Explanations

Claudius and Messalina – Exposure of the played cards

This very obvious postulate (worth applying not only in bridge) awakes much animosity in players who have just tasted the delights of bridge. It seem that the main cause – apart from habit – is pride in the acquired skill of remembering a few or even many cards! To cure them from that one can propose to show a played card in the blink of an eye – then their ability of showing off by reflex and memory will be even greater.

Nero and Petronius – Roman Scoring Method

This is very similar to the system called Rex–Bridge, which was proposed in the 1950’ies. They committed a major error however – apart from the new scoring they intro­duced a new suit (rex) = No Trump in which Aces became Ones. This was of course a major and unnec­cessary complication into an already complex game.

The Roman Scoring Method has certain qualities which radically tend to reduce the worth­whileness of bidding conventions and force players into a more natural auction.

Quite right too.

Trajan and Salvinus – Miltonian’s Reform

The fee scale was published it seems for the first time in the magazine „Pikier” (1983) under the title „Zapis Miltonowy” (Miltonian Scoring Method). Somewhat later Witold Brusztunow from St.Petersburg reported that it was invented by players from Har­kow around 1975 (in desperation – for they could not find eight players to a Duplicate game) and the final table was calculated by Granowski from Moscow:

For Standard Score in Chicago Style ®

not vulnerable

 

vulnerable

21

 50

 

31

 600

 

21

 50

 

31

 800

22

 70

 

32

 700

 

22

70

 

32

1050

23

110

 

33

 900

 

23

110

 

33

1350

24

200

 

34

1000

 

24

290

 

34

1500

25

300

 

35

1100

 

25

440

 

35

1650

26

350

 

36

1200

 

26

520

 

36

1800

27

400

 

37

1200

 

27

600

 

37

1800

28

430

 

38

1400

 

28

630

 

38

2100

29

460

 

39

1400

 

29

660

 

39

2100

30

490

 

40

1400

 

30

690

 

40

2100

Caracalla’s Thermes – Taxes

Caracalla’s Formula is in effect almost identical to the International Match Points and has such obvious advantages (also for scoring pair events) that one would wish that bridge or­ganisations applied it as soon as possible.

The Snail method of showing the bidding sequence was introduced for the first time in the electronic „Pikier” (1986). It is very clear but somewhat troublesome in indicating longer auctions.

Aurelian’s Restitution – Individualisation

The most important form of bridge should be the rather rare singles event !! Games com­posed of fixed pairs are the cause of today’s formalisation in bridge. In the first place – there was and is a continual accretion of systems and con­ventions – in most part com­pletely worthless (muddling the brain) – which in a singles event would cease to exist and quite right too. And in the second place – play with steady partners leads to involun­tary ‘cheating’ of a pseudo-telepathic nature and even – which is proved by their numer­ous de­mascations – tempts players into actual cheating.
Besides that – by its nature Bridge is not geared for pair-against-pair play!!  for the exis­tence of pairs can be shortened to the duration of one deal only.

Justinian’s Code

The International Bridge Laws have so incapacitated players that during contests they re­quire the calling of a director for all infractions! And do not allow them any independence in deciding the damage and compensation even if they were all agreed about it.

Numerous bridge organisations have forbidden for events under their aegis the use of more complicated conventions or systems. It is impossible to understand why they did not leave this matter to the decision of a pair’s opponents – after all they may have no objec­tions and may in fact wish that such bidding be used against them.

And what will be the Bridge Code of the European Union?  100, 000 rules!!?

Summary of Roman Bridge

From time to time in the bridge world one hears voices about the need to make changes in the current scoring method (and every 20 years or so a small change does indeed ap­pear) but no one it seems has so far presented a completely radical and comprehensive project. The one here formulated, only goes under the title of „Roman Bridge” because of the cap­tivating scenario used to illustrate it.

„Cutting and Dealing” – this is performed quite unneccessarily and one cannot deny that it is merely a method to avoid card sharps and cheating. The funniest part is that many mathematicians believe that dealing in thirteens produces wild deals.

At a Hexagonal Table

The first attempt at bridge for 6 people was the so called „sextet-bridge” in which were in­troduced two new suits so that the pack consisted of 78 cards! This was of course rather too tiresome bridge to count on any wide popularity.

What appears here is a small modification of „Hexagonal Bridge” published in „Pikier” (1981). It was tried out here and there and proved rather attractive because amongst other things higher contracts occur more often than in bridge for 4 persons.

Maybe someone will devise an appropriate fee scale!?

Internet Bridge

Come what may bridge on the internet will become more and more widespread!

And the nature of this version of bridge practicall forces the adoption of some of the pro­posals here described !
Exposure of the cards played and the auction:
An internet player can always make notes and since this cannot be controlled, while hid­ing what has just happened is merely a force of habit having nothing to do with the spirit of the game, there is no need to forbid it, quite the contrary:

The computer server should show the played cards face up and not hide the auction!

One may add that this facilitates the teaching and learning of this difficult game (bridge teachers do it after all). The greater the number of such technical simplifications the greater will be the number of potential bridge candidates.

Cribs
An internet player can in any case benefit from notes and books (time permitting!). Since that cannot be controlled it should also be extended to non internet bridge. Bidding mis­takes by opponents not only often produce benefits but also cause losses. But in any case they distort the auction introducing an unsystemic hazard factor.
Screen Aesthetics:
In order to make internet bridge a pleasure everything must be clear and aesthetic:

1)

The description of the game should cover the whole of the screen (without advertis­ing and menus).

2)

Card faces should be simplified and not too large (ie those in the program GIB are very smart); one must not assume that a player is so restricted that he is unable to read ab­stract cards so it is unneccessary to indicate axact card pictograms for they are unread­able.

3)

Every suit should be indicated with a different colour; in the view of the author the best col­ours are:

                  ♠ Spades – blue                  © Hearts – red
                  ¨ Diamonds – purple !        § Clubs – green

This concludes the whole series, written with no small effort.

Content

 

 

Pikier writings