[Pikier]

Do we really need vulnerability?
One may wonder whether it` s not advisable to get rid of favourable/ unfavourable vulnerabilty which is merely an awkward relic of rubber bridge and it`s hard to find anything sensible or entertaining in keeping this distinction.

[mikestar13]

The site won't let me downvote this so:


Please don't start afflicting this site the way you have been afflicting Bridgewinners.com.



I don't want to hear any more about "breedge", and I suspect I'm not the only one.

[1eyedjack]

You may not like what he has to say, but his bridge achievements are enough on their own to have earned him some respect

[nullve]

It's easy for someone already playing bridge to say that vulnerability makes the game (even) more interesting. But vulnerability is also one of the peculiarities of bridge scoring that might be off-putting to someone considering to take up the game. And why just 4 different vulnerabilities, anyway? To keep the game simple, but not too simple?

It seems like a good idea to teach vulnerability-free bridge first, but maybe that's what bridge teachers already do?

[Vampyr]

1eyedjack, on 2016-February-20, 02:00, said:

You may not like what he has to say, but his bridge achievements are enough on their own to have earned him some respect

What are they then?

[Vampyr]

nullve, on 2016-February-20, 09:51, said:

It's easy for someone already playing bridge to say that vulnerability makes the game (even) more interesting. But vulnerability is also one of the peculiarities of bridge scoring that might be off-putting to someone considering to take up the game. And why just 4 different vulnerabilities, anyway? To keep the game simple, but not too simple?

It seems like a good idea to teach vulnerability-free bridge first, but maybe that's what bridge teachers already do?

Back in the day people learned bridge by playing rubber bridge with friends and family. I suspect that most do today as well.

[oryctolagi]

1eyedjack, on 2016-February-20, 02:00, said:

You may not like what he has to say, but his bridge achievements are enough on their own to have earned him some respect

I don't know anything about the OP, but I will also add this. On other forums (not bridge-related) which I post on, Shouting is most certainly come down on heavily by the Mods....

[mikestar13]

oryctolagi, on 2016-February-20, 14:48, said:

I don't know anything about the OP, but I will also add this. On other forums (not bridge-related) which I post on, Shouting is most certainly come down on heavily by the Mods....

I am quite aware of that. I have never before shouted on this forum, and I chose this occasion to shout as loud as possible. I am deeply offended that a mind which was involved in technical contributions to the game such as combine leads and weak opening systems (as well as the social contribution of challenging restrictive system policies) is now devoted to trying to destroy the game. I accept whatever penalties the moderators may choose to impose with grace--I chose to express my contempt of a man who earned great respect, but then publicly threw it away with his "breedge" ideas.

[Vampyr]

The OP just has a flawed understanding of the nature of bridge. Rubber bridge is the "real" game, and duplicate scoring is designed to reflect an approximation of the score that would have been obtained at rubber bridge. If you wanted to create a new game by divorcing duplicate from rubber bridge, you could make all kinds of changes. Instead of just game and slam bonuses, you could have a bonus on every level. If you moved away from scoring, you could do all kinds of things to create a different game.

What the OP or any like-minded people should do is create their game and provide opportunities for people to play it. Then they could let it compete with bridge and see which is more successful.

EDIT: oops, a bonus for every level is one of his ideas. Probably it is the worst one, since it would do away with all natural-based bidding systems.

[barmar]

Wasn't vulnerability one of the features that Vanderbilt added to the game that increased its popularity in the early days?

I seriously doubt that the complexities of scoring have much of an influence on whether beginners are put off by the game. In my experience, most beginners don't even concern themselves with scoring. It's all they can do to remember basic bidding conventions and keep track of cards during the play.

[diana_eva]

mikestar13, on 2016-February-20, 17:26, said:

I am quite aware of that. I have never before shouted on this forum, and I chose this occasion to shout as loud as possible. I am deeply offended that a mind which was involved in technical contributions to the game such as combine leads and weak opening systems (as well as the social contribution of challenging restrictive system policies) is now devoted to trying to destroy the game. I accept whatever penalties the moderators may choose to impose with grace--I chose to express my contempt of a man who earned great respect, but then publicly threw it away with his "breedge" ideas.

Why are you offended? I'm not even convinced he's serious about all the new breedge twists. I quite enjoyed reading his site.

[diana_eva]

For those wondering what this is all about: pikier is Lukasz Slawinski. His site is mainly in Polish: pikier.com

His writings in English can be found here: http://pikier.com/br...rs/writings.htm .

I can't find much about him in English, but he's quite famous as a bridge theorist and innovator.

[PhilG007]

mikestar13, on 2016-February-20, 00:31, said:

The site won't let me downvote this so:


Please don't start afflicting this site the way you have been afflicting Bridgewinners.com.



I don't want to hear any more about "breedge", and I suspect I'm not the only one.

"I MAY NOT AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY,BUT I'LL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOU'RE RIGHT TO SAY IT"
- Voltaire
Mikestar13 take note.

[Vampyr]

diana_eva, on 2016-February-21, 00:21, said:

Why are you offended? I'm not even convinced he's serious about all the new breedge twists. I quite enjoyed reading his site.

No, it's pretty clear he isn't. In the "Roman" section there are suggestions like leaving the quitted tricks face-up and paying penalties based on your partnership's number of HCP, as well as an auction bridge method of scoring.

[keithhus]

Interesting point but from a beginners perspective (fwiw) I think the vulnerability adds to the bidding process. What I can't get my mind round is the points received for being dealt honours/aces in rubber bridge. I appreciate chance comes into duplicate (e.g. Cards dealt) but scoring is largely a result of "skill" or not as the case may be!
Incidentally, we had a hand last week which was passed out, even though one of the Ops had 12 pts. Hence we scored nil. But, the hand was played by the Ops on the other tables and went down. Therefore, our Ops received top board and we got Bottom. I felt hard done by but I suppose that was the skill of our Ops. LoL

[helene_t]

I would have prefered the vulnerability never to have been introduced. It makes the game even more complex and I don't think it adds anything to it.

Whether the issue is big enough to justify making the change now I am not sure about. Barmar is probably right that it doesn't matter much for beginners.

Yes, I think I would vote in favour of getting rid of the vulnerability but I don't consider the issue important enough that I think WBF should consider it for the next lawbook revision.

[Caitlynne]

It is difficult to take this question seriously since the very nature of any question suggesting a change in scoring implies the questioner is not a novice.

Of course, the game does not require vulnerability, but it does make the game more interesting and challenging. Is it right to take a sac? Should we push and risk a double in competing for the part-score? These kinds of decisions would simplify and often disappear without vulnerability circumstances to consider.

[Vampyr]

PhilG007, on 2016-February-21, 07:12, said:

"I MAY NOT AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY,BUT I'LL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOU'RE RIGHT TO SAY IT"
- Voltaire
Mikestar13 take note.

You believe that it is right to say it or is that a typo?

In any case, I have a lot of sympathy for Mikestar13. The OP has posted more aspects of his vision for bridge on Bridgewinners. These include:

• eliminating doubles, but scoring undertricks as if they were doubled (but increasing in points much faster)
  
• giving bonuses for every level contract, ie 1-level 100, 2-level 200 (LOL if he wants to eliminate vulnerability it makes sense to get rid of game bonuses too!)
  
• replacing matchpoints, IMPs and VPs with a strange and complicated hybrid method
  
• leaving quitted tricks face-up
  
• Facing the dummy before the opening lead
  
• Eliminating the ranks of suits (and allowing all bids at a given level if they have not been bid before)
  
• Changing partners after the auction
  
• Changing all top-level play to individuals
  
• eliminating overtricks

This is probably most of them. Some BW readers think that these "suggestions" are an attempt at humour. But they are not really that funny.

[dave_beer]

barmar, on 2016-February-20, 22:42, said:

Wasn't vulnerability one of the features that Vanderbilt added to the game that increased its popularity in the early days?

Vulnerability was one of the major differences between Contract Bridge and its predecessors.

In Auction Bridge you got credit for how many tricks you took and there was no vulnerability.

In Plafond the scoring was similar to Auction Bridge but you only got credit below the line for tricks you contracted to take but there was still no vulnerability.

Vanderbilt added vulnerability and introduced something close to the modern scoring table.

[mgoetze]

PhilG007, on 2016-February-21, 07:12, said:

"I MAY NOT AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAY,BUT I'LL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOU'RE RIGHT TO SAY IT"

Wait, if you don't agree with what he's saying, why would you then say that he's right to say it? I'm so confused.