User:P64/Bridge/Play by play

Pavlicek play diagram
I find that this example is difficult to follow. It requires too many interpretations by the reader: (1) who is leading is kind of hidden in the first column (2) what suit is the card with no suit symbol (3) who won. (4) what is trump. Newwhist (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Play diagrams should follow the exact order in which cards are played strating with the lead
 * Number the tricks
 * Showing direction of each leader is optional but preferred
 * Cards are shown by suit and rank with a space between except when following to the suit lead, only the rank is given
 * Do not show all 13 tricks; continue the play diagram only until the remainder becomes trivial and conclude with a summary statement such as "South wins the rest"
 * Recommended example:

Example 1: seven columns for cardplay
''This 8-column table is substantially equivalent to a 5-column table at User:Newwhist/Project WPCB sandbox/Pavlicek, which illustrates the format recommended by Richard Pavlicek. It differs only by insertion of three empty cells in each row (three labels in the top row).''


 * Do not show all 13 tricks; continue the play diagram only until the remainder becomes trivial and conclude with a summary statement such as "South wins the rest"
 * Recommended example:

Example 2
P64 -01-23 Here is an alternative with suit symbols for all cards. The lead is distinguished only by layout.

2.2

Example 3
Indicate trick lead and winner by superscripts 'L' and 'W' respectively. Indicate suit of each card entry to clarify, else reader must retrace the lead and progress of the play. All the superscripts make the table 'busy'. Newwhist (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

P64 -01-23 Here is the same figure without thin spaces, which contribute to the clutter. Still, superscripts L and W do clutter much more than do inline carat and star (^ and *), which are equally easy for me to follow. See Example 5.2.

3.2

Example 4
Indicate lead by use of dedicated column. Indicate trick by superscript 'W'. Indicate suit of each card entry to clarify, else reader must retrace the lead and progress of the play. One advantage of this and similar styles over Example 2 is that the card holdings of each position can be reviewed by looking at his column. Newwhist (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Example 5
Indicate lead by use of dedicated column. Indicate suit of each card entry to clarify, else reader must retrace the lead and progress of the play. Much cleaner looking than tables with superscripts; optionally could add another column at right end for comments, eg. "West ruffed and North over-ruffed". Disadvantage is that reader must deduce who won the trick by looking at each card in the row and reaching a conclusion; this may lead to error, especially where ruffs are involved. Maybe do as in Example 4 but use a superscripted asterisk to indicate winner of the trick. Newwhist (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

P64 -01-23 Here are three alternatives that use the asterisk as suggested (without thin spaces). --P64 (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

5.2 ^Q lead Q* win the trick The columns are much further out of alignment here, using both left and right superscripts without any adjustments. See also.

5.3 Q lead (bold, nearly invisible to me) Q* win the trick

5.4 Q lead (orange) Q* win the trick

P64 -01-23 Here is the latter alternative (orange color marks the lead) with one more column dedicated to comments on the play.

5.5

P64 -01-23 Here is the same with comments on the play crudely aligned by linebreaks. Five breaks advance forward four tricks, so this can only be crude.

5.6

"When in doubt ..." lead your lowest trump :-( North ruffed, a remarkable with the master K in hand