Bridge-Bidding Decision Making

[firstfrost]

So, one of the reasons that I rarely end up in an argument with harrock is that we have a ridiculously simple method for deciding on things (I know I've mentioned it to some people before, but in my new vague quest to talk about things other than book reviews, I thought I would talk about it...). Basically, it works the way bidding in bridge does.

An example, using the Classic Disagreement of "Where Should We Go For Dinner?" which seems to constantly plague society.

1: Want to go to Uno's for dinner?	A mild suggestion, no strong preference. Call it one club.
2: I had pizza for lunch; something else would be good.	You can't bid "not one club", you have to actually suggest something else.
2: I had pizza for lunch; how about Indian?	It's not a much stronger preference, but it's a little bit of one. This might be one spade.
3: Or we could do Chinese, if you'd rather.	This is still mucking around in sounding like "I don't really care" area, it's like bidding one diamond, and it's too late for that. You have to actually bid *higher*.
3: Oh! Hey, there's a new Chinese place at Fifth and Main I've been wanting to try. How about that?	A legitimate overbid. Maybe it's two notrump.
Alternate 3: I was really looking forward to Uno's, actually. I've been thinking about pizza skins all day.	Back to the original suit, but at three clubs or so now. I personally think it's better form to open with the three clubs to start with, but this is still an acceptable bid.
4: Okay.	Pass. The last person to bid has made the decision.

The only real rule is that you can counter (not veto) the previous suggestion, but only if you care more. My mild whim doesn't overrule (can I use "trump" here in absolutely the *wrong* bridge context?) your fond desire - my mild whim doesn't even overrule your mild whim, if you bid first.

I suppose it doesn't have much automatic compromising built in, other than that each person is better off picking suggestions that the other person likes, so they'll be less likely to be outbid.

Comments

[desireearmfeldt]

I often run into a situation where one of us has thought about the question at hand and has some pre-formed opinions, while the other (presumably the one who didn't bring it up) has to formulate them on the spot. For the dinner question, that's not a problem, but some things require more thought.

I'm pretty swift at thinking things out on command, but I have to do it out loud, which may well sound like mucking around in the not-serious zone because I'm trying out possibilities to see if they sound good (or, alternatively, I may come across as way more committed to something than I really am because I say it in a serious tone of voice). But I think there's a class of people who can't pull up an answer on the spot and have to go off and think about it.

So all that is about the logistics of negotiation, rather than the tactics/mechanism. But the thing I wondered was: how much is the bidding system affected by the ability to have your opinion ready when it comes up for bid?

Presumably "I don't know what I want, let me think about it" is a legitimate move-which-is-not-a-bid. But I often feel in life that the person who suggests things ends up with a lot of default power, and I'm not sure it's the case that being slow to suggest, or to articulate a response, means you never have things you want.

[jdbakermn.livejournal.com]

That sounds good, except I sort of start with categories, like "How about pizza" or "How about chinese", instead of a specific suggestion. Perhaps that's why our bidding process takes much longer than the one that you've outlined. Oh, and we have three players typically (Swami, Puffin and me) instead of 2.

I usually assume if someone starts off with "How about Uno's" that it's the equivalent of 3C or something.

Oddball edge cases

[twe.livejournal.com]

Me: Are you hungry?
Him: I don't know.

It's puzzling to me, but he claims to rarely feel hungry. (Though I have learned to detect when he is probably hungry from changes in his mood. :)

[tirinian.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I think I am more willing to accept "not one club" than you are. Partly, that is because I'm more likely to be negotiating not just "where should we go to dinner" but "are we going to dinner together" as one conversation. In that case, "I had pizza for lunch, but maybe something else" makes it easier for the other party to say "Hmm, I really kind of wanted Uno's, maybe another time" than saying "not Uno's, but we should go to Mary's!" does. Once you have agreed there will be a plan, it's much poorer form to say "not that plan" without a counter-offer than when you're still unclear if there is a plan.

I also think there should be room for an opening bid of "Pick one of these choices," which doesn't make for as clean a bridge analogy. ('I bid three pizza, but only 1 Uno's vs. 1 Bertucci's.')

[sorceror.livejournal.com]

So clubs are Italian, spades are Indian, and no-trump is Chinese.

Are diamonds and hearts MacDonalds and Mexican respectively?

[chenoameg.livejournal.com]

This conversation is helping me understand bridge bidding.

[mijven.livejournal.com]

I will store this conversation up, for the eventual day when 'going out to dinner' is a real option. Right now it means Indian or Babysitter.