[helene_t]

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2016-February-22, 09:35, said:

In any case, I have a lot of sympathy for Mikestar13. The OP has posted more aspects of his vision for bridge on Bridgewinners. These include:

• eliminating doubles, but scoring undertricks as if they were doubled (but increasing in points much faster)
  
• giving bonuses for every level contract, ie 1-level 100, 2-level 200 (LOL if he wants to eliminate vulnerability it makes sense to get rid of game bonuses too!)
  
• replacing matchpoints, IMPs and VPs with a strange and complicated hybrid method
  
• leaving quitted tricks face-up
  
• Facing the dummy before the opening lead
  
• Eliminating the ranks of suits (and allowing all bids at a given level if they have not been bid before)
  
• Changing partners after the auction
  
• Changing all top-level play to individuals
  
• eliminating overtricks

I've played quite a few of those in "director's revenge" events. If OP is running short of ideas, I have a file of them somewhere

[johnu]

mgoetze, on 2016-February-22, 18:31, said:

Wait, if you don't agree with what he's saying, why would you then say that he's right to say it? I'm so confused.

That was a misquote of a famous quote. Instead of "YOU'RE RIGHT" in the quote, it should be "your right" which completely changes the meaning.

[Fluffy]

I think bridge is too easy, I would rather add more vulnerabilities, instead of sides vulenrable, make the 5 "suits" vulnerable or not. Playing 4 spades is easy in your 5-4 fit, but will you try for a small bonus in a vulnerable 3NT?. 2 suited overcalls with one suit vulnerable and the other not would be quite excitiing

[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2016-February-23, 03:44, said:

I think bridge is too easy, I would rather add more vulnerabilities, instead of sides vulenrable, make the 5 "suits" vulnerable or not. Playing 4 spades is easy in your 5-4 fit, but will you try for a small bonus in a vulnerable 3NT?. 2 suited overcalls with one suit vulnerable and the other not would be quite excitiing

A backgammon cube instead of X/XX would be fun too, how do you fancy 3N xxxxxx ?

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-February-23, 08:15, said:

A backgammon cube instead of X/XX would be fun too, how do you fancy 3N xxxxxx ?

I think some form of whist or early bridge allowed this.

[oryctolagi]

johnu, on 2016-February-23, 03:11, said:

That was a misquote of a famous quote. Instead of "YOU'RE RIGHT" in the quote, it should be "your right" which completely changes the meaning.

Not merely a mis-spelled quote, but a misattributed quote too. Voltaire never actually wrote those celebrated words - they were penned by someone called Evelyn Beatrice Hall, in a biography of Voltaire and his friends, published in 1906.

[kuhchung]

I don't know why people are so hostile to his suggestions. I don't like most of them myself, but they are interesting, and one idea in particular (no overtricks) has real appeal at IMPs. The play would go MUCH faster.

It's not as if the game has never changed