It’s hard to appreciate Bridge fully until you’ve play it! But, to try in plain language:
The bidding-phase is far from a simple a rule-based exchange. It’s a territorial war in prelude to ‘the actual battle’. Tactically, A rich side with want to occupy bid-space to share information, while a poor side want to render space unuseable to neutralise opponent’s advantage or put them on the wrong ‘battlefield’. Also, players must first identify who are the richer and poorer sides, when the initial distribution of assets is unknown!
Exchanging information with partner is a high priority, but one isn’t obliged to bid when it reveals more to opponents than partner. Mild bluff and deceipt are also embraced, however within prescribed limits to prevent the game becoming simple poker. This all requires considerable judgement and skill with bidding rules that are statistically accurate though individually inaccurate.
Limiting bid-exchange to two-word ‘bytes’ of information achieves two goals: (a) The first-player advantage gets evened out so each player receives a meaningful turn, and (b) The small vocabulary constrains exchange to a kind of statistical ‘meta-data’, that helps keep much of the granular information concealed until the playing phase.
Moreover, for today’s game skillfull bidding is listening to what is NOT said, like Sherlock Holmes ‘dog that did not bark in the night!’ Skilled players ‘read’ the one spoken bid as a clever denial of 5 ‘unspoken’ bids, thus exchanging 5 times more data through one bid. And, advanced bidding systems increase this ratio, giving greater band-width to the players astute enough to decode it!
This all creates immense depth in the bidding, and why it’s quite difficult to master. Meanwhile the asymmetric distribution of information rewards teamwork whilst ‘keeping the murderer’s identity hidden until the last card’ in this ingenious game.
Source link
