Talk:Contract bridge glossary

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] Proposed merge

Support. Having the two articles is confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atrian (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC-5)

I've done the merge. DES (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruff and Sl?

DES and Atrian, thanks for your contributions; I wonder how you managed such number of edits without "edit conflicts". I'm curious about spelling of Slough/Sluff. I also knew the phrase as "Ruff and Sluff" but Google search yields far more "Ruffs and Sloughs". It's likely that "sluff" is a "newspelled" word which rhymes better with "ruff" (cf. "Lite", "Disk"). Note that there already is an article on Ruff-and-slough. What should we do? Duja 11:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Every bridge book i have read, and I have read many, spelld this "Sluff" It may be that "shough" is the older spelling or is the UK spelling, i don't know. The ACBL magazine also rountienly spells it "Sluff" if yopu wait a day or two i can post citations. DES (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
BTW I had a couple of edit conflicts -- i just copied my own entry and re-enterd. but with so many sections, and pretty much all edits section edits, usually we happend to edit differnt sections at any given time, and that doesn't cause an edit conflict. Also, thanks to Atrian for cleaning up so many of my typos (and they really were mostly typos, not true spelling errors, but they still needed to be cleaned up) DES (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved Ruff-and-slough to Ruff and discard. This is probably the most common term anyway, and avoids spelling issues. Duja 08:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonus

Atrian, I think the entry of Bonus is overlong. This is a glossary, not an article, and the full stuff is already explained in Bridge scoring. Let's try to keep this list within reasonable limits, otherwise it will turn into an encyclopedia of its own. Duja 15:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've shortened it a bit, and removed all the actual score amounts. DES (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
folks, I agree with this change. I didn't know about the separate page on scoring. Atrian 17:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening light...

...should be merged here, if it is verified as a usage. BD2412 T 15:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution convention

I've added a link in the glossary to a Distribution page, which describes the distinction between, say, 4-4-4-1 and 4=4=4=1. What do you think? Should the bridge articles adopt this convention? Have they done so already and I've just failed to notice? Xlmvp 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that article should be devoted only to that notation convention. However, it has a potential to be expanded into e.g. list of distribution probabilities etc, so let it stay for now.
Other than that, I agree with you that the convention should be adopted throughout bridge articles. The right place for specifying that (apart from mentioning ig in Distribution (bridge)), would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge. Since several people have already asked why it doesn't exist, so that we can coordinate our efforts, I'm starting it right now (well, as one of most experienced editors). The link above will become operable when I'm done; please point all future discussion about our strategies, conventions etc. there. Duja 07:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glossary clutter?

Elsewhere on this site, this glossary was described as cluttered. I don't disagree, but I thought a comparison might be in order. Descriptive statistics aren't my usual bailiwick, but FWIW:

  • As of 24 July 2006, we have 193 glossary entries.
  • Under letter A, we have 7 entries; under letter B, we have 11 entries.
  • Not that it's a model for us -- just a convenient comparison -- The Bridge World's online glossary has 55 entries under A and 85 under B. (Because each letter occupies a separate page, I couldn't conveniently get a count on TBW's entire list.)
  • So, taking A and B as a grab sample, this glossary currently has about one entry for every eight in TBW's glossary.
  • Under A, we have one entry not listed in TBW: Autobridge. Under B, we have three: Bid out of turn, Bonus, and Butler. (I'm a little surprised that these three are missing from TBW. Its glossary does list Revoke, Insufficient bid, Irregularity, etc., so why not Bid out of turn? Bonus should probably be there. Butler's iffy for TBW but surely belongs here.)

To reiterate: TBW is not necessarily our model for anything, but on the basis of a comparative count of entries we're not cluttered ... yet. OTOH: Our descriptions seem to be more verbose than those in TBW glossary. For example, TBW defines Agreement as "an advance understanding between partners about the meanings of their calls and defensive card plays," whereas we define it as "An understanding between partners as to the meaning of a particular bid or play. The set of all the agreements in a partnership forms the Bidding system and the Signals." We use exactly twice the number of words to define the same concept.

If Bagel were in our glossary, someone -- perhaps that's me -- would surely be tempted to explain the allusion to a zero, but I can't see that's necessary in the glossary definition. If the concept is important enough to explain in a linked article, let the fun-to-know-and-tell stuff go there. If not, you have to wonder how interesting the explanation would be.

It does seem to me that stringing the entire glossary across a single page contributes to a sense of clutter. So does verbosity (and for sure I'm an offender -- just look at this entry). So for the time being, I propose that:

  • Someone (who knows how to do so using Wiki tools) break the glossary into separate pages, one initial letter per page.
  • We enforce terse in-glossary definitions. I think that someone somewhere proposed a maximum of three sentences for a non-linked definition. I'd go much farther than that -- one sentence maximum, and that must not be a run-on sentence.
  • Wait a while longer to decide if we're overdoing it on what entries belong in the glossary.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlmvp (talk • contribs)
Oops -- sorry I forgot to sign.Xlmvp 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I said slightly cluttered. For example, I dislike TLA's of NCBOs (I'd retain only WBF, ACBL and EBU) and bridge magazines. Some definitions, as you pointed out, are too verbose (one sentence limit is, however, too harsh; e.g. Vulnerability and Reverse are difficult concepts to explain that tersely). Also, I think the glossary should be at least partially aimed to non-players, so some verbosity (within reasonable limits) is not unwelcome.
So if I understand, your comment concerning slight clutter was motivated by inappropriate entries. Fair enough. Xlmvp 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't like (yet) the idea of splitting it into one-page-per-letter. The glossaries are long by definition, and this one is still fairly manageable. By browsing through TBW glossary, I do indeed find many useful entries not covered here; I also find some fairly obscure (Apricot sundae? According to Hoyle?). Also, I think conventions (except the few most popular, like Stayman and Blackwood) should not have glossary entries. I see this article as the list of commonly used terms.
I agree as to commonly used terms and conventions. I'll continue to stump occasionally for separate pages per letter. Even now, I find it a pain in the butt to scroll up to the TOC so as to reach a particular letter. "Apricot sundae" might be regional slang: I've never heard it in the Western U.S., but I remember seeing it years ago in, I think, the Master Solvers Club, in a comment by Jeff Rubens. Well, it's his glossary, I guess. "According to Hoyle" has been generalized, usually in the negative, in U.S. English, and probably in the UK, to anything not strictly approved by Authority, and would be recognized as such nearly everywhere in the U.S. I'd think that neither "apricot sundae" (because of its obscurity and specificity) nor "according to Hoyle" (because the popular slang usage doesn't apply to bridge) belongs here. Xlmvp 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
A complement approach could be to make the equivalent of e.g. List of chess topics -- commonly used and/or terms not needing a separate articles go to the glossary, while all articles, including the more obscure ones, would go to the list. I'm contemplating making it, as it can be done semi-automatically (either browsing through Category:Bridge or using a trick with a temporary modification of {{WPCB}}—we must ensure, though, it's attached to all talk pages).
(Btw, we did have an entry for Bonus, but it was slightly misplaced in the alphabetical order).
Yes. I meant that along with Bid out of turn and Butler, Bonus is missing from TBW's glossary. Xlmvp 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose a gradual scan through TBW glossary and including sensible entries here (not by means of copy & paste, of course, per WP:COPY). After that, we can see what to do with the length of the article. Duja 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, especially as we build up the list of entries to include the terms that we would generally agree belong here. But some organization would help avoid duplication of effort. Does a method exist in Wiki to record that, say, letter D has been scanned, compared, and appropriate entries added to this glossary? And, again, I think we want to be cautious about modeling this glossary on one that has principally an English language viewpoint and secondarily a U.S., even New York, viewpoint. Xlmvp 14:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need some particular organization; at a time (see article history), I gave it an initial push and afterwards User:Atrian and User:DESiegel almost simultaneously, section by section filled it in. So, a simple method could be that whoever wants to participate, does a letter and scratches it in a box below (using e.g. <s>...</s> HTML tags). Duja 18:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents: Top - 0–9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

[edit] Honours even

Atrian, I'm well aware that "honours" is an alternative spelling, and I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge "honors" as the variant. And I spent some time stressing over whether to delete the "(u)". After a look at the Wiki (not specifically the contract bridge) style manual, I decided to strike it for a couple of reasons: I find the insertion of the parenthetical "u" visually jarring, and the manual advises against two different spellings on the same page. So, if we want to comply with that advice, we'd have to spell it "hono(u)rs" throughout, and I really doubt we want to do that. And then what of colo(u)rs? and favo(u)rs? and ardo(u)r?

Fowler's Modern English Usage says, "Those who are willing to put national prejudice aside and examine the facts soon realize, first, that the British -our words are much fewer in proportion to the -or words than they supposed, and, secondly, that there seems to be no discoverable line between the two sets so based on principle as to serve any useful purpose."

I've left your recent revision as is, but I think that we should let "honour" go the way of "governour." Xlmvp 15:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely wiki rules are quite clear - whichever spelling (US or UK) an article is started with is the one that should continue; there is certainly no point in debating which is better. One things is certain, that adding the U in brackets, like hono(u)r is very inelegant and will not contribute to the understanding of the article. I am English but I am quite happy to use the American spelling in bridge articles because it is simpler and more likely to be common usage. Abtract 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

From the Wikipedia Help on reverting:

Being reverted can feel a bit like a slap in the face — "I worked hard on those edits, and someone just rolled it all back". However, sometimes a revert is the best response to a less-than-great edit, so we can't just stop reverting. What's important is to let people know why you reverted. This helps the reverted person because they can remake their edit, but fixing whatever problem it is that you've identified.

Xlmvp 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Transfer

I've recently learned something about the regulations adopted by sponsoring organizations other than the ACBL: in particular, that the EBU sanctions knocking on the table in place of saying "Alert" or tapping the strip or using the card. I may have even more to learn about this topic. In editing the existing entry for Transfer in the glossary, I encountered this:

Also spoken as a call as in 'transfer' as an alternative to saying 'alert'.

which I interpret to mean the statement of a call's meaning in place of the announcement that the call has a possibly unexpected meaning. I know that in the early days of the Alert in the ACBL, uninformed players often announced a bid's meaning without giving the opponents a chance to decline the information. Is there a sponsoring organization that in 2006 sanctions this as procedure? For the time being I've removed the statement but will put it back if it's appropriate. Xlmvp 17:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

In the ACBL in particular, certain specific calls are supposed to be "announced" rather than alerted. Direct transfers to the majors in response to an opening no-trump bid are announced as "transfer" (other transfers are alerted); Opening bids of one no-trump have the point range announced (as "15 to 17" or "12 to 14" or whatever); Forcing and semi-forcing one NT responses to opening bids are announced as "Forcing" or "Semi-Forcing". In those cases where an announcement is specified by the official alert procedure, an alert is NOT supposed to be used, unless the meaning is quite unusual compared to the common meaning of the bid with the announcement. I have added "announcement" to the glossary, as it is an alternative to "alert", not an alternate way of making an alert. DES (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive vs. triple squeeze

Not sure where to put this. I see that Triple Squeeze redirects to Progressive Squeeze. The implication that I get from that is that a triple squeeze is a progressive squeeze, which isn't the case. Progressive squeezes are usually regarded as a subset of triples. I'd do something about the redirect but haven't worked with such pages before and am sure I'd screw it up. Xlmvp 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe on Talk:Progressive squeeze ;;)?
I thought the implication that Progressive squeeze=Triple squeeze is correct. Can you demonstrate otherwise, i.e. find a position where a triple squeeze (not just by means of 3 suits in one hand, but also not fitting into other squeeze type) is not progressive? Duja 07:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe so:
♠ A J
♥ x
♦ x
♣ -
♠ K Q

N

W         E

S

 ♠
♥ A ♥
♦ A ♦
♣ - ♣
♠ x
♥ K
♦ K
♣ A


On the lead of the ♣A, W is triple squeezed. W has to pitch a spade to prevent the position from converting to the second stage of a progressive squeeze. But S gains one trick.
A triple squeeze can gain two tricks immediately with extended menaces:

♠ K Q
♥ A K 10 9
♦ -
♣ -
♠ A

N

W         E

S

 ♠
♥ Q J x ♥
♦ K Q ♦
♣ - ♣
♠ x
♥ x
♦ A J 10
♣ A



but this is clearly not a progressive squeeze. Xlmvp 15:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chicago

Our current definition ascribes the name to train commuters in Chicago. I can't find a credible source for this. I do find a definition of commuter bridge, which is said to have originated in the New York area, and where train commutes tend to take longer than in Chicago. Originally, it seems that the commuters played regular old rubber bridge, continuing the score from one day to the next, sometimes playing goulashes to save time, but switched to Chicago during the 1960s. So -- is there a citation for the commuter-bridge derivation of the term "Chicago"? Xlmvp 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Our current definition ascribes the name to train commuters in Chicago." My mistake. The current definition says no such thing. Xlmvp 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slovak bridge glossary

On adress Slovak contract bridge glossary. Otm.

[edit] Conforming to the style manual

Abstract, it's unclear why you insist on "cuebid" rather than "cue bid". I myself prefer the space, but it seems to me that the place to deal with it is at the CB style manual, not by means of a unilateral change unaccompanied by any explanation. It's not as though there's so much material in the CB style manual that it's tough to remember. Xlmvp 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a week since I posted that question and in the absence of a reply I'm going to change it back to "cue bid". Obviously this is a nit, but the larger issue is whether we have agreed on certain styles or not. Xlmvp 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse

The definition of "reverse" is incorrect. Opener reverses by bidding a new suit that bypasses the lowest available level in his own suit, while not bypassing the lowest available level of his partner's. (If he does the latter, he "jump shifts.") However, the suit into which the opener reverses need not be higher ranking than his own. Example: opener bids one spade; responder bids two hearts; opener rebids three diamonds (sometimes called a "high reverse"). Diamonds are a lower ranking suit than spades, not higher ranking.

Also, whether a reverse shows extra strength depends on whether the bidding has already been forced to the level to which the reverse will force. In the auction given above, (opener bids one spade; responder bids two hearts; opener rebids three diamonds), many who play that the two-level response already forces to game, also agree that as there is no need for the reverse to force to a higher level, it need not show extra strength. Other partnerships, also using 2/1 GF, will still require extras for the opener's high reverse, as does everyone not playing 2/1 GF.

Anyone wishing to discuss this subject with me may contact me at <>.

[edit] Reverse, continued

Well, it's a glossary entry, not an article. High reverses are mentioned as such in the linked article.

I've been thinking that the amount of extra strength promised by the reverse (see, e.g., the "Debate" between Pender and Kay about opener's reverses in TBW about 15 years ago) should be mentioned in the article, and that might be an opportunity to cover the special understanding in 2/1 auctions that apblouthman mentions. However, it seems to me that these articles have tried to avoid getting into areas that would make for too much information if discussed down to the last detail. Xlmvp 22:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Links and Edits

This may not be the proper place, but I'd like to announce some editing work I've done on the glossary over the past few days.

One simple thing was to add a blank line between definitions on the coding/editing page, to make the whole thing easier to see and work with. This makes no change on the visible page.

The main work I've done was to change the in-page links, so that they'd point specifically to the term in question, rather than that term's initial letter. E.g., 'ruff' now links to 'Ruff', not to the letter 'R'.

It was this defect that got me interested in editing here in the first place. The glossary is now much easier to work with, and effectively changes its 'size', which otherwise strikes people as over-large (we get a message to that effect whenever we edit the page). In practice, it would be much more unwieldy broken into separate pages, especially for those with dialup connections ... and more unwieldy for us to work on. I haven't looked at The Bridge World version, with a page for each letter, as described in this discussion, but I imagine it's a bit awkward, too.

Speaking of separate pages, I've added bold-facing to the links to other (bridge-related) pages, as per the note at the top of the glossary page. I did remove one such external link ... to the Chicago transit system! Discussion on this page seemed agreed that this was not the source of the eponymous bridge variation, and it might set a precedent for other whimsical associations, as well.

The main content-editing I've done was minor rewording for clarity, and only in areas where it could be done without risk of changing the sense of the words. In cases where my own knowledge of the game was limited, leaving me uncertain of what was actually meant, I made a note of possible changes, but made none myself. Will try to work up a concise list for review.

I did add a few definitions, such as seemed to fit well: Blackwood convention; Par contract; Bridge maxims; Strong club system; perhaps a couple more, along these lines. It seems that any separate bridge-related articles in the Wikipedia should have at least a brief definition-with-link in the glossary, and these terms all qualify. It also sounds, from some of the discussion here, as though an article on Bridge notation (as distinct from scoring) might be useful for many. (A whole book has come out recently, on the subject of baseball score-keeping; can bridge be far behind?)

Concerning both notation and scoring, though, I believe that the details do belong in the glossary itself, though put concisely as possible. In effect, readers not interested in a broad study of those subjects may still use the glossary as a reference tool for precisely this information.

I've deleted no terms, but for those concerned with excess, I do have a few candidates for excision, at least as written, and unless they are far more common and significant than appears: Expert, Fert, Palooka, Pard, Peter and Pianola all come to mind. On the other hand, a definitions such as Game could be expanded (and Rubber more clearly worded), to include games won in more than one hand.

That's plenty for now. Hope to be able to help more with the project. It certainly is helping me learn the game, as well as the tricks of the Wiki-editing trade.

FutharkRed 13:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good work to me ... but why the bolding for the links? surely unecessary and against the style manual (now i suppose i should go look it up). Abtract 01:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I was following the statement at the top of the glossary: "Note: Except for those indicated in bold, all links in this article are internal, i.e. lead to other list entries rather than external articles".
Seemed like a good idea, too, both as providing a warning of additional page-loading for dialup viewers, and as marking which terms actually have full articles. (Also, perhaps, for indicating which do not, to encourage those who think there should be.) FutharkRed 04:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bridge World Glossary

It was mentioned above that The Bridge World's glossary was difficult to work with, for comparative, statistical or any other purposes, due to its having a separate page for (almost) every letter.

Purely to help work in this area, I've combined their glossary into a single page, 'Bridge Glossary (from The Bridge World).html' Even stripped of all but the alpha-links and definitions, it weighs in at 217 KB (58 KB in zipped format), or some 5,634 lines of code.

If anyone would like a copy, please feel free to let me know: futharkred@operamail.com. It's encoded (now) in XHTML 1.0 (Transitional), which their version is not, rather than in Wiki-code. Perhaps this would also make the project of running through the alphabet easier, as the two glossaries could be compared side-by-side, remarks added, etc. FutharkRed 07:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)

Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.

Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)