Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge/Archive 2010

Go to archive: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022

Some Talk posted here is relocated to appropriate project subpages.

Articles for Deletion

Resolved

 – Project policy created. See Bridge Manual of Style about article creation, naming and layout

We currently have several small, glossary-like articles which I find unnecessary and distracting. Those articles present definitions of common terms, and their potential expansion is virtually hopeless (unless one stretches quite a bit). I propose that they're deleted and/or merged/redirected to Contract bridge glossary. Here's a brief list (maybe I skipped some):

Major suit Minor suit Pointed suit Rounded suit Red suit Black suit Pass-or-correct bid Forcing bid Two suiter (redirects scratched).

As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest:

If you can describe the term in question with three sentences or less, and can't think of sensible expansion, make it a glossary entry rather than an article.

Combining articles: Reverses and Reverse (bid)

Resolved

 – Merge completed

Suggestion for combining articles: Reverses and Reverse (bid). Alvin P. Bluthman 11/17/2006

Good spot ... the two articles are Reverse bid and Reverse (bridge). I propose that we keep the latter article simply because it is much more comprehensive but I really like the definition in the former. If no-one objects, I will action this in a couple of days. Abtract 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the brevity of the "new suit skipped by partner" phrasing, but as a definition I think it's a little too brief. It misses the non-jump aspect, it misses the "unforced by competition" point, and it does not hint at the relationship between the term and reversing the normal order of bidding suits. Of course, there is no crisp definition in the longer article. I suggest adding "new suit skipped by partner" as a description, a conceptual hook that the reader can hang the term on. But calling it a definition is going too far, IMHO. Xlmvp 00:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A simple reverse skips over ("bypasses") the lowest available level of the first suit bid by the reverser, but does not skip over the lowest available level of the first suit bid by his partner. Contrast with a jump shift, which skips over both.

For example,

1C 1H 2D

is a reverse (skips over 2C, but not 2H)

1C 1H 2S

is a jump shift (skips over both).

Some auctions can have a follow up by a reverse, but not a jump shift. Others can follow up with a jump shift, but not a reverse. Compare:

1C 1D 2H or 2S

are jump shifts; no reverse is possible because there is no suit to bid between 2C and 2D

1C 1S 2D or 2H

are reverses; no jump shift is possible because there are two suits to bid between 2C and 2S, but none above 2S except for 3C.

Alvin P. Bluthman 1/11/2007

Hmmm... I may be biased (as author of Reverse bid), but isn't the "new suit skiped by partner" phrasing spot-on as definition? Other aspects seem irrelevant to me: if the reverse bid has a "jump aspect", it is still reverse (a "jump reverse"), and if forced by competition, it is also still a reverse (a "reverse in competition"). If I wouldn't know what a reverse bid is, I would still be ignorant about the concept after reading the lengthy definition given in the longer article. JocK 09:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I'll withdraw from this topic. It's beginning to exhibit the ego-involvement that has marred other discussions -- and, after all, the stakes are so small. Xlmvp 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, don't take things so personal. I have corrected the merged article to incluse jump reverses (according to the Pavlicek treatment). JocK 02:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, your inference that I took something "personal" is off-base. I simply decided that I didn't care for the behavior of the people participating in this project. And it seems I was correct in that assessment: since September of last year, it appears that no new articles have been posted; existing articles have been broken and -- by the admission of the butterfingers -- have gone unrepaired; and amazingly sloppy, clueless editing of the glossary has occurred. I repaired some of that editing today, but stopped when I found myself experiencing the same irritation that led me to bow out a few weeks ago. Irritation, for example, at people who don't know an adjective from an adverb. But don't take it personal. -- Was Xlmvp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.241.217.249 (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

OK I have made the merge as best I can, and then had a go at improving it. I am not too happy with the middle section which seems a bit disjointed. Someone else have go maybe? Abtract 22:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Combine Rosenkranz Double and Rosenkranz Redouble?

Resolved

 – Rosenkranz double made main article retaining Rosenkranz redouble with a link to main article

I have edited these articles, retaining them as separate artiucles, though they are basically similar conventions. Should they be combined?

Alvin P. Bluthman Oct. 2, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.124.187 (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge and split issues and need for policy

• Here comes the "merger" again. I scratched Redwood and Kickback; in my opinion, they should go as new sections under Blackwood convention, as variations of RKCB.
• Josephine convention should go under Grand slam force under the same principle. Actually, GSF is far more than what this article describes currently.
• In Acol under responses to 2 ♣, it says: "3 of opener's suit - 5-8 HCP, at least 3-card support. Forcing to game". Openers suit is 2 ♣, which is conventional, and so talking about 3-card support is nonsensical. Please clarify or correct. 85.166.207.88 (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done ... good spot. Abtract (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Now honestly, about the merging/splitting: in my defense, I had a split/merge war already with User:Abtract over Ruff (cards), Bridge conventions (slam seeking), and I'm not too happy with the length of his Hand evaluation merger/additions. On the other hand, JocK and Matchups are more on the "splitter" side than I am. We should really have a discussion and find a general principle, then stick to it. Duja 17:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures of 'notable' bridge players

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge/Manual of Style/Appendix 5: Notable people criteria § Pictures of players

Project Suit combinations

I have included a proposed project Suit combinations under the 'Projects' header. In total some 30 pages with tables need to be created and checked. No small task. I am planning to create and update one page at a time. The page Suit combination - 10 missing is more or less complete I think. (But this covers an exceptionally small group of suit combinations.) JocK 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'd like to contribute, but my copy of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge got legs long time ago... We can refer to http://bridgehands.com/S/Suit_Combinations.htm though. Lists are not copyrightable anyway. I'll see what I can do. Duja 08:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

True, lists are not copyrightable, so we could use somebody's list of combinations, but the recommended plays associated with each combination *are* copyrightable. Perhaps someone will write a program to solve them and GPL it. Matchups 11:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It is published on the BridgeHands.com and in OEB; that kind of general knowledge and research cannot be subject to patenting. While verbatim copying might constitute a copyvio, a rephrased information about the optimal play shouldn't. Quote from WP:COPY:

Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference.

OTOH, writing a program would be on the verge of original research. Maybe we should ask at WP:COPY talk page or wherever appropriate (Wikipedia:Reference Desk?) Duja 15:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's ask. I had been thinking the same thing myself. Not the reference desk, which is for non-WP facts, but there is also a help page about editing. I think WP:COPY is best, to eventually become part of the archives there. Yes, you can read something from a book, close the book, then write your own article. But I believe that wholesale copying, even with reorganization, is a copyvio.

I wasn't clear about the program idea. Yes, doing it ourselves for the purpose of writing articles here would be OR. But if somebody else published such a program, we could use it. And speaking of OR, I think it's okay to invent hands to be used as illustrative examples, but I'd like to get consensus on that. And maybe put it in the Manual of Style afterward. Matchups 03:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean, http://home.planet.nl/~narcis45/SuitPlay/ ? Duja 06:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Gents, I *am* using SuitPlay. Can we agree here that that is OK? Or do we have to ask some 'Wikithority'? For the time being I will stop adding to the tables until this is settled. JocK 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's certainly OK. Duja 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... one particular member of this WikiProject doesn't seem to agree. He has started a crusade against all suit combination articles, and has repeatedly removed virtually all text from the main article. His motivation for doing so is "this is OR". Seems this WikiProject isn't alive anymore, but still hope we can get some more opinions on this subject. Thanks. JocK 17:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• My crusade is against OR and POV ... please consider these suit combination articles with this in mind - applying a computer program is OR and statements like "correct" are POV. Abtract 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a complete suit combinations section - it is a large part of bridge and it is personally something I could be better at. (I have to admit I was wondering why it seemed to stall but hadn't looked at the page or talk part). Can we not just carry on but keep the unverified tag? Re. the OR problem it isn't coming up with claims or theories - just some number crunching. Can Jock not replace 'correct' with 'most effective'? Try to keep calm guys - I know it is annoying if someone doesn't seem to pay attention to your concerns / deletes stuff you have spent time doing but the article isn't your 'baby', either of you. My view is that simple number crunching is not really OR but I do understand the point. It is a bit of a problem if the 'facts' are wrong in literature. Perhaps someone could put a link into the hand analyser (or even better a different one) so people could check if they wanted to? I know in practice almost no-one would but in practice the article will be reliable (unless there is a bug in the program). Would Jock be willing to do the other combinations and just flag them all with a disclaimer? I've put some more in the talk page for suit combinations. Would Abtract then be willing to have a look through them and highlight anything he is uncomfortable with then we can come to some sort of consensus Cambion 13:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh ... Yet again someone misses the point. Running a program to devise a line of play is not just number crunching especially since the program in question is unlikely to be perfect. What if I found a program on the internet that gave different answers? Can no-one see my point that we must stick to what published authorities have said and not invent our own solutions (using a program or not)? I absolutely do not agree that we should encourage an editor to invent solutions (OR) ... if an editor is willing to look up what has already been published (preferably in more than one source) and show these as published recommendations (reporting differences of opinion where applicable) then that is making an encyclopedia. Abtract 14:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

My view is writing the program is OR. Using the program is not. I can see Abtract's point (as a trained physicist I have an idea what OR is) I just don't quite agree. I don't know what other people think (anyone else out there have a view?) but it would be nice to come to a consensus. Having said all that there must be loads of sources for suit combinations. Could someone not stick at least some of them up? (I'm horribly busy atm) Having all those bare pages is undesirable. Oh and there's a formatting error on one of the pages. (KT missing, I think). Cambion 18:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see why you say that but how do we know that this program produces the "correct" answers? How do we know that the editor has applied the program correctly? How do we know that the editor has reported accurately the results of their application of the program? If it was simply a question of an editor taking 56 (the number of people in Godalming who are members of the Geological Society ... citation blah de blah...) and dividing it by 20,000 (the population of Godalming ... citation 2001 census) to give a %, then clearly that is not OR because it a simple calculation using established facts. However, we are not talking about such simple calculations, we are discussing the use of an unproven program, applied by an editor who may or may not know what they are doing and who may or may not be trusted in the doing ... this simply must be OR ... or maybe worse POV. Far, far better is to quote established sources and say what they recommend ... abandoning a search for the holy grail ... this surely is the Wikipedia way.Abtract 19:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Beware of the OR-fundamentalists

".. an editor taking 56 (the number of people in Godalming who are members of
the Geological Society ... citation blah de blah...) and dividing it by 20,000
(the population of Godalming ... citation 2001 census) to give a %, then clearly
that is not OR because it a simple calculation using established facts"

Might be true for most people, but not for those who have no clue how to actually divide two numbers. For them the resulting fraction (or percentage) mentioned in the article would be a black-box result requiring a quote to an established source. A statement in the article like:

"The correct answer to 56 / 20,000 is 0,28%"

would be seen by them as a potential OR-statement requiring a reference. Even worse, it would be perceived as POV, and within a matter of hours the statement would have been changed into:

"The recommended answer to 56 / 20,000 is 0,28%"

And beware the editor who would restore this to the original formulation!

Is the above example far-fetched? Not at all. This all is happening right now before our very eyes. An editor who has no clue how to derive the right play for a single suit is making all kind of unfunded OR/POV allegations to the article Suit combinations. Obviously, someone who does not know that suitplay combinations rely on simple, straightforward game-theoretical computation, that these can easily checked by hand, and that these days (with 'double-dummy programs' around that are capable of computing in a split second the correct line of play for a whole hand with all four suits present) suitplay combinations are seen as almost trivial exercises; such a person really feels these the article on suit combinations is full of OR and POV. The sad thing is that this person can not be convinced otherwise. Even when the persons makes silly mistakes and puts forward statements like:

"56 / 20,000 = 0,30"

He would not change his point of view. If someone would point out the error, the person would simply respond:

"You see, that just proves my point! One can not trust the outcomes of such compuations!"

A pathetic response? Well, not in the eyes of the 'computational ignorant'...

JocK 08:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

An interesting but inaccurate response ... read my statement again, I said as clearly as I could that "This (56/20000) is not OR" whereas you have built your reply around the thought that I claimed it was. Also I think you are being a little unfair in labelling me an "OR-fundamentalist" Wikipedia:Assume good faith; ... Ah well ... Abtract 08:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Jock, would you please suggest how we can be of more help? Actually, the description and layout of suit combinations pretty much depends on used source. It's difficult to get right even the list of all interesting combinations when 8's, 7's and 6's come into play. If you have the lists in electronic form or a source website, you could e-mail them to me and I can convert them to wikiformat semi-automatically. Apparently, you didn't use the bridgehands.com directly? Duja 08:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If we agree we want to go ahead with this (see above), it would help if you could post suit combinations of interest. I can then do the computations and post the optimal lines of play. JocK 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do; I might even write a program to do it, but I'm kind of busy these days and I'm taking a wikibreak on July 29. Duja 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

---

One thing is that you've claimed that simply having the best chance to make as many tricks as possible is optimal for matchpoints. This might not always be the case - eg you've reached an unusual contract eg 4S on a moysian(sp?)where playing a suit in a 'MP' style would give 11 tricks. (3NT is making 9); if you make 10 tricks you will get a good score anyway so perhaps playing to make sure of 10 is better. Or perhaps playing in a 'non MP' way endplays an opponent if it 'goes wrong' - suits can't be taken in isolation - perhaps there should eb a disclaimer saying such. Good work doing them mind - it is a useful thing to have Cambion 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to use the article Suit combinations to explain what it means, how it works and how the reader can devise his own methods of play and then make reference to a useful site like http://home.planet.nl/~narcis45/SuitPlay (which seems a very useful source of detail). I can't see how we can cover all these combinations and get it right without totally plagiarising the work of others. The article is a good start and could be made useful to readers without covering all the bases.Abtract 16:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask Jeroen Warmerdam (the creator of SuitPlay) whether he minds when we place a link here to this page with his e-mail details (a page he has kept hidden from his homepage http://home.planet.nl/~narcis45/SuitPlay). On the 2nd issue: I think you are right; it might be better to slim down the tables with suit combinations and only incorporate the significant/practicak ones . (E.g. not bothering when an 'x' replaced by an '8' makes a small difference in POS. JocK 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That web page is not supposed to be "public"? Well, the guys from BridgeHands.com already did that. It would certainly be polite to ask. Duja 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, I'm not sure about usefulness of "(mp)" marks. One would not always play for the maximal number of tricks even at matchpoints, especially if e.g. the lines to be considered are a) taking [n-1 tricks with probability of 90% and n tricks with probability of 40%] and b) taking [n tricks with probability of 45% and n-1 tricks with probability of 55%]. Maybe the alternate lines like b) could be presented as well where they're not clearly inferior. Duja 13:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I wonder if the format of pages like Suit_combinations_-_K10_missing are really in the best format. Would it possibly be better to give a particular line of play and the associated probabilities of making a particular number of tricks? I hope the idea shown in the table is sufficiently clear. Jhouse 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Declarer-Dummy	Line of Play	POS (3)	POS (4)	POS (5)
x - AQJ8x	Play the Ace	0.???	0.???	0.??? (mp/5?)
	Finesse the queen	0.???	0.??? (mp/4)	0.??? (mp/5?)
	Duck a round	0.733 (mp/3)	0.???	0.???

New Pages

Finished an initial page on the Roman Club system (Avarelli-Belladonna) but, being fairly new here, I am really bad at formatting and have not even categorised it so would appreciate some help (format edits) or guidance on the topic. Roman505 03:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Just added EHAA, and put it in Bidding system too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tb (talk • contribs)

OK, thanks. Shouldn't it rather be Every Hand an Adventure with EHAA as redirect? Duja 12:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:WPCB

People, please add the {{WPCB}} template at the top of talk pages of articles you create. This is not solely for "advertising" purpose — it's very useful to get the full list of articles by just selecting its option "What links here". Duja 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Duja, I'm confused (nothing new there). I've added {{WPCB}} (without the tl) at the top of the talk page of an article and I see no "what links here" option -- just links to the project and to contract bridge. Do you mean that "What links here" works IFF the template is on the talk page? (In that case, where should we put the link?) Feeling a little dense here. Xlmvp 17:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I just found it in the toolbox. Xlmvp 03:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems we're only on the figure of 205 articles; still lots of work to do. Many bridge players are either missing or barely stubbed. Here are few excellent sources:

• Youth team championships bulletins
• ACBL hall of fame

Shall we introduce prizes for 300th, 400th...? :-). Duja 11:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Bidding box made it to the front page

Whee! We've got an FP and a FP picture! Well done Duja! (rm this when it looks daft...) Cambion 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks :-). Sorry if I was kind of selfish — it turned out as a one-man project; actually, when I assembled the article, I thought "well, why not give it a try at Template talk:Did you know"; the outcome turned out nicely.

Btw, we should really try to make one WP:FA, e.g. Contract bridge or Duplicate bridge. but they will require a lot of scrutiny (referencing, for the start) even to come close to a good article status. Duja 09:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Computer_bridge made it to the front page

Whee X 2! Well done JocK! Cambion 12:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Grammar question

I stumbled few times upon constructions like "spades are trump" (e.g. here). Sounds unnatural to me—I'd use either "trumps" or "trump suit". What do native speakers say about it? Duja 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You've got a good ear; I've stumbled over the same thing. When speaking idiomatically, either "spades are trump" or "spades are trumps" would be acceptable, although "spades are trumps" would sound a little odd. Of course context is an issue -- are we talking about the trump suit or the trump cards? OTOH, if writing rather than speaking, I think that "spades is trump" is formally correct, but it looks pedantic. So if it wouldn't be too awkward given the rest of the sentence, I'd probably write "the trump suit is spades" or "with spades trump." Xlmvp 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In the UK it is clear, we say "spades are trumps", but we do not rule the world (even the English speaking world). Abtract 20:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm English too so to me:

• trump = singular (eg. the trump suit; one no trump)
• trumps = plural (eg. I have 5 trumps; 3 no trumps)

I initially chaged someone's 'trump' to 'trumps' thinking it was a typo and they said it could be either.

While we don't rule the world these days (we just watch the USA in its empire building) the language used in internationals is English... Cambion 17:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the grammatical problem here is that 'trump', as a noun, is usually the short form of a full expression, either 'trump suit' or 'trump card(s)'. In that case, the bidding would generally appear as singular ('3 no trump' or '3 notrump'), as short for '[there will be] no trump [suit]', whereas other uses might show as plural ('... and after I ruffed the queen, they had all the trumps.') On the other hand, in real life and language, usage rules, rules really don't. And variation in usage lends charm... FutharkRed 09:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Omar Sharif

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge/Notable people criteria

Menagerie

I need some help in filling in the missing features of characters at Victor Mollo#Bridge in the Menagerie. Reason: I forgot and I don't have any of the books at hand :-D Duja 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha covered. I still have the copy of Bridge in the Menagerie that I bought in Tehran in 1976. Xlmvp 14:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article. Nice work. It was me who originally put Mollo's name on the "to do" list, so I'm very grateful. I've made some additions and edits that I hope will be helpful. I did a search on Amazon UK and made a note of the earliest edition that I could find of each of the Menagerie books, so that I could put them into the correct date order. (I imagine that they were all published in the UK earlier than their first US publication.)

JH 19:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Subpages

Following the suggestion on the main page, I created subpages for draft naming conventions and a manual of style. These pages were later tagged with a "historical" template because nobody had commented on them. If you are interested in these topics, please add your thoughts and edits, and remove the historical tag. Matchups 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Bridge

There is a proposal to rename Category:Bridge. Contribute you thoughts here. 2005 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Karosel 2D

I wonder if someone could have a look at a new article, Karosel 2D, that I stumbled upon and is, frankly, incomprehensible to me. It could at least use a clean-up to make it more understandable or perhaps it is not notable enough to have its own article and should be merged somewhere. Thanks, DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the convention (the writer of the article seems to be confusing "system" with "convention") is widely enough played to be notable. Even if it is deemed notable, the length of the article is somewhat excessive. It looks like someone is riding their pet hobby-horse. JH (talk page) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pet hobby horse? I thought we were supposed to be objective? TheKurgan (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like original research to me and should be binned. Abtract (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It does look like OR, but to the extent that it is covered elsewhere, we can include it. Additional "good ideas" not already in the published literature will need to be removed. As I wrote on the talk page of the article itself, I'm planning to attack it when I have time. Ma^t_chups 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Matchups. If it's received significant coverage in reliable sources, then it should be included somewhere. TheKurgan can be encouraged to review WP:COI in a more friendly way that is NPA. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't know this convention, but as it seems covered in a reliable source I see no problem in having a Wikipedia article on it. Having said that, the article indeed needs some editing. TheKurgan, do you happen to be the inventor of Karosel? JocK (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion and comments for or against would be welcome. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was the inventor. I gave up because almost everyone wanted it deleted and nearly no one came to my aid. The sophistry of some of the arguments was laughable (well, if your friend posted it for you, then it's not original research) and other such idiocy. No matter, though. I am currently refining the convention and hope to enlist Paul Thurston (a leading Canadian player) as a help in getting it published in book form. Take THAT notability hawks! TheKurgan (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at the article Asptro

Hi, could someone from the project have a look at the Asptro article? A few days it was spotted that the content is about "Astro" rather than "Asptro". However, I'm not sure whether the title is wrong or the content. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There certainly was a convention called Asptro, so it's probably the content that is wrong. Asptro was very similar to Astro IIRC, being a cross between Astro and Aspro - hence the name. (Aspro in turn was so named because there was a brand of aspirin by that name in the UK, and the convention was supposed to avoid headaches!) I think both Aspro and Asptro are pretty much defunct, only Astro being much played nowadays (at least in the UK). It's a long time ago, but IIRC the only difference between the three conventions was what you bid with both majors: with Astro I think you bid 2C, with Aspro I think you bid 2D, and with Asptro you bid 2C with 5 hearts and 4 spades and 2D with 4 hearts and 5 spades - I can't recall what you did with 5-5. JH (talk page) 08:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having now looked at the article, I think it is probably correct that with both majors in Asptro "the player anchors onto the shorter/weaker suit". I had it the wrong way round. So I think the only error is a typo in the body of the article where it gives the convention name. JH (talk page) 08:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Master points, master players

The European Bridge League gives a new presentation of its (EBL) master points leaders.

interface EBL master points database

This feature incorporates the final standings for particular events (European and World) such as the EBL Women's Teams championship completed Saturday -07-03. Select any one of the lists of points leaders (eg, Historic; Youth) and then select the event from the menu at bottom.

The World Bridge Federation gives a similar presentation of (WBF) points leaders – master points and placing points.

WBF master points top page

For me its service is irregular, and slow at best. The career records that WBF provides for its ranked players do list European championship events as well as World events (which is not to say that its rankings depend on Euro events).

Both EBL and WBF do now, 60 to 80 hours after completion, list the 2010 Euro championship events in those career records.

The American Contract Bridge Club menu includes Player of the Decade, covering calendar years 2000 to 2009. Temporarily that is comparable to the "current", namely last ten years, classes of European points leaders.

ACBL Player of the Decade 2000-2009 (ranks 1 to 500)

Let me sign this only once although I have posted it in pieces. --P64 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Goals and scope

propoasal for better goals and scope I disagree to the concept for several reasons: ?1: To improve Wikipedias coverage of Bridge in General ? Nice suggestion, do whatever you think fit. ?2: coverage of bridge conventions and bridge systems . Clear definition, this might be of use for some players. Very restricted. ?3: create article on every notable bridge player. Who decides on person. What is notable ? Killed a TD after discussion.? Invented No. 299 convention ? Suggestion: only for deceased players. Merits : Jesse Owens did make 100 meters in 9,9 secondes in 1936 Olypic games. There is no such single event in bridge, the numer of pssible distributions exceed 600.000.000. Any sugestions to merits  ? ?4: to improve existing bridge articles to featured standards. What standards? Suggestion: logical analytucal descriptions. ?5: e q u i v a l e n t of the "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" ? This is the same as number one.

My suggestion:

long term target: Make the "mind sport bridge" equivalent to the "body sport", in number of participants world wide

middle term target: Change existing rules by introducing new features, improving existing rules , delating rules/Laws which make brigde difficult to play.

short term target: Explain bridge in words of common language , give definition of bridge terms when used in articles.

Example for misused habits: When you and your partner meet new pairs in private , you will ask: what system do you use ? And your new opponents will frankly explain to you. Case the deny explanation, you will stop to play with them in future. But this information about system is general, and you will not aks: do you have to spade ace, and queen diamonds and hearts - when the auction of a new a new deal starts. This way to play friendly does not override the basic concept: no player must know the card of the other hand, when auction begins. " Friendly" information cannot be used to claim any rights.

Paul Hauff (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Paul Hauff

Moments ago I moved that comment here from the project page. Italics mine.

Italics (mine) highlight what speaks to the development of bridge rather than to wikipedia coverage of bridge. --P64 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You killed a TD? <gulp> I've been tempted, but have so far resisted. Narky Blert (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)