#8

how’d you mean?

#9

how’d

1 Like
#10

No. Not played for years.

#11

3 no trumps

#12

'trumps’
fnarr

#13

Hit the wrong button, meant “haven’t”

#14

The impossibility of properly policing the extent to which players communicate with their partner. Being allowed to communicate some information but not other stuff is kind of fundamentally flawed for a really serious competitive game.

#15

backgammon though…what a game!

2 Likes
#16

King me

1 Like
#17

oh right yeah. this is true. is a gentleman’s/gentlewoman’s game for sure.

#18

Everyone I’ve ever spoken to about it swears blind that NO-ONE cheats :smiley:

1 Like
#19

good thing about backgammon is it’s actually loads of different games :thumbsup:

#20

Dad tried to teach me once, but it seemed very complex, and also based around working with a partner which made it even more complex especially when someone knew what they were doing and someone didn’t.

In the future, instead of old people sat around playing bridge, do you we as old people will be sat around playing the PS24 or whatever console they’ll have then?

#21

We used to

#22

Our retirement homes will be full of people playing Yugioh and Magic: the Gathering.

I will be in a huff because nobody will be listening to me explaining why Netrunner’s better.

#23

I and my regular partner had a code for showing each other which was our strongest suit before the bidding started.

#24

You should get Hanabi, @eems. Little card game where you’re basically trying to build tricks with your partner by communicating limited information with each other. Except you hold your hand of cards facing outwards so you never see what’s in your own hand.

I think it’s popular in the @plasticniki house.

#25

YES

In my experience it works better when there’s more than 2 of you though.

#26

It is a little bit of an argument generator with two.

#27

well yeah if you were playing for money I can understand this. can’t imagine wanting to cheat at bridge just for the thrill of winning