplicates the article it points to (and I don't think it is written very well anyway.) I would also move the bidding systems and conventions to another article and merely state that the bidding is used as a 'code' to find the right spot; rather than go into detail on the main page. Keep the example though. That is helpful. Personally I think that the article should be more approachable than it is - aimed at people know don't know how to play or know a little with the in depth stuff in other articles (but clearly linked!). Any thoughts? Cambion (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"This way a real competition is established." ...what a crappy filler sentence. It's a game; I'd sure hope that there is competition, and I'd further be surprised if it weren't "real". I think people are intelligent enough to realize that one party setting a goal for themselves and a second party doing everything in their power to impede is a "competition". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.38.194.13 (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, actually, as I read further, the whole article feels like it might have been written by someone for whom English is a second or third language. I'd like to rewrite most of it - not change the content, necessarily, but upgrade this article's quality by a few notches. Due to not being a tenured, vested Wikipedia user, will my edit get voted off of the island, or can I do this? 64.38.194.13 (talk) 02:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure you can do that. I suspect that the quality of the writing in the article is a consequence of lots of different people editing it at different times. There's always the risk of that producing a rather choppy, disjointed result. JH (talk page) 09:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is without a doubt the worst written Wikipedia article in English I have ever run into. It reads like the instructions for a cheap Chinese electronic device. I have read articles here on subatomic physics or music theory that are easier to understand than this. Surely there is a competent English-as-first-language bridge player that can rewrite/edit this into something coherent. I realize that I am not providing anything positive, but I came here because of my complete ignorance about bridge, and I wanted an answer in (somewhat) competent English. This does not fit that bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.229.18 (talk) 01:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I still have no idea how to play bridge

Wow, after reading this entry, I'm even more confused how bridge is played. --68.103.141.28 (talk) 06:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a tutorial site. Its purpose is to provide encyclopedic information about a topic, such as its history, cultural effects etc. There are plenty of tutorial sites on the internet that offer the information for which you're looking. Mindmatrix 14:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

new head

The top lines of wikis "contract bridge" in its actual form (10.05.2010) omit basic facts and elevate secondary details. But these lines should and can give a fundamental view of bridge. Apart from rules, the very essence of the competition must be cited. If bridge is explained to non players - and this is what Wiki should do - we must avoid to use bridge terms, unless we explain them. I have explained bridge to persons who never had a card in their hand. Here is the text:

"Quote"

Contract bridge (usually knwon simply as "bridge"), is a card game played with 52 cards (see box at right) . It is played by four players who form two partnerships; the partners ( N;E;S;W) sit opposite each other at a table. The game consists of dealing, the auction (bidding) and downplay of 13 tricks, after which the hand is scored; all this takes about ten minutes. All actions are done clockwise.

The bidding ends with a "contract", which is a declaration by one partnership that their side will win at least a stated number of tricks, with a specified suit as trump or without trumps. The declaring partnership will try to make the annouced tricks, and the opponents - the other partnership- will try to impede them. This way a real competiton is established. Downplay: 52 cards ( 4 x 13 ) are dealt to the four players. To the first trick each player places one card on the table, and the highest card wins. The winner is entitled to put the first card to the next trick. This downplay ends with trick # 13. The result is expressed in a score, a numerical value, which permits comparing to other scores.

The detailed rules of play for tournaments are many, but millions of players have no difficulty to have the basic rules in mind. The special rule that one player's hand (dummy) is displayed face up on the table is the necessary exception from the basic rule, that no player must know the content of the other hands: the table view enables the declarer to direct the game. Bridge has special methods of counting and uses words/expressions/denominations with different meaning to public use: in consequence persons not connected to bridge have dificulties to understand

Bridge players like to play many deals one after another. If a given deal is to be played by another for players - or again at a later time- , it must be conserved in containers(boards) at the end of the downplay. There are no proverbial "good or bad cards (fortuitousnes)" in bridge, if deals are played from both sides (NS and EW). Each new hand asks for solution of the problems of the actual deal. No deal is the same as the last deal; by dealing more than 6oo ooo ooo hands can be generated.

Bridge is played in private at home (one-table-competition), and a possible standard is 16 boards. ( old form : rubber) Players are free to use the rules set by the WBF and the usual boards and bidding boxes. There is no money involved.

Tournaments, where two or more tables play the same deal of cards, are organised by small clubs with a handful of tables, or more tables in big clubs, regional, national and international Organisations. They follow the rules of the World Bridge Federation. Membership in Clubs is mostly paid, at least a table fee is requested. In Tournaments duplicating of deals is necessary, if all participants are to play a deal at the same time (hence the name duplicate bridge). The winner of a competition is found by interpreting the score. Several methods are in use. I.E. the own score could be better, equal or inferior the the score of other contestants.:

"unqote"

If we ask google for information about bridge, we will get millions of citations; many thousand books have been published on bridge, there are several monthly publications. Some people make their living from bridge. The number of organised players is more than 1.500 000, the number of non registered player is probably greater. To sum up: Bridge is a global universe, with leaders, heroes, fights, underlings, constitution, business, inventors, legislation, history and future, and more. Congratulations to Wiki, to give insight. HJPH Mai 2010 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Hauff (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

LAWS of rubber Bridge The Wikin text should read as follows:

"Rubber" is an old standard to play a limited number of deals, full in use up to1925 and part of the laws in use at that time. These included much discuted procedures to establish the score. Many terms with exiplit meaning created in these laws, i.e."game" are still in use today.

The concept of "rubber" is simple: a defined number of deals (manche/section/inning) is played. If you (and your partner) win, then a second manche starts under more difficult conditions to win . If you win again, rubber ends. If you dont, a third manche is started. Rubber is won by the players having to manches won.

A manche is won, if 100 trick-scores are made within the downplay of one or more deals. Players have to keep account of theses values. They must be aware that each score is a composite of trick-values and premium scores. And they must know the basic concept of scoring: you win, when the contract is fullfilled. Else you loose by undertricks. A partnership must have made six tricks (the book) before trick number seven counts as won.

"More difficult conditions to win" are based on the fact that "scoring" includes values for not fulfilling a contract. The standard "rubber" introduces higher losses for the second manche to the winner of the first manche in case of undertricks. In general, the double value is applied. This procedure was baptised as " beeing in danger" resp. vulnerability. To a certain extent, this concept diminuishes the effect of good or bad cards (fortuitousness).

If we regard "bridge" as a system, "being in danger/vulnerability" introduces a new factor to be considered for every action in bidding and downplay. If you are "vulnerable" you will not try risky actions and play safe. "Vulnerable" was kept in use when the new "laws of contract bridge" ( the LAW ) were shaped in 1925. It was incorporated in the boards, each board prescribing one of the four possibilities of vulnerability.

The use of the procedure rubber became rather obsolete for two reasons: players could go to clubs and play without fortuitousnes, because boards were either played from both sides (team of four), or the "Mitchel" movement cared for identical conditions if the movement had more than six tables. The procedures of Rubber were substituted by "movements", indicating number of deals, opponents and more. The second reason is of technical nature. Up to 1925 bridge was played with two decks of cards, and the rules of scoring rested in the mind of the players. Now, in private play at home, boards were used and score was taken from the backside of the bidding box-cards.

In private play, the basic ideas of the "law of contract bridge" were followed and adapted to local needs, and this form was baptised "chikago". Trick-score is substituted by the score as laid down in the law. This type of game is subject to "good and bad cards". In the process of shaping the LAW, Jean Besse (1914-1994) a former member of the Laws comission, recommended playing from both sides. ( Bridge Bulletin ACBL Dec.1999), thus eliminating fortuitousness. This idea was proposed anew by the ACBL ( fun with one table): Besse bridge. Today, ( 2005) if two pairs want to compete in private, they play a minimum of eight boards from both sides. The summed up scores give a clear winner, and there are no good or bad cards. This form of play is facilitated by the fact, that bridge became a silent game by the use of bidding boxes and boards.

---

Commentary to the actual version:

There are only three lines with negative content in the actual form (5/2010) of contribution. But rubber bridge was the "state of the art" of playing bridge before 1925 and the rubber laws were the predecessor of the "laws of contract bridge" in use today. In consequence, Rubber played an important role in shaping the LAW. Playing rubber did not disappear abruptly. 1959, a leading figure in international bridge, Alfred Sheinwolds , shows in his book the rubber scoring table only ( ISBN 0-671-47214-3; 5 weeks to winning bridge). 2002, the author of these lines was convited to play rubber by a local pair, when he visited Cornwall, GBR. In 2010, Amber Macleod reports to have duplicate played in Hampstaed (London) - ACBL Bridge Bulletin Mai 2010, pg.6. --Paul Hauff (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff

I too have always felt that the main entry was not of sufficient quality - see my third indented comments above in section 2 of the discussion page; no one has advanced the debate until your above entry. The key point I wish to restate is that the main article should briefly and generically describe contract bridge and hand off the details to other main articles. Below is some alternative wording I have developed which, like yours, is ready for further debate and refinement. I offer it not as a substitute for the current or your version but as another perspective.

Quote

Contract bridge, usually known simply as bridge, is a trick-taking card game played by four players in two competing partnerships using a standard deck of 52 playing cards with partners sitting opposite each other around a table. For purposes of scoring and reference, each player is identified by one of the points of the compass and thus North and South play against East and West. The game consists of several hands (or deals) each progressing through four phases - dealing the cards, the auction (also referred to as bidding), playing the hand and scoring the results. Dealing the cards and scoring the results are procedural activities leaving the auction and playing the hand as the two actively competitive phases of the game.

Cards are dealt so that each player receives thirteen cards. The auction starts with the dealer and rotates around the table clockwise with each player making a call , the purpose being to determine which partnership will contract to take the most number of tricks given a particular trump suit or notrump (known as the strain or denomination). The player who, during the auction, first stated the strain ultimately becoming trumps or notrumps is referred to as the declarer. The rules of play are similar to other trick-taking games with the additional feature that the hand of declarer's partner is displayed face up on the table after the opening lead has been made by the member of the defending partnership to the left of declarer; the displayed hand is referred to as the dummy and is played by declarer. After all thirteen tricks have been played, the hand's score is determined by comparing the actual number of tricks taken by the declaring partnership with that proposed in the contract and awarding points accordingly. Individual scores of several hands are accumulated to determine the overall game score.

While the game involves skill and chance, it has many variants and event types designed to emphasize skill, vary the method of scoring, set limits on the nature of the bidding systems which may be used, limit the duration of play, have larger team composition, provide country representation in international play and to group players of similar interests, skill levels, age or gender, or combinations thereof. The most common game variants are rubber bridge and duplicate bridge. In rubber bridge, two partnerships particpate in the game at one table and the objective is to score the most number of points in the play of several hands. In duplicate bridge, there are more tables and partnerships and the hands are dealt and played in such a manner that each partnership plays the same set of hands and with the scoring based upon relative performance. Competitions in duplicate bridge range from small clubs with a handful of tables, to large tournaments such as the World Bridge Championships where hundreds of tables play the same hands. The game variant and associated method of scoring has sigificant influence on bidding and card play strategies.

Unquote

I had not finished editing my 'generic' version, especially the references which are sadly lacking in the existing article. At this stage though, I would be glad to colaborate on a strategy and implementation for improving the existing article using all of our ideas. --Newwhist (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

---

I appreciate the latest contribution, but it i simply to long and to much detail. After reading the content of the " contract bridge" I must confess : it is a wild mixture of facts of different level of importance and origin. It is of no use to anybody, whether for beginners, advanced or top players and especially for persons unfamiliar to bridge. It should be replaced by short analytical contributions. One more point: bridge is in constant progress. I takes much time and much love to this game to contribute. It could be done step by step. I decided to post a bew version to " rubber bridge. 92.226.132.169 (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff 19.5.2010

Commentary to the last version (11.05.2010)

There are only three lines with negative content . But rubber bridge was the "state of the art" of playing bridge before 1925 and the rubber laws were the predecessor of the "laws of contract bridge" in use today. In consequence, Rubber played an important role in shaping the LAW. Playing rubber did not disappear abruptly. 1959, a leading figure in international bridge, Alfred Sheinwolds , shows in his book the rubber scoring table only ( ISBN 0-671-47214-3; 5 weeks to winning bridge). 2002, the author of these lines was convited to play rubber by a local pair, when he visited Cornwall, GBR. In 2010, Amber Macleod reports to have duplicate played in Hampstaed (London) - ACBL Bridge Bulletin Mai 2010, pg.6. Paul Hauff (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff

Laws of duplicate contract bridge

New text proposed

Any cardplay needs rules for the player to agree upon. For bridgeplayers worlwide, a set of rules called "Laws of duplicate contract bridge" is a kind of "magna carta " which settles the basic rules. " The laws have surrounded a concept that produces one of the world's most fascinating activities with equity-preserving adjustments, and their global standardisation has made bridge truly universal. ( The BRIDGE WORLD, Oct.1998, Editorial)"

The actual rules ( 5/2010) are promulgated by the WBF, World Bridge Federation, as "International Code of Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 (LAW)", available under www.worldbridge.org/departments/laws. There are 93 sub-laws.

O r i g i n : the laws were shaped, designed and tested by Harold S. Vanderbilt in 1925, based on the existing rules.

U t i l i t y: The knowledge of the laws is "condition sine qua non " for any organiser of tournaments and top players. Many procedures can be learned by doing (playing) and are sufficient for ordinary play.

P r o f i t a b i l i t y : These laws are base to have a satisfactory social life for earning reputation ( e.g. for those who collect "points" of medal-character), for earning a living ( as teacher, effecting bridge cruises, etc. ) for exercing power ( e.g. directing a club, as TD, ) for play, the most fascinating activity in card games.

C h a r a c t e r : The word "Law" implies, that everybody is forced to follow these rules. This has indeed be a constant problem, only in 2007 by law 80, these rules became a kind of constitution, WBF, Zonal Authoritys and National Bridge Organisations were declared as " Regulating Authority". National, regional units as well as clubs declare out of own independence that the will be subject of a given understanding, in this case the "Law of duplicate contract bridge". There are no treatys based on national law ( example of "globalisation"). There are repeated attempts to negate the leadership of the WBF ( see previous text.)

I n c o m p l e t e : like nearly all "constitutions", the LAW does not regulate necessary details. In consequence, National Organisations produced the necessary bylaws, often created by national "Laws and Ethics" Committees, e.g the Orange book in GBR. Groups were organised to discuss problems of correct interpretation, e.g the DOUBL mailing list ( international discussion). The WBF recognises the need for repairs by maintaining a "WBF Law Committee" . It works on a continous basis and is interpreting the laws as required.

I m p r o v e m e n t s : The LAW is a tool to have organised competitions, this activity could be considered of profession of its own. Procedures and adequate standards are needed. Due to Vanderbilt were the systematic concept of scoring, the introduction of boards; the standard for bidding; the institution of a TD Tournament Director and more. Missing were "movements", a set of instructions to fix where, when, against whom and how often to play. The includsion of contradictionary elements for giving information had negative effects: tournaments were won by contesting incorrect information, judged by a "court" established under national rules. At no time in the history has been an systematic effort by bridge bodys to eliminate weak elements of the LAW which are reponsible for - compared to world figures - the number of new players is little. Carmakers strip down their products each year to parts to find improvements. - - - - - - - - - - - - Paul Hauff (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff Game Play is a header for dealing/auction/play/scoring and needs no own text.The actual content has to reappaer in these for sections. But an introduction is needed. Paul Hauff (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff Dealing and auction need more information 78.51.73.254 (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff

Reversion

I have reverted the changes to section 1 made by Paul Hauff, and rewritten the lead section and section 2 based on his versions of these but improving the style, correcting factual inaccuracies and removing inappropriate material. The previous version of section 1 was a good exposition of the game and did not need to be rewritten. Ehrenkater (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There may be some useful information somewhere in Paul Hauff's contribution, but the vast majority of it is unencyclopaedic, or duplicates material which is already in the article or in one of the other articles on contract bridge. The whole of it is written in such bad English as to be difficult to follow. Ehrenkater (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Commentary to Reversion

Ehrenkater decided to delete Paul Hauff contribution to Wiki "contract bridge" page. Hauffs text was written with the intention to attract new players to this game. You can read this text under www.bridgeassistant.net /Miscell and form you own opinion to the content. You, dear reader, are free to copy and use this text to get new players. Paul Hauff (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff 17 June 2010

Popularity

Bridge is by far the most popular card game in the over 65 demographic, but the lowest in the 16-35 age group.

What does "but the lowest in the 16-35 age group" mean? That doesn't make any sense. I can't check the reference as I don't have it but I'd also imagine relative popularity varies per country... Cambion (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I doubt its the lowest of all card games, but it is substantially lower than the 65+ group. My guess is that the data is North American centric, and might be different for China and other parts of the world. Hardyplants (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral?

Is the article neutral? Because to me it sounds like it is trying to persuade you to play bridge. --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Persuasion not intended. Please cite specific instances which do not comply with NPOV. Newwhist (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Olov Hanner (Olof Hanner)

I wikified this reference for the article on Hanner's coauthor Hans Radstrom:

Hallén, Hans-Olof; Hanner, Olof; Jannersten, Per. Bridge movements: A fair approach (English translation by Barry Rigal of Swedish original ed.). ISBN 91-85024-86-4., ISBN 9789185024865

Maybe it is of use to this article, or to some of you?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

too long. not for its overall content, just long. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Has been a little too long for a while but a recent anonymous edit (August 17, 2012) made things much worse; that edit provided good input - just in the wrong place. Will put some effort to this but busy with other stuff just now. Newwhist (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I think only the first patragraph is needed for the lead. Some of the rest can perhaps be slotted in elsewhere in the article, though some seems to duplicate what is already covered later in the article. JH (talk page) 16:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Squeeze

The page has, "more advanced techniques include the "squeeze play" in which a defender is forced to choose which card to discard before declarer has to make his own discard choice."

The word "before" is emphasized in this sentence. I disagree with the emphasis. There are elementary squeeze positions where the defender who is squeezed plays last to the trick where the squeeze occurs.

199.168.151.164 (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)