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 h

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.