Talk:Glossary of contract bridge terms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(This marks a four-year break in discussion)[edit]

Search the archive page for '201' to find recent replies above.

In fact there are three hits for '201' in Archive 1, all of which represent calendar year 2011. There is no hit for any date '2000' to '2004' or '2008' to 2010'. The page history shows no substantial revisions between 19:19, 6 April 2007‎ and 03:51, 26 January 2011‎.

Thus Archive 1 in substance evidently covers 2005 to 2007 with three 2011 interjections. --P64 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment[edit]

The revised entry limits treatments to bids, a subset of calls. It limits conventions in the same way, but the entry Conventions is more general.

ACBL "Alert" regulations" seem to include a useful definition for Convention and a useless one for Treatment. --P64 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "conventional call"[edit]

I have removed the entry for "conventional call" for several reasons. The most cogent one is that the entry was a comment on diction rather than the definition of a technical term. Less important but still cogent is that the author appears to have ignored the pertinent definition of the word "convention," which is "an agreement or pact," per the Random House Unabridged. Granted, that's the fifth definition, but it's the one meant by its usage in contract bridge. Finally, a convention is not of itself necessarily nonstandard, unusual or special. The takeout double is a convention. TurnerHodges (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section wikilinks problem?[edit]

Folks, A robot has corrected some section wikilinks, most recently in this revision. A few corrections are to lowercase capitalized anchor names.

[[#Shortclub => [[#shortclub

Several are not that, but I cannot discern them in the report. (I see no difference between the highlighted selections. Do you?) So I don't know whether they do indicate a true problem in our practices here. --P64 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too have tried to discern what is going on with some of these elusive changes and the best I have ever been able to come up with is (a) an obscure change in punctuation (adding a comma, deleting a comma, replacing a comma with something else, etc.) and (b) reduction of two consecutive spaces to one. I have given up trying to figure these out on the premise that if the bot was doing something really stupid, better people than I can deal with it - too much else to do. BTW your stamina on updating competitions is outstanding - atta boy (or girl)! Newwhist (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Editor "John plaut"[edit]

I would have placed this on your own page but you have apparently not registered on Wikipedia.

Your enthusiasm for, and energy expended on, the edits you have been making to the contract bridge glossary are appreciated. However, there are frequent problems with the writing style you employ, as well as the completeness of the information. For example:

You have supplied a definition titled "0-4, or Blackwood," defining it as "A way to express a player is using plain Blackwood anwers to a Gerber or Blackwood ace asking bid." I believe that you mean to say that there is a term, "0-4," that one might use in response to the question "What responses to Blackwood are you and your partner using?" However, I can find no source to confirm that this is any sort of standard term. The matter of "standard" or traditional responses to the Blackwood convention is covered in its own article.

You state that 1430 is the "amount of points won in a major suit slam made." You omit the information that it is the score for a small slam, and that the slam must be bid as well as made. (That bit of information is marginally relevant, but just barely so, to a glossary definition of the term "1430.") Similarly, the CRASH entry is incomplete without mentioning its inherent ambiguity, which leads to pass-or-correct situations, that the type of suits is indicated by steps, and that many CRASH users also employ it over a 1NT opening bid. All of this is relevant to a definition of CRASH, and yet it is too much information for a glossary entry -- which is the reason that we decided to skip it in the first place.

You insert a glossary entry for "Chinese finesse." Years ago, when this glossary was in its initial construction, Duja and I (using a different handle) briefly discussed the propriety of employing that term in the glossary. We decided that it is inappropriate to do so. Today's sensibilities regarding ethnic attributions are more enlightened than they were in the middle 1900s, when the term was more popular. The play is more properly termed a "pseudo finesse" and is discussed in the separate article on finesses; furthermore, the fact that the play is also termed a "Chinese" finesse is noted there. But there is no good and compelling reason to include it as such in the glossary.

The tone of the entries is inappropriate for a glossary in an encyclopedia. Phrases such as "on the other hand" (from your two-way checkback entry) are more chatty than informative and can usually be omitted.

You have provided useful edits, of course, in particular noting that there was an error in the definition of the Cavendish variation of Chicago -- an error that can be traced back to a similar error in the 1976 edition of the Official Encyclopedia.

Normally, one of the regular contributors to the glossary would have made the necessary corrections, edits or deletions of your contributions on a piecemeal basis. But there has been such a flood of contributions from you during the past month that it will take considerable time to complete that task. Hence this note on the Discussion page.

Again, your time, effort and enthusiasm for the project is appreciated. But I ask you to take more time and care with your edits. Several of us have spent uncounted hours designing and constructing this glossary and we hope that an equal degree of care be brought to the edits. TurnerHodges (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template {gcb}[edit]

I have moved a glossary-link template from my User space to Template:Gcb. Let me quote the documentation:

quote
Commonly the template is placed in-line where the running text uses a term in the glossary. In the simplest cases, the code ''{{gcb|id='' and ''}}'' surrounds the glossary term just as code ''[['' and '']]'' surrounds the article title for the simplest link to a Wikipedia article.

For example suppose "On the next deal ..." appears in the running text.

On the next {{gcb|id=deal}} ...

displays

On the next deal ...

which includes a link to 'Deal' in the Glossary.
unquote

--P64 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMPROVED {{gcb}} 2011-11-03. After today's revision,
  • in the simplest case, the code {{gcb| and }} surrounds the glossary term
  • the glossary term is the value of both parameters.
This works as-presumably-intended if the term does appear in the glossary and serves as its own id there. For example,
{{gcb|deal}}
displays
deal
which is linked to the glossary entry 'Deal'. --P64 (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd word choices/grammar[edit]

I just came across this article, and I have the impression that it may have been written (at least in part) by a non-native-English speaker, or perhaps translated from a foreign language. Is that correct? I used to play bridge at the club level so I don't think it's just unfamiliarity with bridge terminology.

Examples:

  • 2♣ and 2♥ openings remain its natural artificial meaning
  • To play to a trick, and normally win, over a small one lead, without capturing any opponent high one.

Anyone want to volunteer to clean this up? --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Sigh. This is more from John plaut [sic]. See the entry on this talk page, above. (I wrote most of this glossary myself, several years ago, using a different handle, and I assure you that my first language is English.) I have been trying to clean them up and out, gradually, but clearly there's much left to sweep away. On advice from my doctor I can no longer attempt to do it all at once. TurnerHodges (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Segment[edit]

We have no entry for segment and I anticipate writing one before to our championships articles in a month. Let me ask in advance what other editors from outside ACBL think of consistently using "segment" rather than "session" or "set" for the unit of play in world and zonal championship matches.

User talk:Skuipers#Spingold sessions --discussion with a Dutch editor. --P64 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with all the terminology which may be used but would expect that the most reliable examples would come from:
  • the official programs of the scheduled events themselves
  • the daily bulletins on results which are issued by the sponsoring organizations
  • the local newspaper media reports
  • the major bridge periodicals reports on the events, such as The Bridge World
It should also be noted that the terminolgy may differ for the same event depending upon the reporting entity and that further the terminology used by an entity may change over time. Seems to me the best would be to report things in the manner as reported by the official sponsoring entity at the time of the event.
The glossary can reflect each variation by providing multiple definitions. Newwhist (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I think that this article must limit the nature of its references to online and print publications. It's all too easy to cite a book that might mention some highly idiosyncratic term, as evidence that the term has genuine currency when in fact it doesn't. I suggest that references in the glossary be limited to other established bridge glossaries such as (online) TBW's or bridgeguys and (print) any of the Official Encyclopedias. Separate articles -- e.g., the Law of Total Tricks -- should be free to use appropriate referencing (to, say, Vernes' seminal article or Larry Cohen's extension thereof). Thoughts? TurnerHodges (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle but am concerned that this will make the glossary too ACBL/USA centric. The Reese/Dormer The Bridge Player's Alphabetical Handbook could be added to the preferred list of limited references and there may be other nominations by others. Perhaps it is best to develop a proper Further Reading section to the glossary that will serve the dual purpose of identifying the preferred list of references as well as act as a set of filters on entries. Newwhist (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This isn't intended to be an SAYC glossary. TurnerHodges (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate style for links[edit]

I happened upn Glossary of cue sports terms and was impressed by the styles used for links where the standard treatment for a link internal to Wikipedia is used in conjunction with a simple light underline treatment for links internal to the glossary. This has the dual advantage of consistency with Wiki links and presentation of a unique and distinctive style for links internal to the glossary. Notwithstanding the note in the lead of the glossary about link formats, many users may still expect to go to a Wiki article and not to another glossary entry when clicking on the existing internal links. Should Glossary of contract bridge terms adopt these styles for links? Comments? Newwhist (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that there should continue to be a visual indicator that tells the user whether the target is internal to the glossary or a standalone article. I also agree that the light underline style in the cue sports glossary is unique and distinctive. However -- and this is obviously a subjective and personal reaction -- I found the light underline style distracting, even jarring, when I visited the cue sports glossary. It seems to me that this issue is something that Wikipedia generally should cover in the MOS. Is there no standard, Wiki-wide treatment for a link whose target is part of the article containing the link? TurnerHodges (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TH on both points.
Offhand, I would now present the key in the following format and in two locations: one immediately below the Contents bar (if that isn't possible, then its current location immediately above); one following section Z.
Key
• boldface links have targets outside the glossary
• plain links target other glossary entries
--P64 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have perused several other glossaries, including some for Wikipedia help topics, and find no consistency or helpful guidelines.
It has occurred to me that a more strategic approach might be to have all linked words in a definition be a link to a term defined in the glossary, i.e. a glossary entry and definition must be associated with each linked word in a definition; all such target glossary entries would have the usual brief description/definition and would, in some cases, use the template {{Main}} to designate a link to a Wiki article. This eliminates use of bolded links in the body of the definition and in the entry word itself (also an annoying distraction), keeps the reader in the glossary if just seeking a basic definition and retains the freedom to pursue a more detailed Wiki article by following the 'Main' link being a more obvious indicator that the reader will be transported out of the glossary. Optionally, the {{See also}} template could be used but I feel it is more ambiguous as to whether or not it will transport the reader away from the glossary. Comments? Newwhist (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand I agree with the point for {{Main}} against {{See also}}.
Is it possible to survey the impact of the proposal? How many bold links do we have? What is the number and nature of those likely to be deleted because the proposal cannot handle them? Are they poorly chosen links that should be deleted?
Template {Main} suggests some unique fitness. There will be only one {Main} in an entry and its target will be the main article about the "entry word". Is it part of the proposal to fulfill those expectations?
--P64 (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will do an inventory and present a summary here in the next few days (busy with life at the moment). It should be a side benefit to identify glossary entries which should be an article but which are not yet; and yes, poorly chosen links that should be deleted should be deleted. Interestingly, and contrary to my expectations, Wiki policy supports the existence of so-called red-links in cases where an article on a topic does not exist but is deemed worthy for one, acting as an incentive and reminder for future editing. Nevertheless, I am not keen on red-links.
Upon further reflection, the frequent use of the {{Main}} template may be visually intrusive; I will reserve judgement until we compile some data. An alternative standard treatment might be to use the bold link (transporting one out of the glossary and to an article) only when it is the glossary entry, i.e. never in the definition. This would be a more modest implementation but would still reduce distracting font variability. Newwhist (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are 970 plain links and 272 bold links as of 12/11/2012. I will see if I can easily get a count of Main links in the body of definitions. At first it seemed to me that barring Main links in the body of definitions might be too tight a restriction, but on second thought it seems to make excellent sense. TurnerHodges (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are 90 glossary entries that are bold links, thus 182 bold links in the definition bodies. Unfortunately, my software does not count the number of poorly chosen links but I'm sure that someone has written a bot that thinks it can do that. TurnerHodges (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the data TurnerHodges; interesting - many more bold links in the definitions than expected. With respect to the 182 bold links in the definitions, would they generally be deserving of a glossary entry (which would have a bold link)? If so, creating up to 182 new entries would constitute the bulk of the workload if the proposed treatment is adopted.
In considering the foregoing, another thought occurs to me - Does implementing the proposal make the glossary function as an index as well? If so, is this a negative or positive? I tend to be an Wiki inclusionist in philosophy so I would accept this additional role for the glossary but appreciate that not all would. An example is the bold link 'Roman Key Card Blackwood' in the glossary entry for '0314, 3014, or 3014 RKCB'. There is currently no glossary entry for 'Roman Key Card Blackwood' and so one would have to be created. That entry would be bold linked to the main article and carry a brief definition. Having done so, it begs the question 'should all prominent bidding conventions be glossary entries?' even though at present most are not. Finally, I do not think we should be disuaded from making an improvement to the glossary format due simply to workload. Newwhist (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a thorny problem, in part because it tends to thrust on us and on other editors the onus of deciding what constitutes a "prominent" bidding convention or treatment.
And of course it's not limited to bidding understandings. For example, there's an article on Ely Culbertson, and he is mentioned in, among one or two others, the definition of the Coup w/o a Name. It's therefore now a bold link. If we change it to a plain link, that means we must add a bold-link-glossary-entry for Ely Culbertson (at least that's how I read the recent thoughts in this thread, including my own). But I doubt if ol' Ely (or any other person) belongs in a glossary as an entry. Still, I would not advocate unlinking Ely's article from the glossary. TurnerHodges (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the issue of the styles for links is the issue of the overall style of the glossary. Since beginning discussion in this thread, I have looked at other glossaries and style guides and finally found the following: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries#Template-structured. I could not find any associated guidelines for linking at this location but I have played with the templates and find they accept the type of linking we are discussing - for both the entry word and for within the definition. If at some point we modify entries and definitions for a revised linking style, it might be appropriate to migrate entries to the standard glossary style. Newwhist (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since my last entry, I have encountered another relevant Wiki guideline at template:term#Wiki-styling and linking the term which, inter alia, states "For the same reasons that links to other pages are discouraged in headings, links are also discouraged in glossary terms". I do not know why it is discouraged, but presume I can follow the trail of Wiki bread crumbs to find out, eventually. Newwhist (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing... At Help:Section#Section linking, an explanation of the automatic linking of headers to generate a Table of Contents implies for the rationale against the use of links in section headings.
In reviewing our current scheme for the glossary, it is noted that (a) we do not use the template {{term}} and (b) we do not use a section heading for a term. Accordingly, we are not operating contrary to the guidelines on linking associated with these elements. Finally, [[Help:HTML in Wikitext#Using <span> as a link target]] confirms the legitimate use of this markup to link to a specific point in the text of an article, which is how the glossary is constructed.
In conclusion, I prefer to leave the general construction of the glossary as it is, without introducing templates. The only feature of the standard styles for glossaries I recommend (for now) is the use of italics and lower case in the listing of the term (with the usual exceptions for proper names etc.). Doing so would allow for a logical modification of the current scheme for linking internally and externally; internal links would be highlighted and italicized but not bolded and external links would be highlighted but neither italicized nor bolded. Term entries which are external links would be highlighted, bolded and italicized. Comments? Newwhist (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that it's possible using Wiki text formatting to bold and italicize simultaneously. I'm misunderstanding something somewhere.
To clarify your recommendation as I understand it, a glossary entry which now might look like this:
Acol
An approach-forcing, natural bidding system used in the Commonwealth

would become this:

Acol
An approach-forcing, natural bidding system used in the Commonwealth

except that the word "Acol" would be highlighted and bolded, as shown, but also italicized. Have I got it? TurnerHodges (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to have the following treatments:
  1. normal text which renders as: squeeze
  2. normal and higlighted text which renders as: squeeze
  3. italicized only which renders as: squeeze
  4. bolded only which renders as: squeeze
  5. italicized and bolded which renders as: squeeze
  6. italicized and linked which renders as which renders as: squeeze
  7. bolded and linked which renders as: squeeze
  8. bolded and italicized and linked which renders as: squeeze
Treatment 5 would apply to a term entry having no link in the entry word
Treatment 8 would apply to a term entry having a link external to the glossary
Treatment 6 would apply to text in a definition having a link that is internal to the glossary
Treatment 2 would apply to text in a definition having a link that is external to the glossary
So if adopted, the result in your example would be:
Acol
An approach-forcing, natural bidding system used in the Commonwealth
Newwhist (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Duh. Concatenate the inverted commas. This structure certainly seems to make sense and I'm happy to take your word for it that it does not violate any WP requirements, which would put us on a path to Edit Hell.
It also seems that we now abandon the requirement, floated earlier, that a link in a definition must target a glossary entry ("There is currently no glossary entry for 'Roman Key Card Blackwood' and so one would have to be created."). Yes? TurnerHodges (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that with or without the changes contemplated above, we are not in compliance with the fundamental guidelines for glossaries - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries and Wikipedia:WikiProject Glossaries. As I see it, the anomolies flow primarily from their objective to make the identification of glossaries and their content "machine readable" through the use of templates in a highly structured environment.
More insight is required before I can reach a conclusion about the degree to which we can work towards harmony with these guidelines but I do not think that our proposed changes increase our non-compliance; more probably they reduce it. So I say we proceed to make the glossary better for our purposes and await the arrival of alien editors to explain ourselves in due course.
...and yes, this would mean we abandon the requirement to have any link that is in a definition also be a term in the glossary. And perhaps not emphasized earlier, we would also be moving to having the terms be uncapitalized, with the usual exceptions. Newwhist (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Expert" and by extension "Palooka"[edit]

An editor who has apparently contributed no original content to this glossary sees fit to redundantly alter the style of a couple of entries -- "Expert" and, possibly, "Palooka" -- on the grounds of redundancy. In so doing, he altered, no doubt inadvertently and in good faith, the meaning of the definitions. I have reverted both definitions once and the Expert definition twice and I reference the following statement in the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, in its definition of Expert:

"The title of expert will probably be recognized as valid only when it has been awarded by a verdict of the expert's peers. It is, however, loosely used to characterize anyone who plays better than the usual level of the game in which the player plays."

To simply define the term as "Someone who plays bridge better than another" is to misunderstand the contextual issue. To change, erroneously and repeatedly, the meaning of a bridge definition without understanding the game of bridge is to elevate style over substance with insufficient rationale. TurnerHodges (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My intention is to remove the phrase "term used to describe" which is both redundant (in that it should be understood in a glossary that a term is a term) and inaccurate (since terms don't normally describe). Given that, do you think you could address this concern in a better way than I have? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do, but I don't concede either premise. What you believe "should be understood" is of course your business, but the rest of us are not bound by what you believe should be the state of nature. And while "terms don't normally describe," they are used to describe, and that was the original wording. (By the way, I have counted seventeen other instances of the use of the word "term" in this glossary, each of them referring to the word defined, but somehow those escaped your delete key.)
Now, you state that your "intention is to remove the phrase 'term used to describe'." First, it is not a phrase, it is a clause. Second, while you removed that portion of the definition, you also replaced "the person using the term" with "another." As I have already noted, that edit alters the substance of the definition by changing the context.
More importantly, you might have explained your rationale, such as it is, more carefully than by means of a cavalier "Nix on . . ." Several of us have spent countless hours constructing this glossary, contributing definitions that are carefully worded so as to be accurate within the constraint of brevity. And I personally resent it when someone comes along and edits according to his or her own tastes, altering meanings without so much as an MOS citation.
So, to answer your question: Yes, although I continue to believe that your edits were made in good faith, I do think that you might have done better. TurnerHodges (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to antagonize anyone or step on any toes, so please don't take my comments or my edits personally. I hadn't asked if I could do better, but if you could. Since you believe in my abilities, I'll take another stab at editing the article according to the definition you've provided and your comments here.
Some other responses to what you've said:
  • I see no difference between whether a term is "used to describe" or whether it "describes." Both are technically incorrect. Terms are referents and they are used to refer to things. Descriptions come mostly from adjectives and terms like fair-weather-friend or dog house that describe what they refer to.
  • I edited the article fairly conservatively, so I didn't bother with other instances of term that were somewhat problematic. Keep in mind that I'm not opposed to any use of "term" in a glossary. For example, I don't see anything wrong with "The origin of the term is not known with certainty" or "The term is normally used when the player is forced to make that lead."
  • I suspect you are trying to correct me in regards to the phrase/clause distinction to make me look foolish. I'll leave it to others, elsewhere to argue about it.
  • Edit summaries need to be brief. I have made thousands of similar edits removing this phrase with this same edit summary and it is very rare for anyone to be confused about my intentions. If you have a recommended alternative summary, I'm willing to hear it. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Life's too short to continue with this, which I did not initiate. It's best to let the matter simmer down. I've been working on this and related articles for around seven years now, and I don't expect to stop. I'll revisit it in the fullness of time. TurnerHodges (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a 'Swiss' bid/convention?[edit]

Hi all. I came here hoping to find out what is a 'Swiss' bid (or convention) is. Anybody care to add a paragraph to explain it?

Ta, Trafford09 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See: Swiss convention
Also, A quick text string search on The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (OEB), 7th Edition, yields eleven different entries associated with 'Swiss' and bidding treatments. Can you give more specific information on the context of the use of the term? A more detailed commentary is given in the OEB in the main entry for SWISS CONVENTION, it states as follows:
"SWISS CONVENTION. A response of four in a minor suit to an opening of one in a major suit shows a standard forcing raise to the three level. This is a strength-showing substitute used by players employing limit jump raises. 3NT is sometimes used for the same purpose, for example in Kaplan-Sheinwold. The usual high-card strength would be 13-15.
♠ AQ74 ♥ KJ72 ♦ A62 ♣ 94
Over 1♥ or 1♠, the response is 4♣ or 4♦ to show a hand too strong in high cards to raise directly to game. It also suggests a relatively balanced hand because responder would bid a side suit and raise to game on the second round with a two-suiter. The distinction between 4♣ and 4♦ is a matter of partnership agreement, but the trend is toward using 4♣ as the more forward-going bid. When 4♣ and 4♦ are the only forcing raises employed, one of the following treatments is usual:
(1) Trump quality: 4♣ shows (and 4♦ denies) four trumps headed by at least two of the top three honors, or five or more trumps headed by at least the ace or king.
(2) Controls: 4♣ shows (and 4♦ denies) three aces, or two aces and the king of trumps.
(3) Controls or trumps: 4♣ emphasizes good controls, and 4♦ emphasizes strong trumps.
Several methods have been developed that combine the jumps to four of a minor with other jump responses in order to allow for a finer distinction among types of strong raises.
Related: Asking Bid, Conglomerate Major Raises, Fragment Bid, Fruit-Machine Swiss, Singleton Swiss, Splinter Bid, Super Swiss, Unbalanced Swiss Raise, Value Swiss Raises and Void-Showing Bid."
At some point, the Wiki entry at Swiss convention should be expanded. Newwhist (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great reply & very helpful. Thanks Newwhist. I've added a Glossary_of_contract_bridge_terms#See_also section, which may help other readers with similar queries. Trafford09 (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This week[edit]

I revised the page many times (not quite exclusively) from 21:25, 22 January 2015. Among other things, one complete pass in which I tried to cover some stylistic matters and certainly increased the degree of uniformity. What is uniform or nearly so? Nothing but perhaps the use within wikilinks of boldface for targets external to this page and initial capitals for explicit cross-references.

... hope to say more about some things, maybe not until learning more about [span> tags -P64

Let me alert you to most substantial revisions. The first column covers what brought me here and the rest happened by the way. Initialism in this list may represent either the initialism or the full name or both.

... list perhaps to be modified or continued -P64
^ new item
( ) no item yet, maybe target of wikilink

--P64 (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glossary of contract bridge terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glossary of contract bridge terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kibitzer[edit]

I think the term denotes a spectator in the room where other people are playing, not someone who watches the game on TV or the Internet. And the word kibitz also deserves a place in the dictionary. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term Kibitzer has its own article and a more complete definition is given there. Nevertheless I agree that the definition in this glossary can be improved to match. Newwhist (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if a kibitzer turns loud, he isn't a kibitzer any more? Yeah, sure. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so but only because he will be gone, kicked out, not there anymore, removed from the table, banished and therefore not kibitzing. Agree that kibitz should be in the glossary. Give it a whirl. BTW, the official rules for a spectator are quoted this link. Newwhist (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BIT[edit]

Both this article and tempo (bridge) need some tinkering with the wording, to cover the far more common case where a BIT is not deliberate, and the problem is in the UI it may create. Narky Blert (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbers and extra bonus for cards[edit]

To receive an extra bonus for holding Ace-King-Queen-Jack on the same playing hand, isn't that obsolete also when playing Rubbers ? In some countries I'm certain this is the case. Boeing720 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_contract_bridge_terms&oldid=1201413626"