[cherdano]

Each player only gets 3 bids other than pass and double/redouble below the 5-level. One additional bid if it's at the 5-level or higher.
I am wondering whether that would be fun to watch, and good practice for some simple value bidding.

[mikestar13]

cherdano, on 2014-July-05, 17:58, said:

Each player only gets 3 bids other than pass and double/redouble below the 5-level. One additional bid if it's at the 5-level or higher.
I am wondering whether that would be fun to watch, and good practice for some simple value bidding.

Interesting. For a really un-bridge-like bridge variant, how about everyone has one call then the auction is over; this is the way the bidding is handled is some forms of partnership Pinochle , for example. (Perhaps a second call would be allowed to double an opponent's bid or redouble an opponent's double would be allowed, but not bids.)
Slightly more involved than bridge in the days before Auction Bridge, where dealer names trumps (or no trump) or passes that option to partner, who must choose, then the doubling starts (without limit, as long as the last double was made by an opponent, as in Backgammon).

[cherdano]

I wonder whether this would make for a good promotional event - think of star players playing an individual tournament (or rubber bridge?) with these rules.

[akwoo]

I actually think this is quite playable.

I also think something of this sort is a good alternative to convention regulations. It makes complicated systems impossible in a much more natural way than trying to ban them.

I would probably change a couple things (not counting debates on the total number of bids allowed, which is always debatable):

1) Doubles and redoubles count against the limit, but you may still double and or redouble after you have run out of bids.

2) You can always bid in balancing seat.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2014-July-06, 11:45, said:

I also think something of this sort is a good alternative to convention regulations. It makes complicated systems impossible in a much more natural way than trying to ban them.

Right, because who wants innovation?

Anyway, this variant would actually result in more complicated systems, because all openers would need to be dual- or multiple-meaning.

[Fluffy]

Finally a form of bridge where I might play turbo

[the hog]

Why not everyone play for high stakes and bid without looking at their cards at all? Would this be fun to watch?