| FAQ Article 1 |
| Motivation for the Creation of Clumond Just to start things going, I thought I'd bring to the table my motivations for the creation of Clumond. I was introduced to Bridge about ten years earlier. I fell in love with some of the ideals of the game and read up on the many bidding and playing conventions that have evolved since the game became popular. I even taught Bridge for some time at adult leisure courses at the local colleges for a while. I don't claim to be an expert of the game and at times I don't even play well enough, but I find the game intellectually appealing. On the minus side now. Bridge has some problems that I tried to address. - Powerful hands for high scores This is of course an exaggeration, but players of bridge on opening their hands, hope for at least four aces and a fist full of honours so as to be able to bid to the highest level and score well. Defenders with weak hands sometimes play with disinterest in the hand and just want the hand to be over and done with and to move onto the next. Whilst, I understand this is just a "people's thing" and nothing to do with the purity of Bridge, it must be borne in mind that card games are designed to be played by people and thus if this a failing of the people, it is also that for the game. In Clumond, I believe that all hands are playable and having all four aces is not necessarily what you need to score well. - Partner, that was your fault Another flaw brought about by the fact that "people play bridge" is that static partners can bring out the worst behaviour toward each other, especially if one member may be having a "bad night". That person wished thaey hadn't showed up. This opinion is shared by his / her partner and, I'm afraid to have to report, the opposing team also! Too often in bridge also, dummy hand speaks with the hindsight of the lay of the cards at the end of play (the only time when it is permitted to comment). In clumond, declarer and normal play is solo, and the defence partnership is dynamic so that a player "having a bad night" is shared around and ultimately is only a burden to him / herself. - Not so simple to Learn, nor easy to Teach When I tought bridge, I only taught a basic course which comprised about ten two hour classes. The levels of material absorption varied from poor to average retention of material. In short, bridge is very complex to learn as a game, the scoring is best described as Borroque. People who master this of course find it tolerable, but this is a criticism of the game. Clumond, on the other hand, would take at most an hour to explain and there are few conventions that are easily communicated. - Hand sometimes over before the play of the first trick This is another over-simplification to bring home the point, but in some bridge hands card play can be immaterial. Success in the game is a product of "bidding well" and playing the cards conditioned to having bid well. The bidding part is largely mechanical. Most players ascribe to a "style" of bidding conventions and have faith that following the system will bring the partnership to the optimal contract. The bidding is done upfront with very little knowledge about the card distribution. Once committed to a contract, card play technique is employed to optimise the score. In some sense the skillful card play is secondary and varying in significance depending on the bidding. In Clumond the bidding is dynamic and is integral with the card play so that card play technique may be fully utilised to optimise the score. Conversly stated, there is a higher dependence or "correlation" to the score of the card play component. |