|
|
Breedge (and a variety of
bridges) |
2016 |
1) 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.
2)
Don't hide the played cards
Forcing
people to remember (for a few minutes only!) all the cards played is pure
malice. It`s absurd, too, since "What man has revealed let no man hide
again." Take a look at how they dealt with this problem in the Roman
Empire: Claudius and Messalina
(Unfortunately, with the screens it`s not fully possible.)
3) IMPs,
VPs or something better?
There is no need to apply any special and artificial points like IMPs.
It`s much better to count what is left after taxation from a simple formula
1000*B/(1000+B) where B = Balance for the winners. Thermes of Caracalla
The same applies to VPs. It will be
far more convenient to distribute 100% between both sides instead of 30VPs.
Here goes the formula for the winners: 50+100*B/(1000*R+B) where R= the square
Root of the number of deals.
Thus we need only a calculator and a
simple formula instead of complex tables to count the match result.
4) Let's do away with a
redouble
Having its origins in gambling, a redouble is just an attempt to up the ante,
totally unsuitable for bridge, however used in bidding mostly for this sole
purpose.
5) Peakyearing
All the methods
used for calculating tournaments' results have been faulty! They do not account
for the fact that the points scored against weak players are worth less than
those won against a strong opposition. Therefore tournaments` results should
additionally be adjusted according to the algorithm "Peakyearing" as
presented in Scoring/tournament.htm
6) Fibonacci Scoring
Since the majors are privileged as
they outrank the minors in the bidding, they should be awarded fewer contract
points in order to level the playing field. Surprisingly, it`s the other way
round(!?) Let`s try (at least partially) to restore justice:
Bonus for the contracts won
(irrespective of the rank!):
1=100 2=200
3=300 4=500 5=800
6=1300 7=2100
Doubled undertricks (see bonuses
above):
down 1=100, down 2=300 (100+200), down 3=600(100+200+300) etc
Undoubled undertricks - 50 each
Overtricks - 50 each
7)
Ranking
of suits - is it necessary?
It`s not enough to introduce the Fibonacci Scoring (Fibonacci Scoring) if we wish to put a
stop to discrimination of suits.
We
have to do away with ranking of suits which can be done by the introduction of
this simple rule:
It is allowed to outbid any call on the same level with any suit, on condition
it hasn`t been bidden earlier.
Can
you imagine how pleasant it would be to bid 1♥ after partner`s 1♠ opening holding such a
hand xx KJxxx Axx
xxx? And then hear 1♣ from him or her.
8) Individuels
against cheating
Switching sport bridge to individual
tournaments is the only inexpensive and convenient chance to eliminate cheating
- true, not in 100%, however, statistically speaking, this 99% seems to be
satisfying enough.
What about the Bermuda Bowl? No
problem; we may assume that the team`s final score will be the sum of the results of its four best
players.
9) No
double, no trouble
Bridge may perfectly well do without
doubles as such - simply the undertricks will be counted as if the contract had
been doubled! (Nota bene, that`s how they played before 1914 under the name
S.A.C.C.)
For those who love take-out doubles
and might feel totally helpless without them, we will introduce an additional
bidding option which will function as a take-out double:
It is possible to outbid the
opponents by repeating their last call.
E.g.
South: 1♥ West: 1♥, or
South: 1♥ West: pass North: pass East: 1♥
10)
No points for overtricks
Since
we play "contract bridge" we should
award points only for what has been contracted, especially that it
will simplify and speed up the game.
Anyway,
is it worth bothering with such trifles like overtricks?
11) NAPs
instead of Matchpoints
The very essence of matchpoints is that all
the deals are equally important. There is much sense in it and a lot of appeal.
Nevertheless, the method currently used has one inherent nonsensical property -
even the smallest advantage may have the
same value in matchpoints as the biggest. (Have you ever heard about a business
like that?).
It can be done in a different
way: Harmonization in Scoring/deal
where NAPs stands for NApoleon`s
Points (based on an obviously fictional story which attributes this idea to the
Emperor of the French)
12)
Should dummy go down first?
In
other words - should the first lead, the
only "blind" one, be made in
the same circumstances (i.e. with the
defender seeing the dummy) as the more numerous (1:20+) remaining leads and discards?
Perhaps
it`s worth making this sacrifice to simplify the game. Even with such a change bridge will still be
difficult, perhaps too difficult for some.
13)
Changing
Partnership
Does
it really have to be so that the players facing one another must be partners?
Let`s do it in such a way that the partnership may be formed by any two players
as it was practised by Emperor Aurelian already in the year 270: Aurelian's Restitution
Bridge
will become far more exciting because it will certainly be more often possible
for everyone to participate in the bidding and, what`s more, higher contracts
will become a common occurrence. In addition, sort of by the way, almost all
unnatural methods will be eliminated from the bidding which is quite
convenient, isn`t it?
Here
go the specific rules:
I.
Forming the partnership
Players
become Partners the moment they find an agreed trump suit (or NT). If the same suit
has been bidden by three or even four players, the Partners are those who have
bidden the suit/nt as the first and the last.
II.
Repetition
It`s
possible to outbid by repeating the same contract, on condition we haven`t
bidden it earlier. (Moreover, as I postulated, it is possible to do it by
bidding any suit/nt on the same level if nobody has made such a call yet.)
III.
Who will become the Dummy
If
the Declarer has formed a partnership, then his Partner becomes the Dummy
automatically. If a partnership has been
formed by two players not including the Declarer, then the fourth player
becomes the Dummy. In case no partnership has been formed, the Dummy is the player who has entered the
auction as the first one, or, if nobody has made any call, the player facing
the Declarer.
IV.
Swapping places
If
the Dummy is sitting not opposite to the Declarer, he must swap places with the
player facing the Declarer before the first lead.
V.
The score
If
the Dummy is not the Declarer`s partner then he is treated as one of the three
Opponents, i.e. he wins or loses 1/3 of the points.
♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣
I allow myself to use the term
"Breedge" to denote bridge with all the changes I proposed above. The
rules of breedge are far simpler therefore more logical. Moreover, breedge
itself triggers almost fully natural bidding (benefits obvious). Finally, it
eliminates this nightmarish cheating. I suppose it`s good enough!
Certainly, the way from bridge to
breedge might be divided into a few stages (for instance one change a year).
It`s possible to play various variants at the same time (will it hurt anyone?),
for example, the BBO might introduce an option of playing a chosen variant, as
a player wishes.
It is hard to count here on any
initiative on the part of bridge organisations since the moment they have
issued their rules, codes and regulations, they invariably close their minds to
any otherness or novelty (or, not infrequently, impede any attempt to put it
into practise).
What about you, the players? Do you
seriously believe that in this best of all worlds you play the best version of
bridge possible?
Years ago, I believed so myself.
I have dealt with each and every
aspect of the game. I adopted a critical view and tried to introduce to bridge
something new and better, like Weak Opening Systems, Algorithms of Naturality,
Systems in Defence. One day, however, I took a look at the very rules and common
practises. There is so much illogicality in them and so much stupidity that I must shout out loud: Bridge is ill and
in need of therapy.
1) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/do-we-really-need-vulnerability-2/
2) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/dont-cover-her-face/
3) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/imps-vps-or-something-better-2/
4) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/lets-do-away-with-a-redouble/
5) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/peakyearing/
6) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/fibonacci-scoring-4/
7) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/ranking-of-suits-is-it-necessary/
8) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/individuels-against-cheating/
9) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/no-double-no-trouble/
10) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/no-points-for-overtricks/
11) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/naps-instead-of-matchpoints/
12) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/should-dummy-go-down-first/
13) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/changing-partnership/
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/breedge-and-a-variety-of-bridges/
"A word is
enough for the wise; if a fool cannot
get it, it`s even better"
|
|
|