Ideas for Improvement
Posted: 22 July 2025, 11:00
Everyone who plays or has played bridge in competition (whatever the level) understands that Bridge in BGA cannot really replicate that. Not without major changes to the framework itself and there is no real need to even try in the first place as there are specialized sites for that.
Still, there could be changes and options to make Bridge on BGA to be both a better learning tool for beginners and more fun for a casual (ranked or not) play between players who do know the game.
The main problems with 2p bridge in BGA as I see it:
- because there are always 2 dummies, you don't get to really appreciate many of the card techniques
- With IMP scoring the way it works in BGA and because both players bid with the same dummy hand as prospective partner, whoever ends up playing in defense can get a very bad final IMP score because the hidden hand had high cards. But there was precious little he could have done to prevent it as bidding higher could have been catastrophic if the opponent had bid low with a good hand and is now ready to double you. And all this doesn't feel at all like normal defensive/sacrifice bidding that can go wrong but a lot more like guess and bluff . (Yeas there are guesses and even occasional bluffs in Bridge but not like this)
- Because two hands are revealed, it is very common between good players to know after the first card has been played what the end result will be. But the hand still has to be played out even if both players agree.
Note that I'm not listing the lack of a bidding system (that's normal when you begin).
---------
Ideas for 2p bridge:
1) There could be an option where the number of high card points in the hidden hand is revealed : This is simple to implement and makes the bidding more tactical. There will still however be many hands where you'll just be screwed even with IMP scoring because your hand is a worse fit with the revealed dummy than your opponent's hand.
2) There should be an option where there is no dummy in defense : the player who is in defense plays the cards from 2 hands but only they can actually see those two hands (This should be explained to the players of course). This should be relatively simple to implement and it would make it so that the declarer doesn't now how cards are distributed between the defense hands so he now has actual choices to make and potential layouts to evaluate which is closer to real normal play. (It's not 100% normal play but 2p bridge can never be that unless there is a good AI or one of the players is actually acting as a teacher that simulates two players. With this option, the main difference with real play is that the defense can be perfect, doesn't need to signal and always knows how to switch if the player is half good. But still, I think there is value in this option)
3) There should be an option where there is no revealed hand during bidding : each player is shown a set of 2 hands and must bid with those 2 hands in mind. Whatever happens, he will play those 2 hands (as declarer or in defense). This should be the default if IMP scoring is active. After bidding, the declarer choose which hand will be the dummy and which hand will be the official declarer's hand. The player in defense can/cannot choose which hand plays first, this point of detail is not very important. This option can make sense both with a dummy in defense (player in defense would then choose which hand is revealed) or without but It makes more sense without (see point 2).
4) When there are 2 dummies, all hands are known implicitly so there should be an option, especially in turn-based mode, to display all hands whenever 2 hands are revealed. This reduces the memory requirements which is almost always a good thing when playing in turn-based mode.
------------
Ideas for all player counts about claims :
5) There should be an elaborate claim option working like this: you can make a claim for N tricks (by default, all the remaining tricks). When you do, you have to provide a text to explain a little. If all opponents agree, the claim is validated. To avoid confusions, the claim window should always state who makes the claim and for how many tricks out of how many remaining tricks leading to the contract result X (contract fails by Y tricks or wins with Z overtricks). In a 4 players games, the dummy player cannot make claims (he cannot make any decisions and therefore cannot claim in real live bridge). To avoid abuses, the defense players cannot not be allowed to make claims in 4 players games either: this is because making a claim reveals information to your partner which could be beneficial to your team if the claim is rejected : this kind of situations is handled by human referees in real live bridge and we don't have those in BGA.
To further avoid confusions, claims could be forbidden when a trick is ongoing (wait for the current trick to be over). If claims are allowed when a trick is ongoing, the claim would include the ongoing trick and that should be made clear to everyone.
Whenever a claim is made, the hand(s) of the player making the claim should be revealed.
5b) To further avoid abuses and errors, there could be some further warnings and limitations but those can be tricky to implement. Once the declarer has made his claim, the claim window that the defense see could warn the defenders (and them only) that the defense still has some trumps and the highest remaining card in suits XYZ. (It is perfectly possible to win all remaining tricks or N remaining tricks with some trumps still out and some top cards missing but the claim text provided by the claimer should then provide an explanation).
5c) Also, when a player rejects a claim, they could be given a player option to mark "no further claims for this hand" which would then be visible to everyone and the player can later remove the mark.
5d) I'm reticent to allow players to always have a player option to disallow claims in a 4p game.
I'm perfectly aware that some players will want this however and it would most likely be a 3 way player option : "allow declarer to attempt claims, do not allow, do not allow for this hand". The phrasing of that option would need to be well thought because players could easily misunderstand it and think that "allow claims" is tantamount to folding which it isn't : it simply states that you believe there is still some uncertainty. But that in itself already conveys some information that could be used by your partner...
-------------
2player bidding practice mode:
6) In this mode, the 2 players would be in the same team and would do regular bridge bidding with all hands hidden. The opposing team would never intervene (that would require sophisticated AI). At end of bidding, the hands would be revealed and players would click to go to next hand.
There would be no scoring (unless somehow point 7 is implemented) and it would all, obviously be limited to friendly mode. The point of this is bidding practice for partners. It is intended (but not limited) to players who know each others. If players do want to use this with unknown players, it would further require the table creator to be able to specify the system base he wants to use (SAYC, Nouvelle Majeur 5ème, Polish Club etc...). Systems would however not be explained nor enforced that should really remain the domain of specialized bridge sites.
-------------
7) Double dummy solver :
I know this is unlikely to happen so I won't go into the details but if the game could use a proven double dummy solver, this could lead to more options :
- make IMP scoring rely on the double dummy solver
- have a one player option and a 2 player coop option (with both players in the same team and obviously both in friendly mode) where the play of the card is replaced by the double dummy solver result.
Still, there could be changes and options to make Bridge on BGA to be both a better learning tool for beginners and more fun for a casual (ranked or not) play between players who do know the game.
The main problems with 2p bridge in BGA as I see it:
- because there are always 2 dummies, you don't get to really appreciate many of the card techniques
- With IMP scoring the way it works in BGA and because both players bid with the same dummy hand as prospective partner, whoever ends up playing in defense can get a very bad final IMP score because the hidden hand had high cards. But there was precious little he could have done to prevent it as bidding higher could have been catastrophic if the opponent had bid low with a good hand and is now ready to double you. And all this doesn't feel at all like normal defensive/sacrifice bidding that can go wrong but a lot more like guess and bluff . (Yeas there are guesses and even occasional bluffs in Bridge but not like this)
- Because two hands are revealed, it is very common between good players to know after the first card has been played what the end result will be. But the hand still has to be played out even if both players agree.
Note that I'm not listing the lack of a bidding system (that's normal when you begin).
---------
Ideas for 2p bridge:
1) There could be an option where the number of high card points in the hidden hand is revealed : This is simple to implement and makes the bidding more tactical. There will still however be many hands where you'll just be screwed even with IMP scoring because your hand is a worse fit with the revealed dummy than your opponent's hand.
2) There should be an option where there is no dummy in defense : the player who is in defense plays the cards from 2 hands but only they can actually see those two hands (This should be explained to the players of course). This should be relatively simple to implement and it would make it so that the declarer doesn't now how cards are distributed between the defense hands so he now has actual choices to make and potential layouts to evaluate which is closer to real normal play. (It's not 100% normal play but 2p bridge can never be that unless there is a good AI or one of the players is actually acting as a teacher that simulates two players. With this option, the main difference with real play is that the defense can be perfect, doesn't need to signal and always knows how to switch if the player is half good. But still, I think there is value in this option)
3) There should be an option where there is no revealed hand during bidding : each player is shown a set of 2 hands and must bid with those 2 hands in mind. Whatever happens, he will play those 2 hands (as declarer or in defense). This should be the default if IMP scoring is active. After bidding, the declarer choose which hand will be the dummy and which hand will be the official declarer's hand. The player in defense can/cannot choose which hand plays first, this point of detail is not very important. This option can make sense both with a dummy in defense (player in defense would then choose which hand is revealed) or without but It makes more sense without (see point 2).
4) When there are 2 dummies, all hands are known implicitly so there should be an option, especially in turn-based mode, to display all hands whenever 2 hands are revealed. This reduces the memory requirements which is almost always a good thing when playing in turn-based mode.
------------
Ideas for all player counts about claims :
5) There should be an elaborate claim option working like this: you can make a claim for N tricks (by default, all the remaining tricks). When you do, you have to provide a text to explain a little. If all opponents agree, the claim is validated. To avoid confusions, the claim window should always state who makes the claim and for how many tricks out of how many remaining tricks leading to the contract result X (contract fails by Y tricks or wins with Z overtricks). In a 4 players games, the dummy player cannot make claims (he cannot make any decisions and therefore cannot claim in real live bridge). To avoid abuses, the defense players cannot not be allowed to make claims in 4 players games either: this is because making a claim reveals information to your partner which could be beneficial to your team if the claim is rejected : this kind of situations is handled by human referees in real live bridge and we don't have those in BGA.
To further avoid confusions, claims could be forbidden when a trick is ongoing (wait for the current trick to be over). If claims are allowed when a trick is ongoing, the claim would include the ongoing trick and that should be made clear to everyone.
Whenever a claim is made, the hand(s) of the player making the claim should be revealed.
5b) To further avoid abuses and errors, there could be some further warnings and limitations but those can be tricky to implement. Once the declarer has made his claim, the claim window that the defense see could warn the defenders (and them only) that the defense still has some trumps and the highest remaining card in suits XYZ. (It is perfectly possible to win all remaining tricks or N remaining tricks with some trumps still out and some top cards missing but the claim text provided by the claimer should then provide an explanation).
5c) Also, when a player rejects a claim, they could be given a player option to mark "no further claims for this hand" which would then be visible to everyone and the player can later remove the mark.
5d) I'm reticent to allow players to always have a player option to disallow claims in a 4p game.
I'm perfectly aware that some players will want this however and it would most likely be a 3 way player option : "allow declarer to attempt claims, do not allow, do not allow for this hand". The phrasing of that option would need to be well thought because players could easily misunderstand it and think that "allow claims" is tantamount to folding which it isn't : it simply states that you believe there is still some uncertainty. But that in itself already conveys some information that could be used by your partner...
-------------
2player bidding practice mode:
6) In this mode, the 2 players would be in the same team and would do regular bridge bidding with all hands hidden. The opposing team would never intervene (that would require sophisticated AI). At end of bidding, the hands would be revealed and players would click to go to next hand.
There would be no scoring (unless somehow point 7 is implemented) and it would all, obviously be limited to friendly mode. The point of this is bidding practice for partners. It is intended (but not limited) to players who know each others. If players do want to use this with unknown players, it would further require the table creator to be able to specify the system base he wants to use (SAYC, Nouvelle Majeur 5ème, Polish Club etc...). Systems would however not be explained nor enforced that should really remain the domain of specialized bridge sites.
-------------
7) Double dummy solver :
I know this is unlikely to happen so I won't go into the details but if the game could use a proven double dummy solver, this could lead to more options :
- make IMP scoring rely on the double dummy solver
- have a one player option and a 2 player coop option (with both players in the same team and obviously both in friendly mode) where the play of the card is replaced by the double dummy solver result.
