[puckerman]

I was eleven when my family introduced me to Bridge. My parents and my three older brothers played. I was one of the few kids I knew who played the game.

Because of the deal, there is always an element of luck involved. Yet, it's also one of the greatest strategy games ever created. You can hold 635,013,559,600 possible hands; and the number of possible deals is 53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000. It's like Chess, but the pieces are always in a different place.

Apparently, Bridge was huge in the 1930's and until the early 1960's. I often think the decline of the game is due to the decline of our culture. People just don't want to play a game that requires this kind of logic and reasoning. It's very easy to learn to play Bridge. It is much more difficult to learn to play Bridge well.

Last Friday, I was talking to a guy who plays the game online. He mentioned that some sites have bots trying to play the game. He said they don't play well. I find it intriguing that while computers can beat humans at Chess and Go that they still can't play Bridge against humans.

Does anyone else here play Bridge?

[H1N1]

I've just started learning. My parents play well, and regularly with their friends. I'm very much a novice, but it's actually pretty fun. My parents were teaching my brother and I over Christmas.

[Hypno]

I've always wanted to learn. Do you need a regular partner?

Watching sit coms in the 60s and 70s, it seems like it used to be a big thing for couples. Apparrently nonverbal communication with your partner plays a big role?

I have heard some famous people still play regularly, like Warren Buffett, but of course he is from that generation.

[puckerman]

You will definitely learn more if you people to play with regularly. One problem is that the game requires four. It's one partnership against the other.

One thing I've always liked is that because the whole deck is dealt, there is never a question about whether a card was dealt or not. You know every card is out there somewhere.

I suppose partners who play together a lot do develop signals that only they know.

Back in my family, we would usually play three sets of eight hands each. That meant everybody got to play together. Eight hands also gave everyone two deals. A lot of scorepads are designed for this. It would take about three hours. By then, we would be ready to do something else.

[Hypno]

posted this in another thread. Kemps has the social interaction of Bridge without the complexity. It allows you to play more games and play quickly.

if you have an even 4 people, a great game is Kemps. Its very simple. There are two teams of two. Each player has 4 cards and there are 4 cards dealt straight up. The goal is to get 4 of a kind. You pick up from the straight up cards as you like and then discard. When no one wants to pick up anymore, 4 more cards are dealt straight up. There are two wrinkles to the game, and this is what makes it social. First, when you have a winning hand, only your partner can claim credit for it. So you have to have non-verbal communication with them. Second, if you have a winning hand and your opponents know it before your partner has claimed it, then your opponents can claim -Anti-Kemps and, assuming you have a winning hand, they score a point. So while from the card perspective its easy to learn the rules and easy to assemble four of a kind, the tricky part is your opponents and even your partner never know for sure what is in your hand. There is a lot of nonverbal communication, and you spend as much time trying to intercept your opponents' nonverbals as you do communicating with your partner. Also, like Bridge, you have to watch what kind of hand your partner is building and feed them cards they might need.

the one draw back is you need teams of 2. I've only played with 4 players, but presumably you could play with 6 or 8 although it would be harder.

https://www.pagat.com/commerce/kemps.html