4 ms·

> it is very unusual to have imperfect information but no luck in a game Rock, paper, scissors. Stratego. Many, many others. But the author seems to miss that

> it is very unusual to have imperfect information but no luck in a game Rock, paper, scissors. Stratego. Many, many others. But the author seems to miss that bridge is not one of those games. It has the dealing of cards. That's luck! Luck, randomness, is a type of imperfect information. What is that enemy Stratego piece, really? Is the cat in the box alive? Will the roulette wheel come up red? All imperfect information. There are just different mechanics a game designer can use to achieve imperfect information. So we may as well argue about whether dice games are better than card games or games with spinners. Moot. Here's an idea: teach your kids a favorite game. It's probably a favorite because it's challenging in some way. Great! Just make sure you all have fun.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Duplicate bridge removes the luck: you play the hand you are given at a table, but you are scored against other pairs who have the same cards as you, not against the people you played with. It essentially removes the luck from the game. Rubber bridge and grandma's version of the game have a ton of luck, but duplicate has almost none. Stratego is also a great game, and I forgot about it! EDIT: If you want to play a 4-player "duplicate" bridge game, that is also possible by comparing to the par result, which is the best scoring contract that can be played for the hand.
- Someone 4y ago
  It doesn’t remove all luck. You may be dealt cards that suit your bidding strategy better than that of your opponent or vice versa. Given the number of rounds played, that’s unlikely, though, unless one bidding strategy is truly better than the other.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Even rubber bridge is usually long enough to even out the luck - where the more skilled partnership will win the rubber most of the time. But the luck makes it fun even for the less skilled - as everyone can help them bid a slam if they get one. Four-player duplicate needs a fifth person to arrange the deck/hands.
  - dmurray 4y ago
    > Four-player duplicate needs a fifth person to arrange the deck/hands I'm not sure what this means. The only time I played, we kept our played cards in front of us, face down, and passed them to the other table after the hand. You need eight players, not four, but I don't think you need non-playing helpers.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      If you’re only playing with four players against a book or “par” you need someone to arrange the hands. Or have four identical decks and each person picks the cards they need.
- neltnerb 4y ago
  Yeah, we'd always either play duplicate hands to compare performance or else at least rotate through all three sets of partners so that each individual player had a score that was at least somewhat less reliant on luck and also lets you pick one winner at a table of four people with partners. My grandma taught all of us to play once we hit about 8, just reading the books on strategies is eye opening. You'll probably appreciate that one of her favorite quotes was "a peek is worth two finesses". She knew it was literal for sure, but figuring out why was very educational when I was 9. I also still remember the one time she miscounted trump. And we'd get made fun of if we bid wrong, not if we didn't get the most points. They have newspaper puzzles asking "what do you bid next" in bridge because the answer is actually identifiable most of the time. As long as we bid competently, whether we actually won the hand was besides the point. It was if we made mistakes that we had the information to avoid making that was seen as bad playing. So maybe you won't get as many points, but the other people at the table definitely know the difference between luck and mistakes.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  Luck versus skill as a concept is the idea that you can discriminate between agents ability to win. You can state that one agent is better than another agent at a game with greater confidence bounds on the basis of a quantification of their skill. Perfect information versus imperfect information is the concept of whether you are playing a game over information sets and strategy space versus the states and actions of perfect information. Conflating these two ideas is going to lead people to talking past each other. They aren't the same concepts.
  - drewcoo 4y ago
    Speaking of conflation, "luck vs skill" is very different from "luck vs non-luck hidden information." The idea is to use skill to deal with the hidden information.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- SamBam 4y ago
  From the article: > Probability comes into play here: understanding distributions of cards and possible hands that opponents can have will allow you to figure out how to play for the maximum number of tricks. This means that even in Duplicate Bridge there is an element of luck. If I know that the King of Spades is most likely in the hand of my opponent on my left, and I decide to act on that uncertain belief, we've entered the territory of luck. If I was right, I'll have a big advantage over the other "duplicate" teams I'm competing against. If I was wrong, I'll be scored poorly.
  - medler 4y ago
    The element of luck is canceled out. If you get a great hand, it doesn’t matter, because your opponent at the other table has the exact same hand. We could quibble about whether this means there’s zero luck or merely a very small amount of luck involved, but in either case there is at most a small amount of luck.
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      What if you are only good at playing great hands and your opponent is good at playing average hands and bad at playing great ones. On average your opponent would be a better player, since average hands are more common. But, by luck, you are in a situation where your skill counts and not your opponent's.
    - SamBam 4y ago
      You didn't read my comment. I didn't say anything about getting a great hand. I understand what Duplicate Bridge is. I was saying that sometimes bridge players make decisions based on luck/probability. They could be quite certain a specific card is in a specific hand, and different players might decide to go with their hunch or not. If they are lucky they will be rewarded for their hunch, if they are unlucky they will be punished for it. Let's put it even more clearly: suppose we had two players on separate tables, both have the same hand, and both have had the exact same series of events leading to their third trick (same bids, same cards played), and both players have accurately worked out that the King of Spades is most likely in the hand of the opponent to their right. One player goes with his gut and plays as if the King is definitely there, the other plays cautiously because he's not positive. Which player will end up with more points at the end? You can't know from the information given, because it depends on whether the first player was lucky or unlucky. (Yes, like poker the luck will eventually even out. I'm just saying it's wrong to say they're is no luck, when people can make decisions based on incomplete information.)
ghaff 4y ago
I really liked Stratego growing up. Quite a few of the 3M Bookshelf games were a lot of fun too--in many cases they were pretty much restyled versions of very traditional games.
nwiswell 4y ago
If you're defining Rock, Paper, Scissors as a game of pure skill, that's probably an indication that your definition is bad. Luck or chance in a game is any factor which causes the outcome between two players of unequal skill to become less certain.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Duplicate bridge removes the luck: you play the hand you are given at a table, but you are scored against other pairs who have the same cards as you, not against the people you played with. It essentially removes the luck from the game. Rubber bridge and grandma's version of the game have a ton of luck, but duplicate has almost none. Stratego is also a great game, and I forgot about it! EDIT: If you want to play a 4-player "duplicate" bridge game, that is also possible by comparing to the par result, which is the best scoring contract that can be played for the hand.

Someone 4y ago
It doesn’t remove all luck. You may be dealt cards that suit your bidding strategy better than that of your opponent or vice versa. Given the number of rounds played, that’s unlikely, though, unless one bidding strategy is truly better than the other.
bombcar 4y ago
Even rubber bridge is usually long enough to even out the luck - where the more skilled partnership will win the rubber most of the time. But the luck makes it fun even for the less skilled - as everyone can help them bid a slam if they get one. Four-player duplicate needs a fifth person to arrange the deck/hands.
- dmurray 4y ago
  > Four-player duplicate needs a fifth person to arrange the deck/hands I'm not sure what this means. The only time I played, we kept our played cards in front of us, face down, and passed them to the other table after the hand. You need eight players, not four, but I don't think you need non-playing helpers.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    If you’re only playing with four players against a book or “par” you need someone to arrange the hands. Or have four identical decks and each person picks the cards they need.
neltnerb 4y ago
Yeah, we'd always either play duplicate hands to compare performance or else at least rotate through all three sets of partners so that each individual player had a score that was at least somewhat less reliant on luck and also lets you pick one winner at a table of four people with partners. My grandma taught all of us to play once we hit about 8, just reading the books on strategies is eye opening. You'll probably appreciate that one of her favorite quotes was "a peek is worth two finesses". She knew it was literal for sure, but figuring out why was very educational when I was 9. I also still remember the one time she miscounted trump. And we'd get made fun of if we bid wrong, not if we didn't get the most points. They have newspaper puzzles asking "what do you bid next" in bridge because the answer is actually identifiable most of the time. As long as we bid competently, whether we actually won the hand was besides the point. It was if we made mistakes that we had the information to avoid making that was seen as bad playing. So maybe you won't get as many points, but the other people at the table definitely know the difference between luck and mistakes.
JoshCole 4y ago
Luck versus skill as a concept is the idea that you can discriminate between agents ability to win. You can state that one agent is better than another agent at a game with greater confidence bounds on the basis of a quantification of their skill. Perfect information versus imperfect information is the concept of whether you are playing a game over information sets and strategy space versus the states and actions of perfect information. Conflating these two ideas is going to lead people to talking past each other. They aren't the same concepts.
- drewcoo 4y ago
  Speaking of conflation, "luck vs skill" is very different from "luck vs non-luck hidden information." The idea is to use skill to deal with the hidden information.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
SamBam 4y ago
From the article: > Probability comes into play here: understanding distributions of cards and possible hands that opponents can have will allow you to figure out how to play for the maximum number of tricks. This means that even in Duplicate Bridge there is an element of luck. If I know that the King of Spades is most likely in the hand of my opponent on my left, and I decide to act on that uncertain belief, we've entered the territory of luck. If I was right, I'll have a big advantage over the other "duplicate" teams I'm competing against. If I was wrong, I'll be scored poorly.
- medler 4y ago
  The element of luck is canceled out. If you get a great hand, it doesn’t matter, because your opponent at the other table has the exact same hand. We could quibble about whether this means there’s zero luck or merely a very small amount of luck involved, but in either case there is at most a small amount of luck.
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    What if you are only good at playing great hands and your opponent is good at playing average hands and bad at playing great ones. On average your opponent would be a better player, since average hands are more common. But, by luck, you are in a situation where your skill counts and not your opponent's.
  - SamBam 4y ago
    You didn't read my comment. I didn't say anything about getting a great hand. I understand what Duplicate Bridge is. I was saying that sometimes bridge players make decisions based on luck/probability. They could be quite certain a specific card is in a specific hand, and different players might decide to go with their hunch or not. If they are lucky they will be rewarded for their hunch, if they are unlucky they will be punished for it. Let's put it even more clearly: suppose we had two players on separate tables, both have the same hand, and both have had the exact same series of events leading to their third trick (same bids, same cards played), and both players have accurately worked out that the King of Spades is most likely in the hand of the opponent to their right. One player goes with his gut and plays as if the King is definitely there, the other plays cautiously because he's not positive. Which player will end up with more points at the end? You can't know from the information given, because it depends on whether the first player was lucky or unlucky. (Yes, like poker the luck will eventually even out. I'm just saying it's wrong to say they're is no luck, when people can make decisions based on incomplete information.)

ghaff 4y ago

I really liked Stratego growing up. Quite a few of the 3M Bookshelf games were a lot of fun too--in many cases they were pretty much restyled versions of very traditional games.

nwiswell 4y ago

If you're defining Rock, Paper, Scissors as a game of pure skill, that's probably an indication that your definition is bad. Luck or chance in a game is any factor which causes the outcome between two players of unequal skill to become less certain.