Breedge (and a variety of bridges)



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.
















 "A word is enough for the wise;  if a fool cannot get it, it`s even better"


Pikier writings