[bill1157]

Would it be possible to have sit and go tournaments (tournament starts as soon as 4 player sit [or 8 or 12 etc]. players rotate partners every 4 hands, maybe simplified scoring (i.e. no overtricks, only 1 undertrick unless doubled/redoubled) perhaps do away with vulnerability and artificial conventions?
This would be a fun way to play money bridge.

Bill

[TylerE]

It might be an interesting trick taking game, but it sure as heck isn't bridge.

[bill1157]

TylerE, on Dec 10 2008, 12:44 PM, said:

It might be an interesting trick taking game, but it sure as heck isn't bridge.

If you look at it that way, matchpoints isn't bridge either since it isn't the original game.

[TylerE]

That's hardly a fair comparison.

[H_KARLUK]

Uh oh, like a warplane student pilot ?

"Touch and go".

Just approach and touch runway but never land. What a training.

*Touch-and-go and/or "circuits" are pilot's terms for a maneuver that is common when learning to fly a fixed-wing aircraft. It involves landing on a runway and taking off again without coming to a full stop. Usually the pilot then circles the airport in a defined pattern known as a circuit and repeats the maneuver. This allows many landings to be practiced in a short time.
It can also describe a maneuver used to test questionable landing surfaces.
In British parlance this maneuver is called "circuits and bumps".

This post has been edited by H_KARLUK: 2008-December-12, 21:36

[bill1157]

I recognize that the concept might not be appropriate for this forum, nevertheless I had hoped for some intelligent feedback.
The concept is probably more appropriate for one of the poker online sites, where lagging interest in poker might spark interest in a form of bridge that would be amenable to the same "sit and go" format that has been so sucessful in poker.
A problem you have trying to run a bridge game where partnerships change is that you need a simple system: you can't have a long discussion every 15 minutes when you change partners.
Also, my idea is an extension of mini-bridge (which with the addition of simple bidding would be a great game, in my opinion.)

Bill

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Sounds like an individual, 4 boards per round, after each
round the partnership get newly assigned.

Removing the scoring is not a good idea, because the scoring
is an integral part of the game.

If you want players to come and go, buying in and cashing
out, you play basically Chicago.
I dont know, how else to interpret SNG tournament.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bill1157]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 11 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

Hi,

Sounds like an individual, 4 boards per round, after each
round the partnership get newly assigned.

Removing the scoring is not a good idea, because the scoring
is an integral part of the game.

If you want players to come and go, buying in and cashing
out, you play basically Chicago.
I dont know, how else to interpret SNG tournament.

With kind regards
Marlowe

No, not quite: this would be a money game so: each player buys in for say $5 (+.025 for the site), and in a 1 table sng play starts as soon as 4 players sign up. 4 deals, then partners change, 4 deals, then partners change again so each player has played with each of the other 3 once and against each twice.
At the end, the scores are summed and the prize pool is paid out.
This would be an alternative to the money games where robots are currently playing 2 or 3 of the 4 compass positions.
My suggestion on the score is that vulnerability be dropped, since it doesn't serve a purpose in 4 deal bridge anyway (or at least not a necessary purpose), also if you don't score overtricks, for example, it greatly speeds up the play.

Bill

[P_Marlowe]

bill1157, on Dec 13 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Dec 11 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

Hi,

Sounds like an individual, 4 boards per round, after each
round the partnership get newly assigned.

Removing the scoring is not a good idea, because the scoring
is an integral part of the game.

If you want players to come and go, buying in and cashing
out, you play basically Chicago.
I dont know, how else to interpret SNG tournament.

With kind regards
Marlowe

No, not quite: this would be a money game so: each player buys in for say $5 (+.025 for the site), and in a 1 table sng play starts as soon as 4 players sign up. 4 deals, then partners change, 4 deals, then partners change again so each player has played with each of the other 3 once and against each twice.
At the end, the scores are summed and the prize pool is paid out.
This would be an alternative to the money games where robots are currently playing 2 or 3 of the 4 compass positions.
My suggestion on the score is that vulnerability be dropped, since it doesn't serve a purpose in 4 deal bridge anyway (or at least not a necessary purpose), also if you don't score overtricks, for example, it greatly speeds up the play.

Bill

So you play a 1 table tournament with 4 boards per round
4 rounds and Chicago / Rubber scoring.

Mor tables wont make a lot of sense, since, the above
scenario already assumes, that 16 boards get played
without interruption.

The main problem is, how to protect the players against
cheating.
The robots scenario ensures, that there is no way to cheat,
since only one human sees the cards.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[bill1157]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 16 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

bill1157, on Dec 13 2008, 12:23 PM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Dec 11 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

Hi,

Sounds like an individual, 4 boards per round, after each
round the partnership get newly assigned.

Removing the scoring is not a good idea, because the scoring
is an integral part of the game.

If you want players to come and go, buying in and cashing
out, you play basically Chicago.
I dont know, how else to interpret SNG tournament.

With kind regards
Marlowe

No, not quite: this would be a money game so: each player buys in for say $5 (+.025 for the site), and in a 1 table sng play starts as soon as 4 players sign up. 4 deals, then partners change, 4 deals, then partners change again so each player has played with each of the other 3 once and against each twice.
At the end, the scores are summed and the prize pool is paid out.
This would be an alternative to the money games where robots are currently playing 2 or 3 of the 4 compass positions.
My suggestion on the score is that vulnerability be dropped, since it doesn't serve a purpose in 4 deal bridge anyway (or at least not a necessary purpose), also if you don't score overtricks, for example, it greatly speeds up the play.

Bill

So you play a 1 table tournament with 4 boards per round
4 rounds and Chicago / Rubber scoring.

Mor tables wont make a lot of sense, since, the above
scenario already assumes, that 16 boards get played
without interruption.

The main problem is, how to protect the players against
cheating.
The robots scenario ensures, that there is no way to cheat,
since only one human sees the cards.

With kind regards
Marlowe

The cheating issue, while important, may be over emphasized. I believe that if you want to cheat badly enough, you will find a way even against the robots. A little monitoring (could be lookiing for people playing at the same table repeatedly, etc.) would probably catch most cheating in this format.
What you would really need is enough players involved so that players couldn't hook up with other cheaters at the same table so easily.
I have tried out the robot money game (fun-money only) and i dont find it nearly as good as playing against real people (although it does have its own appeal).

Bill

[ASkolnick]

Or to make it a little more interesting, make it a 2 table tournament with 8 individuals.

14 Boards, barometer style. Both tables will be playing the hands simultaneously.

Every 2 boards, you play with 7 different partners and 2 teammates for 2 board rounds. You receive +/- Imps for you as an individual instead of your team.

This way, the size of the boards won't matter since each team gets access to the same boards. Also, you make sure you play with everyone else.

You would not need to change the rules of bridge.

Winners can work as follows:

If you want to divide the money, it is an even-sum game, so each gets a percentage of money earned or lost.

Or have the tournament winner get A%, 2nd place A/2 %, 3rd A/4 %

[bill1157]

yes obviously there are several very good ways to do it.
If it is 1 table, 4 hands per round it would be 12 hands (play everyone else as pd once).
the 2 table imps, though is probably close to what you have already on BB?

Bill