[kfgauss]

Came across this:

http://www.otb-games...dged/index.html

mentioned on page 12 of Verona Bulletin #7.

Seems to be a variant of minibridge in which, in turn, players are given the choice to contract for 10 tricks (they choose trump suit/notrump after seeing dummy) before moving on to the HCP announcing stage should nobody "play" instead of "pass." Then normal minibridge rules, but one also announces the length of one's longest suit (but not what it/they is/are) after the contract has been chosen, and one has to choose between trying for 7 tricks and trying for 10 tricks (scoring is also somewhat "simplified" and there's no distinction between major & minor suits).

They've also done away with the normal suits and honor cards, instead using blue, red, yellow, and green cards, and numbering cards 2-14 (with dots on 11-14 indicating their HCP). Perhaps something like this is necessary if you're going to convince someone to buy your product instead of using a deck of cards.

Andy

[pdmunro]

Quite a forceful riposte to a negative review:

http://www.bridgeworld.com/default.asp?d=e...&f=maureen.html

[gwnn]

Quote

aBRIDGEd plays just like the classic game of Bridge, but without the complex bidding

friggin hell

[hrothgar]

Few quick comments:

1. I let my Bridge World subscription lapse a while back after they stopped providing much coverage of anything outside North America. Wish that I had been able to see the original editorial that the author is responding to. I do think that the Bridge World's decision to post her response shows class.

2. I have a lot of sympathy for the position of the author of aBRIDGEd

(a) I agree that games like miniBridge are the best tool to introduce bridge to new players. I think that the author is dead on when she stateds that mastering bidding and declarer play/defense is a steep row to hoe. Furthermore, I don't think that transitioning from miniBridge to real bridge requires much in the way of unlearning or relearning.

(b) I agree that games companies are in business to make money. No games company would touch a game without something that they can set (a deck of special playing cards for aBRIDGEd, game tiles for Settlers of Catan, Booster packs for Magic the Gathering, what have you.

Where is disagree with the author is whether its better to

(a) Launch aBRIDGEd as a commercial venture, make money, and plough a portion of this back into the WBF for educational programs

(b) Promote miniBridge as a non-commercial venture, distribute rules sets training materials for free via the web, and let people play with their own decks of olaying cards.

I don't buy into the claim that its too difficult for players to differentiate between Spades and Clubs or what have you. If someone can't make that out, they're never going to figure out Stayman. In a similar vein, if someone beleived that playing cards are the tool of the devil, they're never going to make the leap from aBRIDGEd to Bridge which is, after all, supposedly the real goal.

I find the entire discussion of the WBF's spontaneous decision to allow its logo to be plastered on the game, provide accompanying supporting references, and promote the game in Verona followed by the aBRIDGEd author's spontaneous decision to kick half the profits over the the WBF for use in promoting "Junior Bridge" unconvincing. For anyone who doesn't know, the WBF has a very flexible idea what promoting "Junior Bridge" involves. For example, flying lots of superfulous WBF officials across the world to attend junior tournaments is a key part of promoting "junior bridge"...