Talk:Contract bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Contract bridge, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] Announcement: Cat:Bridge templates

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

Cat: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 Cat:Wikipedians bridge players so that we could find each other more easily. Duja 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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."[1] 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."[2] 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)

[edit] 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" [3] 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. Mangojuicetalk 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. Mangojuicetalk 14:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Help with Opening Lead

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EContract_bridge_68b7.html"