Game: Abridged

Image

atholbrose — 2008-08-26T02:53:26+00:00

Scan of box front

Thread: Re: Is this better than minibridge?

grandslam — 2007-10-11T02:31:38+00:00

Both games are very good in and of themselves, but I think it helps give context to acknowledge that bridge players are deeply concerned that the game will die. Both of these games are attempts to create a pathway to bridge that ideally will reinvigorate the ranks of those playing bridge.

See Maureen Hiron's response to a negative review of aBRIDGEd

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

I can see both sides.

Personally, I have read the rules to both, but not played both enough to have a very strong feeling.

Here are the major differences, as I see them.

aBRIDGEd does away with finding a fit between the partners. In the first round, you can either play or pass. Play is determined on the strength of your hand and the length of your longest suit, probably considering even distribution of points and suits among the other three hands. Dummy is laid down before declarer determines the color/suit or no trump(NT) of the contract. High Card Points (HCP) and length of the longest suit is announced by each player. If someone chooses Play in the first round, they have to make 10 tricks in their suit/No Trump.

If all four players pass in the first round, all players announce their HCP. Partnership with the most HCP will determine the contract and the hand with the most points is declarer. After the dummy is laid down, trump is determined, and the declarer chooses to go for 7 or 10 tricks, each player announces the length of his/her longest suit.

The hand is played and scored. The game lasts four hands. Basically, play begins with knowledge of the HCP strength of the hand and a sense for the longest suit length (without knowing the suit).

Full rules here:
http://www.otb-games.com/abridged/rules.html
I don't think there is an online version of aBRIDGEd.

Mini-bridge

All players disclose their HCP at the start of each hand. Mini-Bridge skips the first round of Pass or Play that aBRIDGEd has. As in the second round of aBRIDGEd, the team with the most points between them becomes declarer/dummy, and the declarer is the player with more points.

A major difference between the two games is that where aBRIDGEd offers the choice of 7 tricks or 10 tricks, Mini-Bridge offers 7 tricks in any trump/NT (part score) or 9 tricks in No Trump, 10 in Spades or Hearts, and 11 in Diamonds or Clubs (game).

Play and scoring are similar to bridge and aBRIDGEd.

Rules: http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/teachers/Minibridge.pdf
Free downloads for solo play with AI:
http://www.bluechipbridge.co.uk/MiniBridge.htm
http://www.osk.3web.ne.jp/~mcbridge/minib_e1.htm

Summary:
I like that aBRIDGEd offers that first round, which is a bit like calling Grand Tichu in Tichu. It also permits someone with few HCP and a very long suit to play in that suit, whereas if they let it go to the next round, they might be in a lousy defensive position.

I like that Mini-Bridge gets you closer to the mindset of bridge by differentiating between reaching game in different suits/NT, acknowledging that getting tricks in NT is harder than in a suit. I'm not sure the differentiation between the suits makes any sense because in both these games no suit is higher or lower than any other suit, but to the extent it was designed as a gateway drug, it makes it easier to transition to bridge.

I'll be honest, I care how the game plays, not how it scores, so I'll leave it to someone else to compare the scoring.

Honestly, I think you can play with the rules to suit your audience, or create a Frankenstein of the two.

One caveat that really surprised me. I love bridge, but having played it with a few gamers, they were really stunned by the idea that one of the four is always not doing anything while the other three are playing the hand. I think the constant engagement of Tichu, Hearts, Spades, etc. makes the idea of the dummy seem strange to some.

I'll try to reply to any follow up questions.

Thread: Is this better than minibridge?

chaosbreaker — 2007-10-10T17:57:51+00:00

Mini Bridge

Minibridge is bridge without bidding. Is abridged just Minibridge?

Thread: Re: Better than the Geek Reviews

paulhar — 2007-08-17T01:38:13+00:00

edralla wrote:
If you are offended at having to sit out approximately 1/4 of the hands (on average) as the dummy, this may not be your game.

If you are offended at having to sit out 1/4 of the hands, you should play Abridged 3-handed. You are never dummy. See the following excerpt from one of the reviews on the Out of the Box website:

My husband and I are avid game players and we often end up improving the rules after we play a game a few times. In testing the game with friends, we created a three-player version. It turned out to be a great game three-handed but the publisher never mentioned the possibility! Four hands are still dealt and each or the three players bids as above for the dummy hand. In round one, any player may decide to play for ten tricks. In round two, the player with the most points becomes declarer with the dummy hand as his dummy and the other two players team up to defend. Occasionally, the declaring side had less strength than the defending side but the ability to select trump after seeing dummy helped make up for that. Each of the three players accumulates his own individual score.

P.S. No extra credit for figuring out who one of the avid game players is

Thread: Re: [Review] aBridged

paulhar — 2007-05-04T23:55:49+00:00

TomVasel wrote:

4.) Dummy: At first, I thought that the dummy idea was an interesting idea, allowing one player to effectively play with two hands. But in practice, this really fell short for me. When you are the "dummy", there is really nothing to do but to sit there and watch while your partner plays your cards. If this happens in two rounds, that's half the game that you simply sit there! Maybe this is fun in a tournament setting, but in friendly, casual, play I found it disappointing to not be involved in each hand. For me, the fun in a trick-taking game is stealing a trick from an opponent and working together with your partner to do well. As the dummy, you can do neither, and it brings the game down for me.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.thedicetower.com

Hi - we have played the 3 person variation of Abridged. The players bid for the hidden dummy and if nobody "plays", the highest pip total wins the dummy with the other two defending. My wife and I have played this with one of our friends and found it to be quite enjoyable. There is no downtime, as there is always one declarer and two defenders, and only three players.

Thread: Better than the Geek Reviews

edralla — 2007-03-24T03:40:10+00:00

Okay, admittedly aBridged isn't a game for everyone. But, a lot of the negative reviews are completely missing the point. It wasn't designed for everyone. aBridged makes no pretenses in this regard. It is simply an "introductory" version of a much heavier game ... think Risk vs. East Front. Both are playable in their own right, but both will appeal to vastly different audiences.

Since the rules are covered in other posts, I won't restate them here. However, the beauty of aBridged is it truly captures the "essence" of its more complex parent, but with far less complicated rules. Let me break it down:

1. Risk-taking is rewarded (for Bridge players, think 'Game' and 'Slam'). If you evaluate your hand as fairly strong, you may want to bid "Play" and try for the much better scoring that goes with it.

2. The exchange of information is key to proper play of the hand. In every hand, the declarer gets to know the "strength and length" of the opposing hands, and the opponents get to see 1/2 of the declaring side's cards (the dummy). With practice, this information can make the difference between leading into the opponents' strength or drawing them into a Finesse situation (a commonly sought strategy in trick-taking games).

3. Similarly, exposing the dummy before declaring trump provides insights into your side's combined suit strength that is normally achieved by complex "suit bids" in the parent game.

4. Absent an initial "Play" declaration, there is still a variation on "cue bidding" ... another common element in Bridge. All the great Bridge masters will tell you that, done right, the strongest team will always win the bid, although only proper play of the hand will ensure a positive score. This is accomplished by having the team with the highest combined hand strength be awarded the 'bid', and the highest among them become the declarer.

5. For the declarer, the advantage of perfect knowledge of your side's combined strength is offset by exposing one half of your combined cards (the dummy) to your opponent, again rewarding skillful play in exactly the same way as the original.

In retrospect, I retract my original comparison ... aBridged compares far more favorably to its parent game than Risk does to virtually any decent wargame. If you are offended at having to sit out approximately 1/4 of the hands (on average) as the dummy, this may not be your game. But again, consider Risk. Afterall, how many of us have sat by for 30 minutes or more waiting for the other players to take their turns before the dice are finally passed to us again. In aBridged, I guarantee your action will be faster, and your down time far less.

Thread: Replace 7's with 8's for more skill

toonces — 2006-12-24T18:39:29+00:00

As a bridge player, I think there is a flaw with the game in that it's too easy to make "7's". When you get to choose the trump, it should be very difficult NOT to make 7 tricks. I recommend tweaking the scoring system to require you to at least make 8 trick to score on your side, and move the penalties over one row as well.

Thread: Re: Probably better for non-gamers

toonces — 2006-12-24T18:36:36+00:00

While I understand the annoyance of having a "dummy" for each hand (especially when the dummy doesn't get a chance to bid either), but the reason to have a dummy is to allow for actual strategy. Everyone that is playing the hand can see 26 of the 52 cards. That means that every missing card is in on of the 2 hidden hands, and it allows for a lot more planning than when 3 hands are hidden.

Of course the real reason there's a dummy is that bridge has a dummy.

Thread: Re: [Review] aBridged

toonces — 2006-12-24T18:14:22+00:00

mhowe wrote:
However, three quarters of the game is in the bidding, with the remainder card play.

Oh, I very much disagree and I'm pretty sure most experts would also. A lot of bridge players know how to bid well. The play of the cards is what distinguishes the good bridge player from the great one.

Bridge is a strange game. For new players, the defense is the most intuitive aspect of the game, while declaring is a lot more uncomfortable and bidding is completely foriegn and you feel completely lost. However, the ability to master these skills works entirely in reverse. Bidding is probably the easiest of the skills to reach a strong level, and declaring is harder than bidding to master. The hardest to master is defense, even though it was the easiest to learn.

Thread: Re: [Review] aBridged

mentis — 2006-12-22T04:03:24+00:00

mhowe wrote:
However, three quarters of the game is in the bidding, with the remainder card play.

Oh, I very much disagree and I'm pretty sure most experts would also. A lot of bridge players know how to bid well. The play of the cards is what distinguishes the good bridge player from the great one.

Well, I could be wrong. When I played duplicate bridge for a period of time, I found the card play relatively easy. Finessing and all the rest, requires thought and care but not really a problem. Perhaps because I have played lots of card games. The bidding took 90% of my concentration, and that was after quite a bit of practice before going to the club. My conversations with the long-timers at the bridge club also colored my opinions - but as far as I can recall none of them actually claimed to be experts. I am sure you are quite correct. So sorry for being in error.

Thread: Re: [Review] aBridged

mhowe — 2006-12-22T03:43:49+00:00

However, three quarters of the game is in the bidding, with the remainder card play.

Oh, I very much disagree and I'm pretty sure most experts would also. A lot of bridge players know how to bid well. The play of the cards is what distinguishes the good bridge player from the great one.

Thread: Re: [Review] aBridged

mentis — 2006-12-21T04:38:28+00:00

Thank you for providing this review. I have really been wanting someone to provide a comprehensive review of this game. I have seen the ads in Knucklebones and have been thinking of picking it up. I did not think that it would really be possible to capture the essence of bridge in a simplified version, hence my proscrastination.

Bridge is a great game. I played in a local bridge club for a short period of time, and found that duplicate bridge is a deep and fascinating game. Rubber bridge (where you commonly have a dummy) is not nearly as interesting. However, three quarters of the game is in the bidding, with the remainder card play. And to be good you must have a steady partner, and lots of practice, in order to get your bidding conventions down pat. That makes it a very time consuming game.

If I want to play bridge without the bidding, then I can just play spades. If I want to play a modified bid and trick taking game, I will stick with Rook.

Thread: [Review] aBridged

TomVasel — 2006-12-20T23:16:58+00:00

Bridge has always been a distant phenomenon for me, as it has permutated a good deal of society; yet I have never actually seen it being played. From articles in the paper to almost crazed fanatics I met, Bridge was certainly touted as a deep, fulfilling game, yet for some reason never attracted me. However, when I saw aBridged (Out of the Box Publishing, 2006 - Maureen Hiron), I was suddenly interested. While Bridge may be complicated process, Out of the Box Publishing is well known for its simplicity, and I was certainly eager to see this "Revolution in Bridge".

Now, one may take my comments with a grain of salt, since I've not had the pleasure (?) of playing Bridge; but if this is simplified Bridge, then I really don't want to go much farther. I didn't dislike aBridged but found it much simpler and almost inferior to other trick taking games that I've played. It takes out the complicated and intricate bidding mechanic that Bridge contains, and you're left with a fairly bland game. The "Dummy" aspect I find a bit dull (especially if I am the dummy). Again, I'd like to emphasize that I don't think this is a bad game, but it's certainly not a "revolution" either.

The game involves four players split into two partnerships. One person is chosen to be the first dealer and shuffles the deck, dealing out the cards to each player. Interestingly, two decks are including, so that one can be shuffled while the other is being dealt, to keep the game from slowing down. The decks are identical to a regular deck of cards, except that they have colored backgrounds for suits (red, green, yellow, and blue) and are numbered from two to fourteen. The cards numbered eleven through fourteen have a number of pips marked on them, with the "11" having one pip up to four pips on the "14".

Starting with the dealer, each player has one chance to declare "Pass" or "Play". The first person to state "Play" becomes the declarer, and their partner becomes the "dummy". The dummy places all of their cards face up on the table, while the declarer declares which color is "trump" (he can declare no-trump if he desires). Each player must then declare their hand strength, which is the sum of the pips on all their cards. After this, players must declare their color count (the largest quantity of cards of one color). Play then begins, starting with the person to the left of the declarer.

If everyone declares "Pass", then each player states their hand strength, with the team having the higher total becoming the "declaring team". The declarer is the person with the higher total of that team, and the other player lays their cards down, becoming the dummy. The declarer then decides whether they can win either at least seven or ten tricks, announcing this fact as well as the trump color. Players then state their color counts, and play begins.

Regardless of whether there is a "Pass" or a "Play", gameplay is the same. When a player plays a card, each other player must play a card of the same color as the card led. If the player does not have this color, they may play any other color card. Instead of the "dummy" playing their own cards, the declarer picks the card from the dummy's hand to play. The player who plays the highest numerical card of trump wins the trick; if no cards from the trump color were played, then the highest numerical card of the color is led. The winner of the trick then plays the lead card for the next trick. The round continues until all thirteen tricks have been played and won.

At this point, players score points for the round. If the declarer announced "Play", then their team must win at least ten or more tricks to score points (from 90 to 120). Otherwise, the other team wins points for each trick over four that they win (from 10 to 550 points). If the declarer announced "Seven" or "Ten", they must have taken at least that many tricks to score points (which are sufficiently less - the highest is 65). Otherwise the other team scores points. After points are summed up, the next player becomes the dealer, and another round begins. After four rounds, the points are totaled, and the team with the higher total is the winner!

Some comments on the game…

1.) Components: For a card game, aBridged certainly comes with the complete package. Not only are there two decks of cards (which, by the way - are of high quality vinyl material), but also four pencils and four score pads are included, along with a reference card for each player. Everything is stored in a nice plastic insert inside a sturdy, smallish box. My only niggling complaint would be that the only difference between suits is the color, making the game difficult for those in poor lighting or with color blindness. Otherwise, the game is up to Out of the Box's high standards of quality.

2.) Rules: The rule set is the longest I've ever seen for an Out of the Box game, which is still pretty short. They are ten pages but rather nicely formatted and with a lot of information for those who aren't used to playing Bridge or any trick-taking game for that matter. When teaching the game, I suppose that it might be old hat for Bridge players; but I and the other players I taught, who hadn't played Bridge before, were easily able to pick it up.

3.) Pass or Play: In most of the rounds that I've participated in, it seems like players pick "pass", as taking the "play" option is very dangerous unless you have an excellent hand. The problem is that you have to declare "play" before you have much information about the other players' hands. The only information one has is the cards they've drawn. "Pass", on the other hand, is much easier, as players will know both the hand strength of their opponents and the cards that their partner has. Perhaps I'm a novice (and will probably always remain so), but I can't see that playing "Play" is a good idea unless you have a spectacular hand; otherwise, it's simply a guessing game.

4.) Dummy: At first, I thought that the dummy idea was an interesting idea, allowing one player to effectively play with two hands. But in practice, this really fell short for me. When you are the "dummy", there is really nothing to do but to sit there and watch while your partner plays your cards. If this happens in two rounds, that's half the game that you simply sit there! Maybe this is fun in a tournament setting, but in friendly, casual, play I found it disappointing to not be involved in each hand. For me, the fun in a trick-taking game is stealing a trick from an opponent and working together with your partner to do well. As the dummy, you can do neither, and it brings the game down for me.

5.) Fun Factor: I'm not sure if the game will be fun for Bridge players, since they will find it stripped down and too simple for their tastes. At the same time, I don't know that players who enjoy trick-taking games will have fun either, because the game lacks the depth and involvement of other games of the genre - even those that are public domain, such as Hearts and Spades. I had a fun time when playing; but when I was the dummy, I was really rather bored - other than an interest as to whether my partner won the hand or not. Declaring hand strength and color count sounded like a fascinating idea but in practice was really too mind numbing to keep track of.

I may possibly be too hard on aBridged, since I simply felt that it didn't stack up to other, better trick taking games. I know that the idea behind it is noble, to bring the classic game of Bridge to the masses. But instead, I feel that the original idea has been diluted to a degree that much of what made the original game so engrossing - complicated or not - is gone. Only a shell of the original game is left, and it wasn't attractive enough to me, mechanic wise, to draw me from other games in the same genre.

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.thedicetower.com

Thread: Probably better for non-gamers

sdonohue — 2006-12-08T05:51:06+00:00

Disclosure: I received my copy free for playing in a demo at Origins.

Abridged starts with what seems like a neat idea - make a game that plays like Bridge but get rid of the complicated bidding that makes learning Bridge so difficult.

The components include two 52 card decks (each numbered 1 to 13 in 4 different colors), four scoresheets, and four pencils. The decks are identical but have different colored backs. The higher valued cards also have a number of dots on them which are used to determine hand strength. You use one deck at a time and the dummy (see below) should shuffle up the cards for the next deal to cut down on waiting time.

Play begins by dealing out all 52 cards, starting with the player to the left each player has a chance to declare a desire to "play". If one player says "play" he becomes declarer. His partners hand is laid on the table face up. The declarer states which color is trump or he may choose no trump. All players then state their total hand strength (cards value 11 - 13 have hand strength of 1 to 3 respectively. They then reveal their card count by counting up which color they have the most cards in. They don't reveal the color, just the number.

If no player declares, then the players announce their hand strength and the team with the highest total will be declarer - whichever of the two players on that team has the highest number. The dummy's hand is laid down, the declarer announces if he plans to take 7 tricks or 10 and the trump or no trump is declared. Players again give their color count.

Once all that is over (it usually takes about a minute), the play begins with the player to the dealer's left. He leads a card. Other players must follow suit if they are able. Whichever card is the highest value wins the trick, unless 1 or more Trump have been played, then the highest trup wins. Off-color cards which are not trump do not matter. The more tricks you take, the more points you can score (or keep your opponent from scoring). On the dummy's turn, the declarer picks a card and plays it from the dummy's face-up hand.

Whoever wins the trick leads the next round and play continues until either all cards are played.

Once all the cards are played, the round is scored. Generally, the more tricks you take, the more points you score. if the declarer's team takes more than their required number, they can score additional points. Likewise, if the other team stops them, the more they take the more points they get.

The gameplay is fun and fast and the game is easy to learn. The biggest problem from a gamer perspective is the "dummy" hand. Essentially you have a player elimination every time you deal the cards. Admittedly the dummy is back in right away, but I haven't found a gamer yet who wasn't offended at being the dummy, particularly if his partner is less adept at trick-taking games.

Overall, I think this is below average game for gamers, but is better for couples, less-competitive people, and those who play bridge or want to learn.

Image

Boomer — 2006-09-22T18:51:35+00:00

Image

Boomer — 2006-09-22T18:46:21+00:00

Image

Boomer — 2006-09-22T18:46:17+00:00

Image

Boomer — 2006-09-22T18:46:08+00:00

Image

Boomer — 2006-09-22T18:46:00+00:00

Image

Boomer — 2006-09-22T18:45:47+00:00

Image

Boomer — 2006-09-22T18:45:29+00:00