Talk:Contract bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Contract bridge (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Contract bridge, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Contract bridge on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Is the article neutral? Because to me it sounds like it is trying to persuade you to play bridge. --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Persuasion not intended. Please cite specific instances which do not comply with NPOV. Newwhist (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Olov Hanner (Olof Hanner)[edit]

I wikified this reference for the article on Hanner's coauthor Hans Radstrom:

Hallén, Hans-Olof; Hanner, Olof; Jannersten, Per. Bridge movements: A fair approach (English translation by Barry Rigal of Swedish original ed.). ISBN 91-85024-86-4. , ISBN 9789185024865

Maybe it is of use to this article, or to some of you?

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


too long. not for its overall content, just long. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Has been a little too long for a while but a recent anonymous edit (August 17, 2012) made things much worse; that edit provided good input - just in the wrong place. Will put some effort to this but busy with other stuff just now. Newwhist (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I think only the first patragraph is needed for the lead. Some of the rest can perhaps be slotted in elsewhere in the article, though some seems to duplicate what is already covered later in the article. JH (talk page) 16:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


The page has, "more advanced techniques include the "squeeze play" in which a defender is forced to choose which card to discard before declarer has to make his own discard choice."

The word "before" is emphasized in this sentence. I disagree with the emphasis. There are elementary squeeze positions where the defender who is squeezed plays last to the trick where the squeeze occurs. (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Positions Reference[edit]

The page includes the statement: The 52-card deck can be distributed to the four players some 53.6×1027 ways.,<ref>Manley et al. (2011), p. 579. This number is expressed as 53.6 octillion.</ref> However this reference - Manley et al (2011) is not actually a reference. The sentence should be removed or the reference completed.

"Manley et al (2011), p. 579" is IMHO a proper reference and points to the listing of Manley's Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (Edition 7) in the "Bibliography" subsection just below the "Notes". It is true that the statement "This number is expressed as 53.6 octillion." is not in the reference per se. Page 579 of the reference states the number as "53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000" and editorial license is used to restate it as 53.6 octillion. See Octillion defined as 1027 at this link in the second column, ninth row of the table referring to "US, Canada and modern British". It is a number followed by 27 zeros (1027). If you wish to amend the main text by replacing "53.6 x 1027" with "53,644,737,765,488,792,839,237,440,000" and remove the second half of the reference, feel free to do so but that would be poor presentation IMHO. Newwhist (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Please sign your posts. Newwhist (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)